City Harvest appeal: ‘Church money meant for a mission cannot be counted as wrong use’

SINGAPORE — In trying to appeal against his conviction and sentence, a former church leader asked if using the church building fund for a missionary purpose is considered “wrong use” or “dishonest misappropriation”, and if it then meant that there was wrongful loss.

Chew Eng Han, 55, who used to be the fund manager at City Harvest Church (CHC), put forth these questions in his written submissions in the High Court on Friday (Sept 16).

His appeal is being heard by a three-judge panel. Last year, he was found guilty on six counts of criminal breach of trust and four charges of falsifying the church’s accounts, and was sentenced to six years’ jail.

Chew, who is unrepresented, said that the prosecution’s case during the trial pointed to the church’s building fund as a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or for investment. In the “Crossover Project” — fashioned to push the pop music career of founder-pastor Kong Hee’s wife, Ms Sun Ho — the use of this fund was not an investment, the prosecution had argued, so the money was used for an unauthorised purpose that constitutes “wrong use” of the fund, which is tantamount to dishonest misappropriation.

Chew said that the trial judge had adopted the prosecution’s core argument above and “gravely erred in ruling that there was dishonest misappropriation”, basing it on a flawed definition of the word “misappropriate”, which was tied to “wrong use”. 

During the three-hour hearing on Friday, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin questioned whether the church had something to hide regarding the use of the church fund. “It definitely looked like it was some secret project, because it was a secret project,” Chew replied.

Asked by Justice Woo Bih Li on why the building fund had to be invested in music production company Xtron instead of going directly into the Crossover Project, Chew said that the church wanted a “holding company” that could be used as a “special purpose vehicle” through which it directs the money to projects like the Crossover, and to bid for a property in 2009. 

Chew and his family had donated S$1 million to the church, and he was told in 2008 that Ms Ho’s English album was to be delayed for another year. Kong said then that the project was going to get bigger, they would make money from concerts and merchandise, and Ms Ho’s album launch would be a success. 

“I believed that she was going to be a superstar,” Chew told the court. “Whatever Kong Hee tells us, we believe. We never thought it was a sham.”

Chew pointed to an email Kong wrote in 2005 after he announced to the church that his wife secured a US$5 million (more than S$8 million) contract. He said that church members should be “super proud” of Ms Ho because there was a “singing diva” in their church. Kong also said that his wife was going to be the “next Whitney Houston”.

“If (Ms Ho was to be the) next Whitney Houston, how (can it) not be a profitable vehicle for us?” Chew said. 

Justice Chan Seng Onn asked Chew: “So you were brainwashed?” Chew replied: “Yes. I was.” 

The court was also told that the church bought unsold stocks of Ms Ho’s albums. “If this were a conspiracy, it is the worst-thought-out conspiracy ever,” Chew said.

It looks that way to me, too,” Judge of Appeal Chao said, prompting laughter from the packed public gallery. 

The appeal hearing will continue on Monday with the church’s former second-in-command Tan Ye Peng and former finance manager Serina Wee.