Judge rejects bid to clear CHC leaders of charges

SINGAPORE — The bid by the City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders facing criminal charges to walk away without mounting a defence has failed, after the courts rejected their contention that prosecutors had not done enough to make a case against them.

Sufficient evidence has been adduced to support every element of the charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts against the six, presiding judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon ruled yesterday.

“At the close of the prosecution’s case, there is no need for the court to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. It suffices that a court could reasonably convict on the evidence adduced by the prosecution,” he said.

With Mr See’s decision, the trial will stretch beyond the one-year mark and all six accused — church co-founder Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Serina Wee and Sharon Tan — have indicated they will take the witness stand when hearing resumes, likely in July. Chew, the church’s former investment manager who has since left, added through his lawyer that he intends to call witnesses.

The six had argued to be cleared of their charges without having to enter a defence, contending that the prosecution’s case was “piecemeal” and a “cut-and-paste” job. In rebuttal, prosecutors had asserted that the dots in its case against the church leaders connected in a natural, coherent and powerful manner.

Yesterday, Mr See addressed the points of contention between the defence and prosecution in detail. “Some dots are smaller; some are larger. When attempting to connect them, there may be clusters, trails and other patterns, some less granular and some more clearly discernible. The focus of my enquiry is whether a reasonably coherent picture has emerged thus far in support of all the ingredients of the charges,” the judge said.

Referring to a defence lawyer’s argument that the prosecution’s case has been made up of “emails, emails, emails stitched together”, Mr See said: “I am conscious that a reasonable inference is one that coheres with the totality of the documentary and oral evidence, and not merely with the email itself. I also bear in mind that a single email can generate multiple conflicting reasonable inferences, some favourable and others unfavourable to the prosecution.”

On the prosecution’s charge that the accused engaged in various conspiracies, the judge noted that evidence is “largely documentary rather than oral” and that the involvement of some of the accused is less obvious than that of others. But there is, nonetheless, evidence to support the prosecution’s contention, he said.

On the element of misappropriation, which must be fulfilled for criminal breach of trust, the judge said there is evidence to show that sham, or false, investments took place.

“I should add that, even if one does not use the word ‘sham’, the evidence suggests the so-called investments were not genuine investments, but were merely disguises for something else,” he added.

The six church leaders are accused of misusing S$24 million of church-building funds for sham investments to boost the music career of Kong’s wife Ho Yeow Sun. They then allegedly misused another S$26.6 million to cover up the first amount.

The defence had argued that money moved by the accused out of the church and back again through various entities was merely a “restructuring” of debt, but the judge said, equally, there is evidence that the true purpose of the transactions was to generate a false impression that the purported bond investments in glassware firm Indonesia-based PT The First National Glassware had been redeemed.

The defence had also argued that the accused were not dishonest as the church funds had been used for church purposes.

However, the judge noted that, even if this was the case, the crux lies in whether the accused knew they were “not legally entitled to use CHC’s money in the way they did”.

They might also have been dishonest even if they had intended only to temporarily deprive the church of its funds, he added.

Mr See also said there is evidence to show the accused withheld some important information from the church’s auditors; whether or not accounting entries were false is a question for the court to decide.

The court considers whether there is evidence that is not inherently incredible and which satisfies each element of the charges framed by the prosecution at the close of the prosecution’s case, he added. And, if there is such evidence, the court must call the accused to give their defence, said Mr See.

Church supporters filled the public gallery during the hearing yesterday. When the court session ended, they were heard giving encouragement to their church leaders.