I promise this will be the LAST TIME I mentioned CHC trial until the verdict of the Appeal is out!
"'Fraud of the worst kind': Prosecutors seek stiffer jail terms for City Harvest leaders - CNA 21 Sep 2016
"'Fraud of the worst kind': Prosecutors seek stiffer jail terms for City Harvest leaders - CNA 21 Sep 2016
SINGAPORE: Six City Harvest Church leaders who "committed fraud of the worst kind" should be put away for longer, prosecutors argued on Wednesday (Sep 21).
They said the trial judge had been too lenient and had "abandoned and ignored" sentencing guidelines by failing to take into account the massive amount of monies involved, among other aggravating factors.
The trial judge had "untethered his sentencing from his moorings", resulting in sentences that are manifestly inadequate, prosecutors said. He had also given "undue weight" to mitigating factors, including that the offenders caused no permanent loss to the church and did not gain personally from their crimes, they argued.
Refuting the points, prosecutors said the six had "knowingly put CHC's interests (and monies) at risk" by diverting S$24 million into sham bonds, which they knew they could not repay.
They misappropriated another S$26 million to cover up the first amount so auditors would not find out. This S$26 million was "obtained through external loans", and not through any plans the six put in place to ensure no church monies would be lost, Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong told the court.
DPP Ong also pointed out the trial judge had found "Kong Hee had benefitted indirectly, because his wife Sun Ho was the direct beneficiary of the sham investments".
Prosecutors pointed to e-mails Kong sent to Ms Ho's US manager encouraging him to "plan as if the sky is the limit" for her new album, and they would "work out how we are going to get the funds later". "Let's shoot for top-of-the-line type of planning in everything we do for Sun", Kong wrote.
In reality, Ms Ho's career was being secretly bankrolled by CHC, with millions poured into her secular music career via two church-controlled companies.
The six offenders have argued that furthering Ms Ho's career was a mission of the church supported by its members, however, DPP Ong questioned whether church members knew exactly what their support entailed.
DPP Ong said: “They never told the congregation: ‘This is what we’re planning to do with Sun and all of you are going to pay for it to the tune of S$24 million’.”
He argued the support of the congregation "must be viewed in the context of what they were told".
Church members were unaware they were footing the bill, because Kong and his team repeatedly lied that no church funds were being used to fund his wife's career.
Justice Chan Seng Onn wondered whether the church’s evangelistic mission could have been carried out with less extravagance. “It can be Sun Ho singing, it could be engaging at a much cheaper cost, maybe a K-pop (concert), and Kong Hee can come to the concert and then preach.
"Sun Ho is doing it, buy an expensive apartment, fly first class, expend all the money, that’s another way of it, all in the name of evangelisation. There can be many means.”
The deceptive and manipulative actions of the six offenders "place their offences within a band of fraud of the worst kind", DPP Ong said, urging the court to up the prison terms of the six leaders.
"The trial judge's reasoning presents a moral hazard", prosecutors said, and if allowed to stand, "may embolden would-be criminals".
The prosecution is seeking to significantly increase the prison sentences of the six:
Kong Hee: 8 years to 11 to 12 years' jail; Tan Ye Peng: 5 years and 6 months to 11 to 12 years' jail;
Chew Eng Han: 6 years to 11 to 12 years' jail; Serina Wee: 5 years to 11 to 12 years' jail; John Lam: 3 years to 8 to 9 years' jail; and Sharon Tan: 21 months to 5 to 6 years' jail.
Tan Ye Peng’s lawyer, Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan, urged the court to “strip away the hyperbole” to reach the right conclusion.
“At the end of the day, whether (we) think evangelisation should be done a different way, (we) have to come back to what CHC is about”, Mr Sreenivasan said. “It is not for the prosecutor to set the standard for CHC. It is not for the prosecutor to say what (has) or what (has) not (been done) for the benefit of CHC.”
Prosecutors had the last word on Wednesday, closing the five-day hearing with a reminder:
“Everyone is subject to the same laws, the same Penal Code, regardless of their religious beliefs. Committing crime in the name of your religion is not a defence.”
The three-judge panel – including Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justices Chan Seng Onn and Woo Bih Li – said at the end of the five-day hearing that they could only promise to deliver their judgement “ASAP”, having to carefully consider to their decision, and given the voluminous evidence involved in the case."
My God! Pun intended! It is FINALLY over. The trial I mean as we await the VERDICT by the learned Judges!!
For many of us, lay people, untrained legal minds, mortals, and however some may preferred called us, the ordinary people with emotion investment in CHC, this is really an open-and-shut case.
Money was used from a fund intended for another purpose. Some ex-CHC members had whistle-blown in the past and were 'ex-communicated' (?). So, some CHC members DID question about how the designated fund, for Church building supposedly, was used!
Alas, we are dealing with an emotional issue. Religion is the MOST powerful emotion one can invoke. If the members or believers or followers believe, there is nothing that can stop them from doing ANY irrational things. NOTHING can stop them. That's how powerful invoking people to act religiously can be.
e.g. the infamous 'cult of death' of Jim Jones many years ago where his followers committed, some coerced?, mass suicide in Guyana killing some US congress or senate members who happened to be visiting and checking on them due to concerns raised in the USA
e.g. the terrorists that executed the 911 attack that shook the world as it brought the twin WTC towers down on global real time TV coverage in the name of religion
So, let's be very clear about this. EVEN if ONE CHC member questioned if the use of the Church Building fund for a purpose he or she had NOT INTENDED when making the donation to the fund, it is deception. Honestly, a man or a woman of God cannot be deceptive. Yes?
Or, alas, it is just a man made God or God abused by men!
They said the trial judge had been too lenient and had "abandoned and ignored" sentencing guidelines by failing to take into account the massive amount of monies involved, among other aggravating factors.
The trial judge had "untethered his sentencing from his moorings", resulting in sentences that are manifestly inadequate, prosecutors said. He had also given "undue weight" to mitigating factors, including that the offenders caused no permanent loss to the church and did not gain personally from their crimes, they argued.
Refuting the points, prosecutors said the six had "knowingly put CHC's interests (and monies) at risk" by diverting S$24 million into sham bonds, which they knew they could not repay.
They misappropriated another S$26 million to cover up the first amount so auditors would not find out. This S$26 million was "obtained through external loans", and not through any plans the six put in place to ensure no church monies would be lost, Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong told the court.
DPP Ong also pointed out the trial judge had found "Kong Hee had benefitted indirectly, because his wife Sun Ho was the direct beneficiary of the sham investments".
Prosecutors pointed to e-mails Kong sent to Ms Ho's US manager encouraging him to "plan as if the sky is the limit" for her new album, and they would "work out how we are going to get the funds later". "Let's shoot for top-of-the-line type of planning in everything we do for Sun", Kong wrote.
In reality, Ms Ho's career was being secretly bankrolled by CHC, with millions poured into her secular music career via two church-controlled companies.
The six offenders have argued that furthering Ms Ho's career was a mission of the church supported by its members, however, DPP Ong questioned whether church members knew exactly what their support entailed.
DPP Ong said: “They never told the congregation: ‘This is what we’re planning to do with Sun and all of you are going to pay for it to the tune of S$24 million’.”
He argued the support of the congregation "must be viewed in the context of what they were told".
Church members were unaware they were footing the bill, because Kong and his team repeatedly lied that no church funds were being used to fund his wife's career.
Justice Chan Seng Onn wondered whether the church’s evangelistic mission could have been carried out with less extravagance. “It can be Sun Ho singing, it could be engaging at a much cheaper cost, maybe a K-pop (concert), and Kong Hee can come to the concert and then preach.
"Sun Ho is doing it, buy an expensive apartment, fly first class, expend all the money, that’s another way of it, all in the name of evangelisation. There can be many means.”
The deceptive and manipulative actions of the six offenders "place their offences within a band of fraud of the worst kind", DPP Ong said, urging the court to up the prison terms of the six leaders.
"The trial judge's reasoning presents a moral hazard", prosecutors said, and if allowed to stand, "may embolden would-be criminals".
The prosecution is seeking to significantly increase the prison sentences of the six:
Kong Hee: 8 years to 11 to 12 years' jail; Tan Ye Peng: 5 years and 6 months to 11 to 12 years' jail;
Chew Eng Han: 6 years to 11 to 12 years' jail; Serina Wee: 5 years to 11 to 12 years' jail; John Lam: 3 years to 8 to 9 years' jail; and Sharon Tan: 21 months to 5 to 6 years' jail.
Tan Ye Peng’s lawyer, Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan, urged the court to “strip away the hyperbole” to reach the right conclusion.
“At the end of the day, whether (we) think evangelisation should be done a different way, (we) have to come back to what CHC is about”, Mr Sreenivasan said. “It is not for the prosecutor to set the standard for CHC. It is not for the prosecutor to say what (has) or what (has) not (been done) for the benefit of CHC.”
Prosecutors had the last word on Wednesday, closing the five-day hearing with a reminder:
“Everyone is subject to the same laws, the same Penal Code, regardless of their religious beliefs. Committing crime in the name of your religion is not a defence.”
The three-judge panel – including Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justices Chan Seng Onn and Woo Bih Li – said at the end of the five-day hearing that they could only promise to deliver their judgement “ASAP”, having to carefully consider to their decision, and given the voluminous evidence involved in the case."
My God! Pun intended! It is FINALLY over. The trial I mean as we await the VERDICT by the learned Judges!!
For many of us, lay people, untrained legal minds, mortals, and however some may preferred called us, the ordinary people with emotion investment in CHC, this is really an open-and-shut case.
Money was used from a fund intended for another purpose. Some ex-CHC members had whistle-blown in the past and were 'ex-communicated' (?). So, some CHC members DID question about how the designated fund, for Church building supposedly, was used!
Alas, we are dealing with an emotional issue. Religion is the MOST powerful emotion one can invoke. If the members or believers or followers believe, there is nothing that can stop them from doing ANY irrational things. NOTHING can stop them. That's how powerful invoking people to act religiously can be.
e.g. the infamous 'cult of death' of Jim Jones many years ago where his followers committed, some coerced?, mass suicide in Guyana killing some US congress or senate members who happened to be visiting and checking on them due to concerns raised in the USA
e.g. the terrorists that executed the 911 attack that shook the world as it brought the twin WTC towers down on global real time TV coverage in the name of religion
So, let's be very clear about this. EVEN if ONE CHC member questioned if the use of the Church Building fund for a purpose he or she had NOT INTENDED when making the donation to the fund, it is deception. Honestly, a man or a woman of God cannot be deceptive. Yes?
Or, alas, it is just a man made God or God abused by men!
No comments:
Post a Comment