SINGAPORE — The  City Harvest Church leaders who were convicted of misusing church funds and covering it up were sentenced in court today (Nov 20).

The six — Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee, John Lam, Chew Eng Han and Sharon Tan — were earlier found guilty of misusing S$24 million of the church’s building fund, and of circulating another S$26.6 million of church funds to hide the initial sham bond investments that went towards Kong’s wife Sun Ho’s pop music career.

For the full story, click here. 

Updates: 

8.22pm: Kong Hee, who was sentenced to 8 years' jail, posts on Facebook. He says he is saddened by the length of his sentence.

5.45pm: City Harvest Church posts a statement on its Facebook page.

3.45pm: Tan Ye Peng says he needs time to pray and reflect before he decides what to do. John Lam says he needs to discuss with lawyers on next course of action. "Glad that we crossed this stage, now need to get families ready," says Lam, adding that he's thankful for chuch members and friends "who have been praying and are still with us".

Chew Eng Han says he will appeal. Lawyer for Kong Hee, Edwin Tong, declines comment. 

If the six accused decide to appeal, they will have to file leave to appeal by Dec 2.

3.28pm: Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon (JC See) agrees to defer the start of their sentences to Jan 11 with bail extended. Some are considering an appeal of their sentences. 

3.23pm: Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon (JC See) says the issue at this trial did not concern mere lapses. He says the accused persons conspired to cause wrongful loss to CHC. General deterrence is entailed. JC See says there are mitigating factors: No personal wrongful gain, no notice of self interest or intent to cause wrongful loss. He does not believe they intended to cause long term harm to CHC, and thus characterised their offence as temporary loan from CHC in unlawful manner. JC See is of the view that sentences should be sufficiently substantial to serve the need of deterrence.

3.20pm: Six accused sentenced.

Kong Hee gets 8 years' jail.
Chew Eng Han gets 6 years' jail.
Tan Ye Peng gets 5 years and six months' jail.
Serina Wee gets 5 years' jail.
John Lam gets 3 years' jail 
Sharon Tan gets 21 months' jail.

3.08pm: Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon (JC See) announces the order of decreasing culpability on sham investment charges:

Kong Hee - leader and proprietor of these acts.

Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, Serina Wee - Though nature of their involvement were various, it is difficult to say any one of the three is more culpable than the others. All involved in facilitating use of building fund for Crossover Project. 

Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee and John Lam to some extent also relied on Kong Hee and Chew Eng Han, JC See says. The two came up with strategies that the other accused chose not to oppose.

JC See says it's not critical to examine various sentencing precedents tendered by the prosecution in great detail, but they are not completely irrelevant. He says the case involves huge sums of charity monies and serious breaches of trust, but the case requires consideration of following unique features:
- No personal gain 
- CHC did not ultimately suffer financial loss 
- Accused persons believed they were working with support of the church

Though the return of funds to CHC does not demonstrate remorse entirely, this shouldn't be negated he says.

3.04pm: Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon (JC See) says it's important as a matter of sentencing policy to deter people. He also agrees that a custodial sentence is already a form of deterrence.

3.03pm: Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon (JC See) delivering oral grounds now.

1.32pm: Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon indicates he will pass sentence today. Court has been adjourned till 3pm.

1.30pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong concludes.

1.28pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says the accused consistently emphasised in their mitigation that they had the support of CHC members. They listed the Crossover Project as a CHC objective but leave out the fact that the building fund was wrongfully diverted, DPP Ong says. DPP Ong added that the accused intentionally bypassed and subverted CHC authorities - Where does that leave their claim that their motives were pure, he asks.

The proposed sentences already include a significant discount for unique factors such as the judge’s finding that the offences were not commited for personal gains, DPP Ong says. It is key, DPP Ong stresses, that public confidence in charity sector is restored and those who lead and run charities are aware that any misuse will be severely dealt with.

A staggering amount (S$24 million) was involved in sham bond charges, DPP Ong points out. Trust was placed in accused persons by CHC members - Kong Hee in particular as spiritual leader of the church, he says.The co-accused did not take isolated actions. Theirs were conspiracies that stretched for years, with careful steps taken to conceal what they were doing, he says.

This case will make a strong statement about the standards the court takes; That these people (at the helm of charities) will be severely dealt with if they breach the trust. We will descend into chaos if the misuse of charity funds can be simply whitewashed as missteps or over zealousness, he concludes.

1.23pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong lists down the proposed sentences for each accused:

Appropriate sentences for sham bond charges for John Lam, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han and Serina Wee.
- 1st charge: 6 years
- 2nd charge: 2 years
- 3rd charge: 6-7 years

Kong Hee
- 1st charge: 8-9 years
- 2nd charge: 3 years
- 3rd charge : 8-9 years

DPP Ong says a nominal or minimal sentence would clearly be inappropriate and far from being a deterrence. A sentence of a few months will in fact have an emboldening impact, he says. The involvement of charity funds makes this a far more serious case, even if there’s no personal gain, he says.

All accused persons have been convicted of more than two charges, which means at least two sentences have to be ordered to run consecutively by law. DPP Ong lists:

John Lam - 8-9 years in total 
Kong Hee - 11-12 years due to higher culpability
Sharon Tan - 4 years 9 mths to 5 years 9 mths
Serina Wee, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han - involved in two criminal schemes - 10 years 9 mths to 12 years 9 mths

12.54pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says Kong Hee cultivated a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The accuseds' deceptions cast a long shadow over their character and contributions to CHC, he says. What we see this morning were attempts to whitewash their acts into mere overzealousness and enthusiasm, he says.

Amid the mitigation this morning, it is important not lose sight of the fundamental dishonesty displayed and huge amount of trust violated, says DPP Ong. Any claims regarding good character must be balanced against the aggravating factors in this case, he says.

1.06pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says the accused all relied on argument that CHC did not ultimate suffer loss. However the manner in which the funds were returned to CHC was not done in a way that they had intended, he says. The plan construed by accused persons expressly involved loss to CHC, DPP Ong stresses. It is not motivated by remorse of accused persons and should not be given any mitigating weight, he says. Kong Hee said in his plea that he has been remorseful. But he has not actually said he was sorry for his part in... brazen dishonesty to members, DPP Ong says. Kong Hee’s “confession letter” was nothing more than excuses, DPP Ong says. He’s no more remorseful now than he was when he was on the stand.

12.49pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong: “How much weight can a claim of a good Shepherd be if the person was also a Wolf at the same time?”

12.48pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says a strong deterrent warning must be given to all who find themselves in such positions of trust, particularly in the charity sector.

The court has found the offences are premeditated and carefully planned, making their sham nature incredibly difficult to detect he says. The deceptive steps taken by accused persons after making the sham transactions are also aggravating. He points to how CHC board minutes have been fabricated, other examples demonstrate their willingness to manipulate records to suit their needs.

The deception carried on for years after misappropriation, DPP Ong says. A key pillar of their mitigation is the accused persons’ characters and contributions to CHC. “We submit that the offences are serious enough to outweigh their good characters,” he says.

12.39pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says Tan Ye Peng also had considerable influence. All the accused persons were CHC board members at various times, aside from Sharon Tan, he points out. Serina Wee and Sharon Tan sought to downplay trust and responsibility imposed on them, he says.

He notes that Sharon Tan had testified that the finance manager was the number one person in finances. As for Wee, all preliminary planning of Crossover occurred when she was still finance manager of CHC.

The accused persons other than Kong Hee were not just blind followers, DPP Ong stresses. This court has observed that each of the accused persons played a role; took their own inituative to mislead members, he says. The whole round tripping plan was executed by Tan Ye Peng, Chew and Wee on their own accord, without instruction from Kong Hee, DPP Ong points out.

12.36pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says the prosecution is not seeking an increased sentence for Kong Hee merely because he was a leader. It’s doing so because Kong Hee betrayed the trust for purposes of furthering criminal conspiracy and misled executive members because he wanted to gain access to the building fund. 

12.34pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says the accused persons had abused exceptional trust and faith that members have placed in them, by misleading members to cover up what they have done. There is nothing grey about what they have done.

Kong Hee was placed in a position of trust among church members and the community at large, he says. He was the person from which the entire church took direction, and they hardly rejected any decision made by him. Kong Hee capitalised on CHC’s fear of the Roland Poon incident, cultivating a culture of unquestioning trust in the church, says DPP Ong.

12.31pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong points out that CHC is a registered charity. Its income, including building fund, comes from donors and accumulated over years, he says. CHC is a particularly large charity entrusted with tens of millions of dollars. There’s a legitimate expectation that those entrusted with funds will ensure it is safeguarded, he says.

This case involves the largest amount of charity funds ever misappropriated in Singapore’s legal history, says DPP Ong. He says this long running case also affected public confidence that funds donated for charity purposes are safeguarded. Kong Hee’s own “confession letter” acknowledged that there are obvious grave consequences to the charity sector, DPP Ong says.

The awareness of the accused of other scandals (eg. NKF, Ren Ci), only caused them to tighten the ring of secrecy around their acts, he says.

The foremost consideration must be a need to send a deterrent message, says DPP Ong. Such a sentence is needed to restore public confidence in stewardship of charity monies.

12.24pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong highlights the key points of written submissions.
There are four aggravating factors, he says. 
1. Offences involved misuse of charity funds;
2. Profound quality and degree of trust especially on Kong Hee; 
3. Grievous and premeditated offences;
4. Covert measures in covering up to prevent discovery of their crimes

12.21pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong points to the culture of unquestioning trust that Kong Hee had cultivated in CHC, not only encouraging trust and faith, but also suppressing dissent. Therefore any submission on the lack of complainant has to take into account the context in which CHC operated, he says.

12.19pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says there was nothing compelling the accuseds to spend S$24 million and to use make use of the building fund to do so. S$24 million certainly would buy a lot of bread for the man who was starving, he notes. 

He says the letter that Edwin Tong tendered acknowledged that there were members who dropped out of the church.

12.15pm: Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Christopher Ong says defence counsels’ inaccurately quoted parts of the prosecution’s submissions and Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon’s judgement. JC See jumps in here also to clarify some parts of the judgement that was misconstrued. Had this case been motivated by personal gain, sentences prosecution requested would be far higher than what we had submitted for, DPP Ong says.

He says it is not true that prosecution had drawn a linear relationship between quantum and appropriate sentences. He says at no point had the prosecution agreed to the theological legitimacy of Crossover Project, but that it was not relevant. He says while theological legitimacy is not an issue, the recklessness with which they pursued the Crossover is relevant.

12.15pm: The prosecution will now respond.

12.14pmSerina Wee's lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, asks the judge to accept that Wee and her co-accused are not innately bad persons. He ends his submissions.

12.09pm:Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, says her job as a CHC account was her first job, with no prior private sector experience. A mitigating factor would be that she was relatively young and inexperienced at the time. She was also not entrusted with the funds, nor sitting on the board, or a signatory to any of the payments, or a pastor, he says. Her involvement was as an administrator of the church and she played a limited role with regard to the bond related offences, he says.

12.05pm: Serina Wee's lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, says a large amount of money was involved, but it needs to be balanced with how it was used. He says it all came back with interest, which was always the position of those involved. Wee's role, he says, was to provide administrative support. He said it was also found that Serina was acting in trust and deterrence to the spiritual elders.

12.02pm: Serina Wee's lawyer Andre Maniam cites case of Venerable Shi Ming Yi - where charity money used not to benefit the charity, but to a third party. Using a charity's money for the charity itself, is less culpable, he says.

11.57am:Serina Wee's lawyer Andre Maniam says some motives are worse than others. Greed is worse than need, he says, for example, if someone steals a loaf of bread meant for Sunday communion and gives to church workers who are starving - It is not done not for wrongful gain, but done because people believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that it is in interest of the church.

11.55am: Serina Wee's lawyer Andre Maniam says this is an unprecedented case with no previous cases where Criminal Breach of Trust was committed by a charity for the charity's own purposes. 

11.54am: Court session resumes. Senior Counsel Andre Maniam now submitting for sixth and final co-accused Serina Wee.

11.24am: Court takes a break

11.20am: Tan Ye Peng's lawyer N Sreenivasan talks about a list of church members Tan Ye Peng ministered to in the midst of the trial, including an anorexic lady and single mother. He also talks about Tan Ye Peng's community involvement, such as the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, the work that CityCare has done with schools, helping out during the Sichuan earthquake, and an award Tan Ye Peng received from the World Economic Forum.

Mr Sreenivasan says the sentencing is not just a technical exercise but a value judgement.

11.15am: Tan Ye Peng's lawyer N Sreenivasan talks about the toll that the matter has taken on Tan YP's family, including four young children. In so far as personal relationship is concerned, Tan Yee Peng's close relationship with Chew has been affected, says Mr Sreenivasn. He says Tan Ye Peng feels sorry for what has happened to Serina and Sharon.

11.06am: Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan presents his submissions for deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng. He says the prosecution's recommendations should neither be a starting point nor upward limit in the sentence, and notes that the prosecution did not refer to Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon's findings in recommending appropriate sentences.

Mr Sreenivasan says the prosecution's formulation of sentencing should not even be taken into account, and notes a lack of back up.

11.05am: Co-accused Chew Eng Han presents his own mitigating submissions. He says he agrees with the submissions of the five counsels, and he agreed with the judge's finding that the co-accused persons will want to do good for the church. He ends his submissions.

11am: Sharon Tan's lawyer Paul Seah says lumping all four co-accused is incorrect. He says many of the aggravating factors don't apply to Sharon Tan and she didn't share the same perspectives and motivations about going through the bond redemption. He says she didn't make the plans, and she trusted and relied on the leaders.

Mr Seah says a figure of five to six years for any of the bond redemption co-accused is manifestly excessive. He submits that the sentence for Sharon Tan should be lower than any of the bond redemption co-accused

Mr Seah says if there is any party at all can be a victim of the accuseds' actions, it would be CHC. "Yet Your Honour has found that the co-accused persons loved the church ... The methods may have been wrong but the motive was never ever to harm the church. This must be the greatest mitigating factor, especially when the trust in this case that had been breached is the church members' trust."

Mr Seah says his client is not a hardened criminal. She is a faithful wife, loving mother to three young children and long time servant to CHC, he says, asking for a lenient sentence. He ends his submissions.

10.50am: Lawyer Paul Seah commences oral mitigating submissions for Sharon Tan. He says this was not a case of greed, but rather Sharon Tan acted in what she felt was in the church's best interest.

Mr Seah says the way the prosecution took quantum in determining the sentence was incorrect. The quantum involved in criminal breach of trust should be the sole factor in sentencing persons accused of criminal breach of trust. Therefore the prosecution's approach was not only wrong with the law but also ignored the Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon's judgement, he says. The prosecution had failed to properly differentiate Sharon Tan from the other co-accused.

10.40am: John Lam's lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, notes that the judge found it wrongful to use church funds in such a way even though it was for church purposes. Unlike the rest of the co-accused for the bond charges, Your Honour has found that Lam's involvement was less extensive, notes Senior Counsel Tan. The Senior Counsel says Lam trusted his spiritual leader and deputy spiritual leader - "This trust, we submit, is a significant mitigating factor (for Lam)," he says. Lam's reduced role and trust have been found not to be a defence but they are strong mitigating factors, he says.

10.35am: John Lam's laywer Kenneth Tan says Lam facilitated the spiritual agenda set by his spiritual leaders. Unlike the charismatic leader that Kong Hee is, John Lam can be anyone of us ... Although he has made mistakes, he tries to do the right thing as seen from testimonials, he says. The Senior Counsel notes that Lam facilitated the use of church monies to fulfil the church mission of the Crossover to evangelise. He also notes that Lam loved CHC. The pure motives that Lam acted on had been accepted by executive members of the church, says the Senior Counsel.

10.30am: Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan presents mitigation for John Lam. He says Lam is an honourable man, who tries and still tries to live a life as a good man, good husband, good father to two teenage children and he is a God-fearing person. Senior Counsel Tan says Lam volunteers and helps with church committees and has never been in trouble with the law. Lam is different from Kong Hee - he's not a charismatic leader, just a volunteer at the church.

10.27am: Kong Hee's lawyer Edwin Tong asks the court to consider that the Crossover was a church project, there were no wrongful gains, no intention for wrongful gains, that the mission was for the church, that the accused persons loved the church.

10.20am: Kong Hee's lawyer Edwin Tong says there were not only no wrongful gains but "I can safely submit that there is no intention at the outset to make wrong. That is a key point of distinction between this matter and other cases of criminal breach of trust." He says the prosecution's attempt to rely on the high amount involved to press for stiff sentences in this case is flawed

Mr Tong also cites how Kong Hee is involved in humanitarian work, has no antecedents, and has demonstrated remorse.

He says Kong Hee has aged parents, 88 and 86, two deaf and mute siblings whom he cares and provides for even till today. He has a 10-year-old son, who since commencement of the case, has had to see a psychiatrist to be evaluated and ultimately taken out of school.

10am: Kong Hee's lawyer Edwin Tong says there was meticulousness and conscientiousness (even in the use of church funds). It was not cavalier in the way money was spent, the accused were not a group of careless persons. He says Kong Hee believed he was always acting in CHC's best interests and the accused genuinely believed the Crossover Project to be in the best interest of the church. He says it was also a fact that the money did come back to the church.

Mr Tong says a letter was put up by 173 voting executive members of CHC, dated Nov 13, 2015. The executive members have no wish to see any one of them go through a jail term, and believe the accused wanted to fulfill the Crossover mission and in their zeal, overstepped (certain boundaries), he says, adding that the members plead for leniency in the accused sentences.

Mr Tong says unlike other cases of criminal breach of trust, there were no wrongful gains made by any of the six. There was no intention at the outset to make wrong, he says. That is a key point of distinction between this matter and other cases of criminal breach of trust. Therefore, he said, the prosecution's attempt to rely on the high amount involved (to press for) stiff sentences in this case is flawed

9.55am: The court session has started. Kong Hee's lawyer Edwin Tong is presenting the oral submissions. He says the sentence to be meted out must be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the offence. In this case, it is key to look at the facets of the case, notwithstanding that they six have been found guilty of all charges. Mr Tong notes that the punishment must be appropriate to the offence and offender. 

Mr Tong says church members expressed support for the Crossover, which is at the centre of the offences. The prosecution has accepted entirely the theological basis of Sun Ho's Crossover as an evangelical approach, he says. Mr Tong says the Crossover was an integral part of CHC's evangelism ... to the extent that it is no question that Crossover was a church project.