City Harvest appeal: Transactions 'beyond reproach' and no personal gain for Kong Hee, says lawyer

SINGAPORE — If there was “no doubt” that the six City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders, who were convicted of various criminal charges over their use of the mega-church’s building fund, had acted “in the church’s best interest”, how could they have been found to have been dishonest and intending to cause wrongful loss to the church?

This question was put forth by senior counsel Edwin Tong as he began his appeal to overturn the conviction of church founder Kong Hee on THursday (Sept 15). Kong, 53, was sentenced to eight years’ jail for three criminal breach of trust charges, the heaviest of the sentences meted out.

He was the leader of the church’s Crossover Project, which aimed to use his wife Ho Yeow Sun’s secular pop music to evangelise.

Mr Tong argued that Presiding Judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon, who ruled on the case, had erred in finding that the six were dishonest even as he agreed that they “loved CHC and had no wish to do any harm to it”.

Also, it cannot be inferred that the six had “dishonest” intentions simply because they had put the funds to wrong use. Decisions to invest the funds into bonds had been affirmed by financial and legal advisers whom they “openly and almost religiously” consulted, said Mr Tong.

Elaborating on his arguments in written submissions, Mr Tong said that Kong had “insisted at all times” on proper consultation to ensure that the transactions were “beyond reproach”.

Also, Kong could not have intended to cause “wrongful loss” to the church when he “did not obtain a single cent for his own gain”, he said. 

All six are appealing against their convictions, and the hearings are scheduled to be heard until next Wednesday. Kicking off the hearings on Thursday morning was former CHC board member John Lam, who was sentenced to three years’ jail for three charges of criminal breach of trust.

Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, acting for Lam, said Lam was not part of the “core group” that controlled the church funds that were misappropriated. Lam, 47, had also believed the sham investments were genuine ones that furthered the church’s goals. 

During the hearing, which took place before a panel of three judges, Justice Chao Hick Tin had asked if Lam was in the “core group” who controlled the church funds. In response, Mr Tan pointed out that Judge See had found that Lam was not “intimately involved” in the investments.

Mr Tan also said that Lam was just a church board member and a volunteer with a day job, unlike the alleged co-conspirators who ran the funds. The “fatal flaw” in Judge See’s conviction of Lam was that he inferred that Lam knew the bonds were a sham and was part of the conspiracy. 

Asked by Justice Woo Bih Li if he was depicting Lam as an “innocent pawn” used by others, Mr Tan said there were “many parties who were involved in facilitating what were thought to be genuine investments”, without knowing the full picture.

“To that extent, they facilitated without being part of any conspiracy,” he added.