Update notable law cases here

[Invigorated]

Let's update on recent law developments here. Please keep to healthy discussions on a legal context and refrain from any sensitive religious themes. Note that the previous thread on chc had been locked as discussions spiralled to the dark side.

 

Source: Singapore law watch

Edited May 24, 2013 by Invigorated

[Invigorated]

City Harvest leaders carefully planned cover-up: Prosecution

 

Source

Straits Times

Date

16 May 2013

AuthorBryna Singh & Joyce Lim

THEY had been entrusted with money donated by their members to build a new church, but City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee and his aides "dishonestly misappropriated" $24 million of this instead.

 

Not only that, they went on to cover this up by devising a series of transactions to the tune of $26.6 million, after the mega church's external auditors raised questions about the funds.

 

This was the picture painted by prosecutors on the first day of one of the most high-profile trials involving a registered charity since the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga in 2005.

 

NKF had sued its former chief executive and three others for $12 million which had been improperly paid out or used by him and the charity's former board.

 

More than 100 church members turned up to support their leadership yesterday; some had spent the night waiting outside the Subordinate Courts.

 

While most could not get into the packed courtroom, those who did heard Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh charge that their leaders' deeds were "part of a deliberately planned, meticulously coordinated and carefully executed scheme" which stretched over years and involved moving millions of dollars.

 

As the six accused - Kong, Tan Ye Peng, Sharon Tan, Chew Eng Han, Serina Wee and John Lam Leng Hung - sat calmly in the dock, she spelled out their alleged transgressions:

 

First, they funnelled money - earmarked for the 33,000-strong church's new building - into buying sham investment bonds in church-linked companies Xtron Productions and PT The First National Glassware, so they could fund their co-founder Ho Yeow Sun's secular pop music career.

 

Then, they did what prosecutors called "round-tripping": by falsifying the church's accounts to make it seem like these bonds were "redeemed".

 

"These transactions were thus designed to throw the auditors off the scent of the bogus bonds," said DPP Chionh in the prosecution's opening statement.

 

But yesterday, defence counsel objected to parts of the opening statement.

 

Lawyer N. Sreenivasan, representing deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, argued that there was "no wrongful gain and no wrongful loss" since the church received all its money back at the end, and fulfilled its wider purpose of using Ms Ho's music as a means of evangelism.

 

The lawyer argued that "theological legitimacy" was an issue in the trial, although this was rejected by Ms Chionh.

 

None of the transactions made was authorised, she argued, as the building fund was explicitly to be used "for the purchase of land, construction costs, rentals, furniture and fittings".

 

Yesterday, the prosecution presented its first witness, the church's former assistant accountant Lai Baoting. She told the court that although she was strictly a church employee, Wee gave her another e-mail account where she would sign off as an Xtron accounts officer whenever she was asked to handle Xtron's accounts.

 

She continues on the stand today and may be cross-examined by defence lawyers.

 

This first leg of the trial will last until May 23, with three witnesses to be called by the prosecution.

 

[email protected]

 

[email protected]

 

What happened

 

May 2002: The Crossover Project is launched, following a series of concerts with a gospel theme in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

 

It involves Ms Ho Yeow Sun recording music albums to influence people to attend church, and encouraging Christians in the pop industry to share testimonies.

 

January 2003: City Harvest churchgoer Roland Poon alleges misuse of church funds for Ms Ho's career. He later retracts the allegations and makes public apologies in major newspapers.

 

A senior partner of the church's auditors makes a public statement that no church funds were used in promoting Ms Ho's career.

 

August 2005: The church begins its second cycle of fund raising for its building fund, called the Arise and Build Campaign, with the aim of raising $160 million at first.

 

This target is later revised upward to $310 million around 2010.

 

August 2007 to March 2008: About $13 million is transferred in several tranches from the church's building fund to Xtron Productions in a bond purchase.

 

Xtron is a music production company which also managed Ms Ho. Its original directors include Chew Eng Han and John Lam Leng Hung, who are among the six on trial now, and churchgoer Wahju Hanafi. All three are no longer directors.

 

Xtron needed the funds to repay loans taken to fund the Crossover Project, and to cover the costs of Ms Ho's first English album.

 

August 2008: Ms Ho ends her contract with Xtron. Ultimate Assets, a firm fully owned by Mr Wahju, becomes her new manager.

 

October 2008 to July 2009: About $11 million is transferred in several tranches from the building fund to PT The First National Glassware (Firna), an Indonesian company whose director is Mr Wahju, as a bond purchase.

 

Most of that money is then transferred to Ultimate Assets, and is later used by the Crossover Project and to fund Mr Wahju's personal expenses.

 

October 2009: City Harvest transfers about $11 million to investment firm AMAC Capital Partners in two tranches, as investments in a "special opportunities fund". AMAC's sole director is Chew.

 

The money is in turn transferred to Ultimate Assets, then to Firna, and back to City Harvest.

 

During this period, the church also records in its books a set-off of $21.5 million in favour of Xtron, as a redemption of Xtron bonds.

 

It also signs an advance rental licence agreement with Xtron for the use of Singapore Expo Hall 8 for its services.

 

November to December 2009: City Harvest transfers $15 million to Xtron, of which $12 million is part of a payment for advance rental of the hall and the other $3 million is goods and services tax.

 

Xtron transfers about $11.4 million to Firna. That amount is in turn transferred to Ultimate Assets, then to AMAC, and finally back to City Harvest.

 

May 2010: Acting on a tip-off, the Commercial Affairs Department commences investigations and raids the offices of City Harvest and Xtron, among others.

 

June 2012: Five church leaders are arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust as an agent. Three are charged with conspiracy to falsify accounts.

 

July 2012: Serina Wee is the sixth person to be charged with alleged misuse of funds.

 

TESSA WONG

 

Alleged City Harvest offences

 

Source: Straits Times

[Invigorated]

Prosecution: Interest rates on investment manipulated

 

Business Times

Date

17 May 2013

AuthorMichelle Quah

It also says email shows external auditor concerned over bond purchases

 

[sINGAPORE] Casting doubt on the various "investments" made by City Harvest Church (CHC), the prosecution sought yesterday to show that certain members of the church manipulated interest rates purportedly earned off these investments.

 

The defence also had its turn, and attempted to prove that CHC's external auditor saw nothing disingenuous about the various bond purchases made by the church. The prosecution, however, subsequently produced a CHC internal e-mail message, which showed that the auditor was clearly concerned about the transactions.

 

CHC pastor Kong Hee, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, former board member Chew Eng Han, board member John Lam Leng Hung, finance manager Sharon Tan and former finance manager and board member Serina Wee are accused of conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust, while Chew, Wee and the two Tans are also charged with conspiring to falsify accounts.

 

Deputy public prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng, questioning Lai Baoting on her second day on the stand, asked the former CHC assistant accountant how the interest was calculated on two tranches of investment made in a Special Operations Fund (SOF) run by Chew.

 

CHC had invested $11.4 million - in two tranches of $5.8 million and $5.6 million - in the SOF, managed by Chew's company, AMAC Capital Partners (Pte) Ltd, in 2009. Ms Lai was employed by CHC between 2006 and 2010.

 

Ms Lai, who recorded all these transactions in the church's general ledger, said that the interest of $76,625 supposedly earned on this investment was provided to her by Sharon Tan. Ms Lai added that she did not know how Tan had obtained the figure.

 

DPP Tan produced documents from AMAC, which were invitations to CHC to invest in the SOF. Among other details on these documents (referred to as Tranche Paper 10 and 11) was a sentence saying that the interest payable on these two tranches of investment would be 2 per cent, per tranche, for the relevant period - except that the "2 per cent per annum" had been crossed out and replaced with "5.05 per cent per annum".

 

Ms Lai said that the interest rate had to be changed to 5.05 per cent "because if I calculated for the period of the two tranches and at the interest rate of 2 per cent, I will not get $76,625, so I tried to work backwards to get the exact interest rate".

 

DPP Tan asked: "You are saying that the 2 per cent interest rate was incorrect because of the $76,625; but why not the other way round, meaning, the interest rate was correct, but the figure is wrong (and) you just work out what is the total interest amount? Why did you have to use $76,625 as the correct figure and work out what's the interest rate?"

 

Ms Lai replied: "Because I was told (by Tan) that the interest was to be $76,625."

 

DPP Tan produced e-mail between Ms Lai and Chew, which corroborated her testimony. "For the 11.4mil special opportunity fund, I've checked with Sharon that the interest would be received on 25 Nov 09 at $76,625. Out of the 11.4mil, 5.8mil was remitted out on 2 Oct 09 and 5.6mil on the 15 Oct 09. I tried to work out the interest rate and (it) seems to be around 5.05% pa. As such, can you help me to redo the Tranch(e) Paper 10 and 11?" Ms Lai's e-mail message to Chew said.

 

DPP Tan showed the court a subsequent e-mail message sent by Tan to Chew, in respect of Tranche 10 and 11, which said: "This is the cycle of days we need to work through Firna. We are working backwards to also ensure that nothing is left in Firna accounts."

 

Ms Lai said that she did not understand what Tan meant by her e-mail.

 

Firna refers to an Indonesian company called The First National Glassware, majority owned by Indonesian businessman Wahju Hanafi who has multiple links to CHC, that the church had purportedly invested some $11 million, via a bond purchase.

 

Ms Lai was then cross-examined by defence counsel. Focusing on a meeting held in April 2009, between various CHC board members and CHC's external auditor, Sim Guan Seng of Baker Tilly, they sought to overturn suggestions made by the prosecution on Wednesday that Mr Sim had concerns about the various bond investments made by CHC.

 

On top of the $11 million invested in Firna, CHC also supposedly bought $13 million worth of bonds in Xtron Productions Pte Ltd, owned by Chew and his wife, and Lam.

 

Questioned by Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan who represents Lam, Ms Lai testified that she believed that Mr Sim, at this meeting, "was not concerned as to the genuineness of the investment in the Xtron bond" but only in how the investment should be valued and disclosed in CHC's accounts as he considered Xtron a related party.

 

She also said that she believed Mr Sim was "not concerned about the genuineness of the church's investment in the Firna bonds" but only in how he should value the investment to protect the church.

 

Edwin Tong, representing CHC pastor Kong Hee, had Ms Lai testify that Mr Sim did not raise any concerns over "whether or not it would be proper to use the funds for the Building Fund to acquire the bonds". She also said that she believed Mr Sim would not have signed off on the accounts if he had concerns over the use of the funds or the authenticity of the bond investments.

 

DPP Tan, however, then produced an e-mail message sent by Sharon Tan to deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng and Lam, and copied to Ms Lai. The e-mail, sent the night of the audit meeting with Mr Sim, said: "Just want to let you know that Mr Sim 'mellowed down' after you left . . . But (he) made some more remarks which I think we should think about."

 

It went on to say:

 

"1) He is not convinced about the reasons we gave him about XPL (Xtron). 2) He still feels that it is obviously related. 3) He passed a remark saying that no matter how we put the story, it does not eliminate the obvious. So he chose to stop asking just now cos he knows that we will give some more stories which will trigger off more questions from him. 4) He still does not agree with the valuation done ... But for this time, he will just pass it first. 5) He hopes to see this XPL issue being solved in this FY (financial year). As of (n)ow, we need to think through."

 

The hearing continues on Monday.

 

Source: Business Times

[Invigorated]

2 more witnesses set to take stand this week

 

Source

Straits Times

Date

20 May 2013

AuthorJoyce Lim

Prosecution to still try to show manipulation of accounts

 

TWO more witnesses are expected to take the stand this week in the City Harvest embezzlement trial, before the first part of the trial ends on Thursday.

 

Ms Angie Koh, who used to handle the church's accounts, will appear today. Mr Koh Siow Ngea, director of Xtron Productions, is scheduled to appear later in the week. He is said to have joined the church in 1997 and was on its board from 2007 to 2008.

 

The prosecution's game plan for this week? It will continue to try and show there was manipulation of the accounts related to the church.

 

Xtron was the artist management firm for church founder Kong Hee's wife, pop singer Ho Yeow Sun. The company has also been in the limelight after City Harvest Church allegedly used money meant for building its new church to buy bonds in Xtron.

 

These bond investments were "sham transactions", said the prosecution - they were seen as "investments" on paper, but were really a conspiracy to move money into funding Ms Ho's career.

 

Xtron was set up in 2003 with two of the accused, former vice- president of the church board Chew Eng Han and former chairman of the church's investment committee John Lam Leng Hung, as well as Chew's wife Chong Lay Choo, as subscribing shareholders and directors. Mr Koh became a shareholder in 2008 and is one of only two remaining directors.

 

Prosecution witness Ms Koh was employed by the church to handle its accounts. She later left to join Advante Consulting, which handled the accounts of Xtron. Advante was set up by one of the six accused, Serina Wee.

 

The trial against six senior church members, including Kong, kicked off last Wednesday, with the prosecution trying to prove that the six accused had "dishonestly misappropriated" $24 million of the church's building fund. They were also said to have tried to cover that up by devising transactions of $26.6 million.

 

So far, the prosecution team has been trying to show, with its first witness Lai Baoting, that at least two of the accused were actively involved in the alleged sham investments in 2009. Church finance manager Sharon Tan and Chew had unilaterally decided on the interest amount, which resulted in Ms Lai having to work out an interest rate for the bond investments that was different from the original interest rate stated, in order for the accounts to tally, argued prosecutors.

 

Ms Lai was then the church's assistant accountant.

 

Kong and his aides Tan Ye Peng, Wee, Tan, Chew and Lam each face between three and 10 charges of criminal breach of trust of monies from the building fund and falsifying of accounts.

 

Last week, the prosecution also presented an e-mail from Sharon Tan to Lam and Tan Ye Peng to prove that the church's external auditor Sim Guan Seng had raised repeated concerns about the monies channelled to Xtron and AMAC Capital Partners. AMAC was set up by Chew and was appointed as the church's investment manager.

 

But lawyer Edwin Tong, who is representing Kong, got Ms Lai to testify that Mr Sim did not raise any concerns over "whether or not it would be proper to use the funds for the Building Fund to acquire the bonds".

 

Ms Lai also agreed that Mr Sim would not have signed off on the accounts if he had problems over the use of the funds or the authenticity of the bond investments.

 

[email protected]

 

Source: Straits Times

[Invigorated]

Prosecution: $56.6m rental deal fictitious - City Harvest trial

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email

Source

Business Times

Date

21 May 2013

AuthorMichelle Quah

Emails produced to show how accused round-tripped funds

 

[sINGAPORE] The third day of the City Harvest Church (CHC) hearing, with a fresh witness on the stand, saw the prosecution casting further doubt on the authenticity of the church's multi-million investments.

 

The court heard how a $56.6-million advance rental contract, which CHC had entered into with Xtron Productions Pte Ltd, for the use of Singapore Expo Hall 8 to accommodate its congregation - was an entirely made-up figure.

 

And emails were presented to show how CHC and its related parties "round-tripped" funds.

 

The prosecution first produced emails relating to the advanced rental agreement between CHC and Xtron - a music production house and events organiser that also managed Sun Ho's career - which was supposed to begin on Oct 1, 2009. According to instructions sent out by CHC finance manager Sharon Tan - one of the six accused - CHC was to pay Xtron eight years' advance rental, calculated as such: $7 million a year, excluding GST. In addition, CHC was to pay Xtron $7 million as a deposit, bringing the total contract sum, including GST, to some $56.5 million.

 

When asked by yesterday's witness, Angie Koh, in an email dated Oct 9, 2009, what the $7 million was made up of and how it was derived, former CHC finance manager Serina Wee - also one of the six accused - replied, via email on that day, "It is just an arbitrary figure. No one has worked out any details I believe."

 

Wee is currently, and was at that time, a director and a 70-per-cent shareholder of Advante Consulting Pte Ltd, which provided accounting services for Xtron. Ms Koh was, in October 2009, providing book-keeping services to Advante's clients, including Xtron. She now holds the remaining 30 per cent of Advante and is its managing director.

 

The prosecution also produced other emails to back up its claims that CHC round-tripped funds to hide its misuse of funds and make various "sham" investments look genuine. One showed AMAC Capital Partners, owned by CHC member Chew Eng Han - also one of the accused - paying $5.8 million to Ultimate Assets (UA), owned by Wahju Hanafi, an Indonesian businessman with multiple links to CHC.

 

The $5.8 million was then due to be transferred to another of Mr Hanafi's companies, The First National Glassware (Firna); but Mr Hanafi said, "I have to leave it sit (for a) few days then instruct them as bank already asked what's (the) money for."

 

Chew then emailed Mr Hanafi: "Can you tt out by Thurs(day)? Can just tell them it's funds for a short-term loan to Firna? That is a valid transaction."

 

Sharon Tan then emailed Mr Hanafi to say: "We will be depositing S$5.6mil into UA by 19 Oct. However, we will need S$5,228,750 back into CHC's account from Firna by 13 Oct in order for the 2nd round to be possible. Therefore, we NEED to keep to the timeline."

 

She emailed again later to say that this was the timeline Mr Hanafi needed to meet:

 

"6 Oct: UA received S$5.8mil

 

6 Oct: UA to trf (transfer) out S$5.8mil to Firna

 

9 Oct: Firna to redeem S$5mil bonds with interest payment. Total is S$5,228,750

 

19 Oct: UA will receive S$5.6mil

 

19 Oct: UA to trf out S$5.6mil to Firna

 

22 Oct: Firna to redeem S$6mil bonds with interest payment. Total is S$6,134,625."

 

The prosecution showed another email where this timeline repeats itself again - ie. the second round Tan referred to - making for a total amount of $11.4 million ($5.8 million + $5.6 million) being paid to UA to start the cycle.

 

It is the prosecution's case that a total of some $24 million of CHC's Building Fund was "dishonestly misappropriated" to fund Sun Ho's music career and for use by Mr Hanafi, while another $26.6 million was diverted to cover these tracks.

 

The prosecution said, in its opening statement, that a total of $11.4 million of CHC's building funds was "invested" in a Special Opportunities Fund (SOF) managed by AMAC. This was then "round-tripped" to "redeem" $11 million "invested" in Firna bonds, by AMAC lending the monies to UA; UA then lent the monies to Firna, and Firna then "redeemed" the Firna bonds originally issued to CHC as part of the sham bond investments.

 

A total of $12 million in CHC funds was then supposedly paid out to Xtron as "purported advance rental", but this "rental" was instead used by Xtron to purchase $11.5 million worth of Firna bonds. This sum was then used by Firna to repay the loan it received from UA, which in turn used this money to repay the loan previously received from AMAC. AMAC then "redeemed" CHC's purported investment in the SOF, thus closing the loop on the Firna bonds.

 

Under examination by chief prosecutor Mavis Chionh, Ms Koh revealed she maintained two sets of accounts for Xtron relating to the advance rental payment from CHC - one set showing the "official expenses" and the "official advance balance", which is the advance from CHC minus the official expenses, and another set showing the "unofficial expenses" and the "real cash balance" figures. Ms Koh testified that the unofficial numbers were to show what the real balance truly was - and it is the prosecution's case that these figures take into account the "round-tripping".

 

However, under cross-examination by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who represents Chew, Ms Koh later said that the two sets of figures represent the actual and the worst-case scenarios - the first being where the only source of income was the advance rental, and the other where income was obtained from other sources as well, such as Ms Ho's music career and album sales.

 

But, Ms Chionh, in her re-examination of Ms Koh, showed that this did not add up. Xtron's financials show that the company's net loss for the financial year 2007 was $2.4 million, and $9.0 million in 2008. With Xtron no longer managing Ms Ho after 2008, non-CHC income was just $153,691, while CHC income was $4.9 million.

 

Ms Chionh also pointed out that Xtron's external auditors passed the company's accounts on the going concern assumption that "the directors and creditors will continue to provide financial support".

 

The hearing continues today.

 

Roundtripping: The alleged cover-up

 

The accused and who represent them

 

Source: Business Times

[Invigorated]

 

Xtron director says his position is a 'ministry', serves CHC

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email

Source

Business Times

Date

22 May 2013

AuthorMichelle Quah

[sINGAPORE] One of Xtron Productions Pte Ltd's two directors, Koh Siow Ngea, testified yesterday that his work for the events management and production house was a "ministry" and his way of serving City Harvest Church (CHC), even while he maintained that there was no conflict of interest in his position.

 

Mr Koh has been a member of CHC from 1997, and was a board member from July 2007 to August 2008 - a position he relinquished when he was asked to join the board of Xtron, "so that there won't be a conflict of interest", he said.

 

Yet, under examination by deputy public prosecutor Christopher Ong, Mr Koh subsequently testified that CHC had the right to appoint Xtron's board members because the church was Xtron's "biggest client" and because CHC wanted someone who could "serve their vision, serve their needs".

 

He also quipped: "Somebody has to appoint me, right? It can't be some man on the street."

 

When asked why he might have been chosen, Mr Koh said: "I have a nickname. My friend calls me 'Honest Ngea'. That (says) everything. Righteous, maybe. Honest."

 

As for his position at Xtron being akin to a "ministry" - a position he said comes with no remuneration - Mr Koh said: "I volunteered . . . but that doesn't mean I don't protect the interests of Xtron. I don't think there (are) any conflicting interests in that. Do you remember I told you that, as the director, I can be a director of the world, where I can be harsh to the church? But I'm not, you see. So, in that sense, there's no conflict," he said.

 

When asked by Mr Ong why, if that was the case, he had to step down as a board member of CHC to take up the Xtron directorship, Mr Koh said: "I believe, they (CHC) are trying to be obedient to COC (Commissioner of Charities) . . . I'm not sure."

 

When asked if Xtron could survive without CHC - to which it provides events management, audio-visual production and real-estate management services - Mr Koh said: "Yes, Xtron is a viable business in Singapore. It's a good business. It has a niche business. Xtron is a fantastic company."

 

DPP Ong then pointed out that, according to Xtron's financials, CHC provided 97 per cent - or $4.9 million - of Xtron's revenue. Mr Koh retorted that, if there was no CHC, Xtron would be able to source for work elsewhere and the time currently taken up by providing services for CHC could be channelled to other clients. DPP Ong then pointed out that, for the financial year 2008, even with CHC's contribution, Xtron incurred a net loss of $9 million.

 

"Can you explain to the court how Xtron could be viable without the $4.8 million business from CHC, if it was already losing $9 million at the time it had CHC's business?"

 

Mr Koh said: "I can't comment on this portion of the accounts . . . I think, you know, even though it was signed by me, it was before (I came on board) . . . Am I right, 2007, I think?"

 

"No. These are the FY2008 accounts. You became a director in July 2008," DPP Ong said.

 

"I'm not sure what transpired all here, even though I signed it. Yeah, it's true that I signed it, but, you know, all this detail, I'm not sure," Mr Koh replied.

 

When quizzed about how he thought Xtron did in 2009, Mr Koh showed he was unfamiliar with how the company was doing and how much income it had earned. He later added, contradicting his earlier statement, that Xtron would always have an income stream as CHC "will always be there".

 

"Why are you so confident that the church will always continue to be a customer of Xtron?" DPP Ong asked.

 

"Because Xtron serves the church, what," Mr Koh said.

 

DPP Ong then touched on the $13 million bond subscription agreement that Xtron entered into with AMAC Capital Partners - a company run by Chew Eng Han, one of the six accused and Mr Koh's brother-in-law - in August 2007. The agreement was amended in August 2008, raising the maximum amount of funding to $25 million; this, along with a $10.7 million loan from Standard Chartered Bank, would allow Xtron to purchase a $17.55 million property at The Riverwalk; the bond agreement included a call option allowing CHC trustees to buy over this property from Xtron at $17.55 million.

 

"Whose decision was it that Riverwalk would be paid for partially by the proceeds from the bonds and then subsequently by taking out a loan for the remaining purchase price?" DPP asked.

 

"I'm not sure, I don't know," Mr Koh replied.

 

"Mr Koh, if you look at (the loan document), it's addressed to you, in fact, as managing director of Xtron. And at the last page, it's signed by you, for and on behalf of Xtron Productions Pte Ltd."

 

Mr Koh then said that it was CHC's decision to come up with this arrangement. He also testified that, along with CHC pastor Kong Hee, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng - two of the six accused - and Chew, he gave a personal guarantee to Wahju Hanafi, an Indonesian businessman with multiple links to CHC. The guarantee was in return for Mr Hanafi personally guaranteeing to indemnify Xtron against any losses it incurs on the Crossover Project - CHC's way of evangelising through music, which includes Sun Ho's music career.

 

Mr Koh said that this was their way of "showing support" for Mr Hanafi, who "has really laid (down) his life for the church, suffered for the church . . . it's an honour to stand (by) him".

 

The defence will cross-examine Mr Koh when the hearing resumes today.

 

Source: Business Times

[Invigorated]

 

Xtron director says he holds firm's interests above all else

 

Source

Business Times

Date

23 May 2013

AuthorMichelle Quah

[sINGAPORE] City Harvest Church (CHC) member and director of Xtron Productions, Koh Siow Ngea, sang a very different tune yesterday when he was cross-examined by the defence for the six accused in the trial. He maintained that he held Xtron's interests above all else, even while he was serving the church and fulfilling his "ministry".

 

Mr Koh also said that he believed that Xtron's losses - shown in its accounts to be $2.4 million in 2007 and $9 million in 2008 - were what had been spent to produce and promote Sun Ho's music album in the United States, before the returns from the sales of the album had been accounted for.

 

Mr Koh's testimony differed somewhat from that given on Tuesday, when, under examination by deputy public prosecutor Christopher Ong, he proved to be unaware of several aspects of Xtron's business - most notably, its financial statements and certain details of its key investment decisions. He had also declared that "Xtron serves the church".

 

Yesterday, under cross-examination by Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan - who represents CHC board member John Lam - Mr Koh said that the decision for Xtron to purchase The Riverwalk property at $17.55 million, with the intention of selling it at cost to CHC later, was made by Xtron and not by the church.

 

He said that while he was probably appointed by CHC to the board of Xtron because he shared the church's vision, he would approve a transaction - in his capacity as Xtron director - only if it was in Xtron's interests, even if the proposal came from the church.

 

"Mr Koh, when you make that decision whether to accept the proposal of the church, first, you would be looking at it as a member of the church sharing the vision of the church . .. But secondly, your main priority is to safeguard the interest of Xtron; is that correct?" Mr Tan asked.

 

"Correct," Mr Koh replied.

 

"So if your assessment was that it did not make commercial sense for Xtron to purchase Riverwalk and lease it back to the church, you won't have agreed to the decision?"

 

"Yes," he said.

 

Mr Koh said that the losses incurred in 2007 and 2008 by Xtron - which was managing Ms Ho's music career from June 2003 to July 2008 - were the initial expenses of producing the album and promoting the Crossover Project. The latter is CHC's way of evangelising through music, which includes Ms Ho's music career.

 

"Those were expenses before the returns of the Crossover Project came back by way of the sales of the music albums which were anticipated?" Mr Tan asked.

 

"Yes," Mr Koh said.

 

Under cross-examination by Edwin Tong, who represents Kong Hee, Mr Koh showed that Xtron was a viable business even without its biggest client, CHC.

 

On Tuesday, DPP Ong had shown Mr Koh that non-CHC work contributed only 3 per cent to Xtron's revenues, with CHC work making up the remainder.

 

Yesterday, Mr Koh said Xtron had been involved in numerous large projects, such as the Asian Youth Games, events for BMW, DBS Bank and the Singapore Management University, and a People's Association dinner where the prime minister was the guest of honour. It was also part of the production team that staged concerts for stars, such as Sandy Lam, Emil Chau and JJ Lin.

 

He said that he believed the Crossover Project to be perhaps CHC's most important mission, and that it was "a completely honest one . . . not to benefit any particular member of the church in isolation, but that of the church as a whole". He himself had made several personal donations - in sums of $40,000 and $50,000 - to the project.

 

Mr Koh said that Xtron had issued $13 million in bonds to CHC because it needed extra funding at the time to promote Ms Ho's career, which was the cornerstone of the Crossover Project.

 

Under Mr Tong's questioning, Mr Koh said that the board members were always aware that CHC's Building Fund monies were being invested to earn a higher interest than that of time deposits. The minutes of one particular meeting on Feb 2, 2008, stated that "it was reported to the board that a total of S$27,555,710 has been invested into the various bonds, equities and money markets" and that details of CHC's investment into Xtron bonds were also disclosed.

 

The minutes of a subsequent board meeting on Feb 23, 2008, said: "The board considered and reviewed (Chew) Eng Han's proposal on investment. The board unanimously agreed that it is beneficial for CHC to continue investing in Building Fund surplus."

 

Chew runs AMAC Capital Partners and a Special Opportunities Fund that CHC invested $11.4 million in. It is the prosecution's case that this, and other investments such as the Xtron bonds, were sham investments to hide a dishonest appropriation of CHC's Building Fund to finance Ms Ho's career.

 

DPP Ong will re-examine his witness at the resumption of the hearing today.

 

Source: Business Times

[Latio2005A]

Let's update on recent law developments here. Please keep to healthy discussions on a legal context and refrain from any sensitive religious themes. Note that the previous thread on chc had been locked as discussions spiralled to the dark side.

 

Source: Singapore law watch

 

Appreciate your postings. Hope those people do not come in with their"illusions" and cause this thread to be locked into wilderness.

[Tjkbeluga]

Sayonara oo... sayonara oo.....

[Duckduck]

Is this similar to ming yi case? Both used funds covered under coc illegally?

[Invigorated]

It's amazing how prosecutors are able to trace emails that long ago. Perhaps they have been trailing this since many moons ago.

 

I can only imagine the look on the defendants when their testimonies have been proven false when emails were presented. Must have been so tense. Really like those drama we watch.

 

[Felipe]

Lets talk about Serina before mods come in