Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

City Harvest Church leaders conspired to misuse funds: Judge

SINGAPORE — Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon today (Oct 21) found all six City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders guilty of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. He delivered a 15-page oral judgement to a packed courtroom, as the long-running saga drew to a close.

All six City Harvest Church leaders are found guilty of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. Photo: Ooi Boon Keong

All six City Harvest Church leaders are found guilty of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. Photo: Ooi Boon Keong

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon today (Oct 21) found all six City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders guilty of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. He delivered a 15-page oral judgement to a packed courtroom, as the long-running saga drew to a close.

Here is an excerpt from the 15-page oral judgment, where the judge spoke about the culpabilities of CHC founder Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, former church accountant Serina Wee, former church finance manager Sharon Tan, former investment manager Chew Eng Han and former CHC board member John Lam: 

“Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han and Serina Wee each clearly played a substantial role in conceiving and executing this plan to channel CHC’s Building Fund through Xtron for the Crossover. John Lam’s role was evidently less substantial, but I am satisfied that he had his own part to play as a board member and investment committee member. All of them knew that the Building Fund was a restricted fund to be used only for specific purposes.

They claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were genuine investments. They believed the Xtron bonds would bring CHC financial return. But on my evaluation of the evidence I consider that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not hold that belief.

I find that the accused persons were planning on the basis of Sun Ho’s planned US Crossover album being realistically capable of generating sales of only 200,000 units, and although their projections showed that the bonds could not be redeemed by the maturity date, they were unconcerned since Eng Han assured them that the maturity date for the bonds could always be extended or fresh bonds could be issued.

I am unconvinced that they could have had a genuine belief in Sun Ho’s prospects of success for the US Crossover given their consciousness that much of her earlier success was contrived and contributed to by CHC itself.

.... The accused persons chose to engage in covert operations and conspiratorial cover-ups. They contrived to create cover stories and clever round-trips concealing their unlawful conduct. They chose to participate in the conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds, which included siphoning off large amounts from the BF for Sun Ho’s music career and eventually for the round-tripping transactions to enable the bond redemptions.

They chose to defraud the auditors with falsified accounts suggesting a series of genuine transactions for the redemption of bonds and advance rental. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a finding that they had all acted dishonestly and in breach of the trust reposed in them and they played their respective roles in a conspiracy with intent to cause wrongful loss to CHC and to defraud the auditors.

I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the six accused persons are guilty of all the charges that have been brought against them. I note that all of them believed that they had acted in what they considered to be the best interests of CHC.

There is no evidence of any wrongful gain – that was never the prosecution’s case in any event as the charges were premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC’s funds.

I consider that John Lam, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon were all acting in accordance with the instructions of people they considered to be their spiritual leaders deserving of their trust and deference, and Ye Peng, although a leader in his own right, similarly trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee.

But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one’s leaders, regardless of the context in which that trust operates, these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out.”

Read the oral judgement in full: 

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.