Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

City Harvest appeal: Former pastor not proven ‘dishonest’, says his lawyer

SINGAPORE – In urging the High Court to overturn Tan Ye Peng’s convictions and sentences on Monday (Sept 19), lawyer of City Harvest Church’s (CHC) former second-in-command questioned whether it has been proven that his client was indeed “dishonest”.

City Harvest Church former paster Tan Ye Peng arriving in court last Friday (Sept 16), as the six former CHC leaders appeal against their convictions and sentences. Photo: Robin Choo/TODAY

City Harvest Church former paster Tan Ye Peng arriving in court last Friday (Sept 16), as the six former CHC leaders appeal against their convictions and sentences. Photo: Robin Choo/TODAY

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE – In urging the High Court to overturn Tan Ye Peng’s convictions and sentences on Monday (Sept 19), lawyer of City Harvest Church’s (CHC) former second-in-command questioned whether it has been proven that his client was indeed “dishonest”. 

"The key questions are: whether there was knowledge that there was no legal entitlement to buy the bonds," said Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan in his written submissions to the court. And even if there was such knowledge, he asked if there is an intention to cause "wrong loss" where there is no wish to do harm. 

"There was an honestly-held belief that the funds were used for a purpose that is not just permitted but positively mandated, and would be... returned in full with interest to CHC," said Mr Sreenivasan. 

In October last year, Tan, 44, was convicted on six charges of criminal breach of trust and four counts of falsifying the church's accounts. He was one of six former church leaders found guilty of misusing church funds to finance the career of pop singer Ho Yeow Sun – also known as Sun Ho – the wife of church founder Kong Hee. 

Mr Sreenivasan said the trial judge was wrong in finding his client guilty of the falsification charges. He pointed out that the essence of a falsification offence is the “intention to defraud by making false entries”, which was not present in Tan’s case.

He also said the church was legally entitled to spend money from the church building fund on the Crossover Project, noting that in Tan’s mind, the project was “legitimate and supported by church members”.

But Justice Chan pointed out that auditors and lawyers had not raised a red flag over the investment into the project as the money was used to buy bonds, which was allowed under the fund. They might have done so if they knew otherwise, he said. In response, Mr Sreenivasan said the lawyers and auditors had known that the money that went into those bonds would be used for Ms Ho’s music career.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.