City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged
-
(PART B/D)
CAD’s charges against all or some among the 5 charged:
1) Conspiracy to commit Criminal Breach of Trust as an Agent under section
409 read with section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
(Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent)
409. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
\t
3)\tConspiracy to commit Falsification of Accounts under section 477A of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
Falsification of accounts
477A. Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully and with intent to defraud destroys, alters, conceals, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully and with intent to defraud makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
[51/2007]
Explanation .—. —It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded, or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud or any particular day on which the offence was committed.
[Indian PC 1860, s. 477A] -
(PART C/D)
Battle started:
CHC has so far, came out with a strong statement in support of the 5 being charged. In the statement, it recognized that project “crossover” is necessary to the Church, meaning that those fund diverted to support Sun Ho’s career is not wrong. It appeared that the 5 charged are going to tell of a story that will sing in the same tune of the CHC statement. They probably will drag project “crossover” into the argument and justify why funds were diverted from the building fund towards Sun Hp’s singing career.
There are probably room for argument under the application of COC’s regulations - it would be a messy debate whether supporting Sun Ho’s singing career is going to be considered “charity purpose” or not; and that it is part of the effort “to advance religion”. The church is going to say yes while certain general public including some CHC’s members are going to say “no”. Anyway, in my personal opinion, whether it is Yes or No, it remained that some of the money from Building Funds were used for purposes other than to build a building. In this sense, COC’s finding will be bull’s eye hit.
From the complex movements of funds from one account to another, it appeared that effort was used to conceal the funding of Sun Ho’s singing career with the church’s money. It is also particularly damning for the defense that in 2003, they have come out in force to argue against a businessman Mr Poon that none of the church’s money was used to help Sun Ho’s career and now the church’s recent statement seems to suggest otherwise.
Based on the developments from 2003 till now, it seems like there are some irregularities in the church’s position and if the prosecution could prove beyond doubt that effort was spent to conceal the funding of project crossover, proving intention and acts, then criminal breach and conspiracy charges will stand and that would be very bad for the 5. -
(PART D/D) Replies:
ksi: Are you a lawyer?
SilentHermit : No I am not. I am not even qualified to assist one lol.
ChiefKiasu: Wonderful analysis! I like the way you think and write - rational, unbiased, and unfettered by hearsay.
SilentHermit: TQ. Trying to look at the case from a legal/logical point of view without emotion involved.
verykiasu2010: if they want to please guilty do they need the like of Lok Vi Meng senior counsel (S’pore’s QC equivalent)?
SilentHermit: I doubt they are going to plead guilty. They probably still thinking that conceptually they are right.
WeiHan: I think it has been mentioned. By registering themselves as a charitable organisation, they do enjoy some benefits such as exemption from tax for the profit they made in bond investments and the members who donated enjoy certain benefit too which I can’t recall off hand now. So they actually walked in knowingly, wanting the benefit and i don’t believe that people like them do not know about the obligation and rules that regulate them.
SilentHermit: Personally my take is that they do know that what they are doing is wrong, thus the elaborate movement of funds around to make it look right. However, because they believe so much in project crossover, they probably ended up feeling that they are not doing anything wrong.
WeiHan: Do you think religious practices and beliefs should be above law or the law should be above all else knowing that Singapore is a secular state. So I agree with you, if someone is going to argue that specific practice of a particular religion is above the law, another religion will claim theirs is above the law too, it is going to get contentious and messy. And pardon me, I don’t get your paper money analogy, paper money and singapore dollars is different. the authority definietly won’t question how much paper you are going to burn. It is not starightforward indeed. But I have a hard time trying to rationalise how reaching a group of people to tell them about your religion is a form charity. I am not sure about singapore but in Western Europe, this argument will definitely be shot back. So, the onus isn’t at COC side to prove whether the transfered money has achieved anything.
SilentHermit: I do not think that religion and beliefs should be above law. Like you said, if one party is allowed to interpret things their own way, we have to allow the rest in the queue to do that same. It would be super messy. In any case, there is COC acting as the authorities for charities in Singapore, I think every charities should follow COC’s guidelines.
The burning hell notes is perhaps too raw an example.
Apparently under COC’s registration requirements, effort to advance a religion can be part of the registration criteria for a charity. This is where I think the grey areas are. Many will be tempted to interpret their actions as part of their effort to advance religion.
WeiHan: There are rules that regulate transfering of charity money outside Singapore. If they have declared that it is for overseas charity, then the government may have taxed it. what have they declared become important. Very hard to argue along this line if they have covered up and avoided declaring the real purpose right from the beginning. Does CHC has proofs that they have plan right from the beginning to use the fund in the way intended i.e. "benefitting" Sun Ho to reach out to certain group of people?
SilentHermit: So far, IRAS has not entered the picture. It does appear to have some taxation issues here. Apparently there have been open talks about project crossover as early as 2003. There was also a complaint by a businessman Mr Poon then, but the church has denied the allegations by Mr Poon, saying no money was used to help Sun Ho’s career, but now the church’s statement seems to suggest otherwise.
WeiHan: Like I said, CAD should have already recorded testimonies from some witnesses. CAd should have already asked the five to provide some explanations for the irregularities so a drastic change in argument becomes difficult, I guess.
SilentHermit: I think this time round, no one is denying that money was used to fund project crossover. Even the church’s own statement has said project crossover is important to their movement. I think the messy part is to argue whether project crossover should be looked at as part of the charity’s work to “advance the religion”. If the judge agrees that project crossover is and should be part of the church’s work, then supporting Sun Ho financially is no longer a wrong, however, moving the fund from Building Funds to other accounts is still wrong but an administrative wrong, a lesser wrong. -
SilentHermit:
Yes, you summed up the case succinctly. As long persecution can proves that the money intended for Building Fund has been used for Project Crossover without executive members' knowledge, it's over for the 5.
From the complex movements of funds from one account to another, it appeared that effort was used to conceal the funding of Sun Ho’s singing career with the church’s money. It is also particularly damning for the defense that in 2003, they have come out in force to argue against a businessman Mr Poon that none of the church’s money was used to help Sun Ho’s career and now the church’s recent statement seems to suggest otherwise.
Based on the developments from 2003 till now, it seems like there are some irregularities in the church’s position and if the prosecution could prove beyond doubt that effort was spent to conceal the funding of project crossover, proving intention and acts, then criminal breach and conspiracy charges will stand and that would be very bad for the 5. -
SilentHermit:
They denied like a blatant liar and kind of force that poor guy to apologise. Goodness, what else under heaven (if there is such place) will they restraint their sinful (if there is such thing as sin) deeds.
SilentHermit: So far, IRAS has not entered the picture. It does appear to have some taxation issues here. Apparently there have been open talks about project crossover as early as 2003. There was also a complaint by a businessman Mr Poon then, but the church has denied the allegations by Mr Poon, saying no money was used to help Sun Ho’s career, but now the church’s statement seems to suggest otherwise. -
looking4Tutor:
I need to get this off my chest. I will go on record for this (and most likely incur the wrath of CHC members) and described CHC account of this Roland Poon incident to its members.
They denied like a blatant liar and kind of force that poor guy to apologise. Goodness, what else under heaven (if there is such place) will they restraint their sinful (if there is such thing as sin) deeds.SilentHermit:
SilentHermit: So far, IRAS has not entered the picture. It does appear to have some taxation issues here. Apparently there have been open talks about project crossover as early as 2003. There was also a complaint by a businessman Mr Poon then, but the church has denied the allegations by Mr Poon, saying no money was used to help Sun Ho’s career, but now the church’s statement seems to suggest otherwise.
I was still a CHC member in 2003 when this incident occurred. Roland Poon has printed the apologies in the newspapers. Kong Hee explained to the congregation in the services that CHC's admin invited Roland Poon to the office to explain to him that there was no church fund used for Sun Ho's career. The meeting ended amicably and Roland Poon decided to print the apologies because he felt that he had wronged the church and Sun Ho. There was no mention that he was threatened with a lawsuit. Kong Hee even said in the service that they did not want to sue the guy as he thought as a Christian one should forgive with grace.
Yes, the above account is true and you can double confirm with CHC members who was there in 2003. -
WeiHan:
Generally, I think religious belief is a good thing. However sometimes, over-indulgence threatens basic common sense, morality and filial piety.concern2:
One case that I know of: A concert gives tithe through GIRO to the church and doesn't give his parents any allowance. What would you say to this?
I also know another case which is like that. The elder brother and wife are both Christians.Both are university graduates and earn a total income many times their younger brother (around 2K per month, even jobless accasionally). Old mother is 70 years old, stay with younger brother in a old 3-room HDB flat. The older brother give tithe to church but give nothing to old mother. Come \"home\" once a month to visit old mother and probably earn a \"free\" dinner. Old mother of course will prepare better dinner whenever elder son is coming back.
Whenever, some of these CHC members say that they will stand by their pastor like a family member would have, I feel skeptical. Some of them, like the above brother may have forsake their real home. Isn't it hypocritical?
I personally know of a few that has left the faith because unreasonable religious demands and use of fear mongering. -
Dreamaurora:
Pray tell me were you in that infamous meeting? If they have sued they will beat Durai in the game,
I need to get this off my chest. I will go on record for this (and most likely incur the wrath of CHC members) and described CHC account of this Roland Poon incident to its members.
I was still a CHC member in 2003 when this incident occurred. Roland Poon has printed the apologies in the newspapers. Kong Hee explained to the congregation in the services that CHC's admin invited Roland Poon to the office to explain to him that there was no church fund used for Sun Ho's career. The meeting ended amicably and Roland Poon decided to print the apologies because he felt that he had wronged the church and Sun Ho. There was no mention that he was threatened with a lawsuit. Kong Hee even said in the service that they did not want to sue the guy as he thought as a Christian one should forgive with grace.
Yes, the above account is true and you can double confirm with CHC members who was there in 2003. -
looking4Tutor:
No. My account was that of a CHC church goer. Above was what Kong Hee told us.
Pray tell me were you in that infamous meeting?Dreamaurora:
I need to get this off my chest. I will go on record for this (and most likely incur the wrath of CHC members) and described CHC account of this Roland Poon incident to its members.
I was still a CHC member in 2003 when this incident occurred. Roland Poon has printed the apologies in the newspapers. Kong Hee explained to the congregation in the services that CHC's admin invited Roland Poon to the office to explain to him that there was no church fund used for Sun Ho's career. The meeting ended amicably and Roland Poon decided to print the apologies because he felt that he had wronged the church and Sun Ho. There was no mention that he was threatened with a lawsuit. Kong Hee even said in the service that they did not want to sue the guy as he thought as a Christian one should forgive with grace.
Yes, the above account is true and you can double confirm with CHC members who was there in 2003. -
Dreamaurora:
I think he will be proud to know of your faith in him. Many people also believed Jim Jones.
No. My account was that of a CHC church goer. Above was what Kong Hee told us.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login