Never Build a Ministry on One Man's Swag

J. Lee Grady



John the Baptist said he was not worthy to untie Jesus' lowly sandals. But in today's hyper-cool, megachurch culture, a preacher's footwear has become very pricey.

So pricey, in fact, that a new Instagram account called preachersnsneakers went viral last month and now has 154,000 followers. The social media account does nothing except offer photos of famous preachers' expensive and colorful footwear—including a pair of red Air Yeezy 2s worn by South Carolina pastor John Gray. His shoes retail for $5,611.

Some people have complained about the Instagram site, claiming that its founder, an anonymous guy named "Tyler," is hurting the church. But he says he's simply holding up a mirror and asking Christians if our leaders should be known for their lavish tastes in clothes.

There's really nothing new about this. In the 1980s, televangelists were criticized for their three-piece suits and pricey Italian leather dress shoes—yet we know their followers gave them enough money to buy them private jets. Today, the suits and leather shoes are out of date, but the price tag on the designer sneakers is the same.

In today's vocabulary, it's called swag. It basically means stylish confidence, and it comes from the word "swagger."

Like the televangelist of the old days, the celebrity preacher of today may still be on television—or he may have his own YouTube channel. But his look has been totally updated. His hairstyle is hip, he has a few days' stubble on his face and his ministry has an app for your smartphone.

And apparently his on-stage wardrobe must now include a pair of $1,000 Air Jordans.

I'm not against hair gel, stubble or the latest designer athletic shoes. I enjoy some of these preachers' podcasts. And, in their defense, some of these men received their fancy footwear as gifts from wealthy donors.

But I am concerned about the swag factor. Technology and youthful trendiness can breed pride if we're not careful. And pride is still pride, whether it is clothed in yesterday's neon polyester or today's jeans.

As ministry platforms grow larger, the potential for bigger egos grows more dangerous. Let's all take the humility test. We need less swag and more brokenness in the pulpit. Let's remember these basic biblical principles as we choose who to follow:

Christians should never worship preachers. Paul rebuked the people of Lystra when they called him and his companion Barnabas gods. Paul told the people: "We are also men of the same nature as you" (Acts 14:15b, NASB). True ministers of God will not allow their followers to place them on pedestals. Paul knew his proper role was to take the lowest seat, as a bondservant of Christ Jesus (see Phil. 1:1). He also knew that ministers must never allow flattery or adoration to inflate their egos.
Preachers must know who they are and who they aren't. When people spread a rumor that John the Baptist was the Messiah, he corrected them and said: "I am not the Christ. ... He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:28, 30, MEV). Even some of the most gifted Christian communicators can be seduced by the power of technology—and by the roar of a crowd—so that they actually believe they are in an elite category. No! We are nothing and He is everything. We must get out of the way so people can see Jesus!

Leaders who have not crucified the lust for self-promotion can become infatuated with the big and the sensational. They can build big churches with bigger projection screens, yet their character cannot sustain the pressure of spiritual warfare that inevitably comes. An out-of-control ego becomes a monster.

Author Henry Blackaby said it this way: "Nothing is more pathetic than having a small character in a big assignment. Many of us don't want to give attention to our character; we just want the big assignment from God."

Ministry is best accomplished with a team, not a celebrity. Paul laid the foundations of the church in the Gentile world, but he always shared the spotlight with Timothy, Silas, Barnabas, Titus, Phoebe, Priscilla and other co-workers—who suffered in prison with him and faithfully preached alongside him. He didn't try to be five places at once; he trained people to take his place. And nobody on the team had swag!
It is becoming popular for large churches to open satellite campuses that offer video sermons from the same preacher. If this strategy is effectively reaching more converts, that's great. If preachers can do that and stay humble, keep it up. But let's be careful that we are not building ministry on one man's charisma.

Our ultimate goal should be for a whole new generation of people to be trained and empowered to serve, not for one man to build a show around his gift. And certainly not around his expensive Air Jordans.

City Harvest appeal: Ruling may have serious implications on corruption cases, says Shanmugam

Court's decision to cut jail terms could have impact on other corruption cases

NEED TO TAKE TOUGH STANCE

From the Government's point of view, this legal reasoning has serious implications in other cases, including corruption cases, (and) our zero-tolerance approach for the future and we will have to consider as a matter of policy what other steps to take because we cannot relax our stand on that... We will have to make sure that the position is as strict as we have always maintained it. So I've asked AGC to advise whether we need to do anything.

LAW MINISTER K. SHANMUGAM, on the appeal verdict's serious implications. City Harvest Appeal

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) is considering if it can take further steps in the City Harvest Church case, given that the decision to cut the jail terms of the six convicted could have serious implications for corruption cases, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.

"We will have to consider as a matter of policy what other steps to take because we cannot relax our stand on that," he said, referring to Singapore's zero-tolerance towards corruption.

A day earlier, all six church leaders in the largest case of misuse of charitable funds in Singapore's history had their sentences slashed by a three-judge panel in the High Court, despite the prosecution's appeal for longer jail terms.

Their original jail terms, ranging from 21 months to eight years, were cut, in some cases by over half. The 52-year-old church founder Kong Hee, for instance, had his eight-year term cut to 31/2 years, while former fund manager Chew Eng Han, 56, had his six years reduced to three years and four months.

A critical reason for the High Court's decision was the ruling that directors are not agents under the more serious Section 409 of the Penal Code dealing with criminal breach of trust. The bench majority replaced the offence with basic criminal breach of trust, resulting in lighter sentences.

Referring to this legal point, Mr Shanmugam said it has serious implications for other cases, including corruption cases in which company directors are taking bribes.

But he sounded a note of caution, saying people can disagree with the court but they should be careful about "casting improper ulterior motives" on the judgments.

"The reasoning is there, they set it out, we agree, disagree, and from a Government point of view, if we disagree, then we always consider what we do. If necessary, we legislate through Parliament," he added.

In November 2015, the church leaders were found guilty of channelling $24 million in church funds into sham bonds in music production company Xtron and glass- maker Firna, then using another $26 million to cover up the misdeed.

The church had said the money was used to fund the singing career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, as part of what it described as a church mission to evangelise through her music.

All six appealed against their convictions and sentences, while the AGC appealed against the sentences for being too low. Mr Shanmugam said the Government agreed with the AGC's push for longer jail terms.

Referring to the four judges - three High Court judges and one State Court judge - who heard the case in total, Mr Shanmugam said two judges had thought "either the sentences should be as they are or higher". Justice Chan Seng Onn, in differing from Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justice Woo Bih Li, had said in his dissenting judgment that there were elements of benefit to Kong and his wife, and also permanent financial loss to the church.

The appeal judgment had commented on how the prosecution had not focused on whether any third parties had reaped gains from the church leaders' actions, even though this may have been suggested in the charges.

This point was not raised in the prosecution's written submissions for the appeal or at the trial.

As a result, the court had approached the sentencing in this case "as one without any element of wrongful gain or personal financial benefit, either direct or indirect", said the oral judgment.

Mr Shanmugam said he has "noted the court's comments on the way the matter was handled by the prosecution", and has asked Attorney-General Lucien Wong and his deputies to look into the matter.

Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore president Sunil Sudheesan told The Sunday Times the AGC could go to the Court of Appeal "to clarify section 409 once and for all". This must be done within a month of the High Court's decision.

Lawyer Lau Kah Hee said if the apex court takes a different view on the legal question, it could then decide on suitable sentences or send the case back for resentencing.

City Harvest appeal: Leaders lied for sake of Church, not personal gain

SINGAPORE - They were not motivated by personal gain and they thought they were acting in the best interests of City Harvest Church (CHC).

Ultimately, the church leaders believed that their actions would advance the Crossover Project, a church mission to spread the gospel through pop music, which was found to be generally supported by the congregation.

These were the "exceptional" mitigating factors considered by a three-judge panel, in reducing the jail terms for the six convicted CHC leaders on Friday (April 7).

The six, who had appealed against their conviction and sentences, were given reduced jail terms raging from seven months to three years and six months.

In a 304-page written judgment, the judges noted that the case should not be seen as a "sinister and malicious attempt" by the six to use the church's funds for their own purposes, despite the huge sum of about $50 million involved.

Rather, they had "resorted to deceit and lies", such as hiding the truth of their transactions from auditors and lawyers, because they wanted to keep the use of the church's monies for the Crossover Project confidential. They had also feared that questions would be asked.

"Their fault lies in adopting the wrong means," the judges said.

The prosecution, in calling for stiffer sentences, had earlier stressed on the misappropriation of charity funds as among the key aggravating factors.

But the court, in the written judgment, clarified that while CHC is a charity organisation, it is not a charity that is also an Institution of Public Character (IPC).

This means that donations to the church are not tax-deductible.

Thus, unlike funds that are held by IPCs, such as the National Kidney Foundation, donations to church funds "are invariably made by its members for the benefit of the church" and do not serve the community as a whole.

In addition, while the six had been "reckless" with the funds, the court accepted that had no intention to cause permanent financial loss to the church.

"The appellants had, at all times, intended for the funds ... to be eventually returned to CHC with the stated interest even if they might not have been entirely sure as to how or when they could do so at the time when they entered into the transactions," the judges said.

In meting out the harshest sentence among the six to Kong, the judges agreed that he was the "ultimate leader" of the Crossover Project and gave the overall direction and moral assurance to the five others.

He was also one of the main players - if not the main one - who had directed and influenced the others to using the church's Building Fund to purchase sham bonds, even if he did not directly participate in redeeming them.

Touching on the issue of personal gain, the judges said: "While the Prosecution did, in its oral submissions before us, attempt to make the point that a benefit had accrued to Kong Hee's wife, Sun Ho, this point was not raised in its written submissions for the appeal." The issue of personal benefit was, therefore, not factored into the sentencing.

The judges also disagreed with the prosecution that former CHC finance committee manager John Lam, 49, was an "inside man" integral to the success of the conspiracy.

Instead, the judges found Lam's involvement to be "relatively limited" and "only at some junctures", thus sentencing him one year and six months, down from three years.

Former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 56, had "employed his wits and financial expertise to mask the reality of the transactions", even though he was not a spiritual leader of the church.

As he had been the person trusted in all financial matters, the court handed him a jail term of three years and four months, down from six years.

CHC deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 49, was jailed three years and two months. This was a reduction from his orignal sentence of five years and six months.

While he was a spiritual leader in church, the judges accepted that he did not have the trust and authority that Kong had.

Finally, the judges found that former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 40, and Sharon Tan, 41, were less culpable as they were not leaders in church.

Wee was an "administrator" helping out with accounts and documentation. She received two years and six months' jail, down from the five years that was previously given.

As for Tan, who took over the role from Wee, the judges agreed that she was "only an employee" and was merely carrying out instructions by the decision-makers in the church. She was given the lowest sentence of seven months, instead of 21 months previously.

Kong Hee asks church to fulfil building fund

City Harvest appeal verdict: Six church leaders get reduced jail terms, Kong Hee gets 3.5 years

SINGAPORE - A three-judge panel on Friday morning (April 7) reduced the jail sentences for all six City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders who were convicted of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts in a high-profile case involving the misuse of millions of dollars of church money.

Church founder Kong Hee. 52, who was  handed an eight-year jail term in November 2015, will spend 3½ years behind bars.

The other five - deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 44; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 40, and Sharon Tan, 41; former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 49; and former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 56 - also  had their jail terms reduced after the court, in a split decision, allowed their appeals against conviction and found them guilty of a less serious charge of criminal breach of trust.

The six were found guilty in 2015 after a marathon 142-day trial that started in 2013.

Judge See Kee Oon’s assessment over City Harvest Church case

All of the CHC six were found guilty of all charges in court on 21st Oct 2015 .



Judge See Kee Oon has published material explaining his judgments and findings.



IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

(1) Lam Leng Hung
(2) Kong Hee
(3) Tan Shao Yuen Sharon
(4) Chew Eng Han
(5) Tan Ye Peng
(6) Serina Wee Gek Yin

ORAL JUDGMENT

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V
LAM LENG HUNG & 5 ORS

State Courts — District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon

21 Oct 2015 Judgment reserved.

Presiding Judge See Kee Oon:

Overview

1 This was a 140-day trial involving 43 charges against the 6 accused persons. They were tried primarily on charges of conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) by dishonestly misappropriating funds belonging to City Harvest Church (“CHC”) that had been entrusted to one or more of them. There are two broad groups of charges involving CBT. The first group comprises the first to third charges and pertains to what have been referred to in the course of the trial as the “sham bond investments”. The second group comprises the fourth to sixth charges, pertaining to what has been termed “round-tripping”. A third group of charges, the seventh to tenth, concerns falsification of accounts in CHC’s books relating to the “round-tripping” transactions.

2 I do not propose to set out the evidence as it is lengthy and voluminous. It suffices to note that the main background facts are largely undisputed or uncontroversial. I will set out my findings in relation to the elements of the offence of CBT first, leaving aside the issue of the mens rea of dishonesty. I will then focus primarily on the extent of the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the plans to use funds belonging to CHC for the Crossover Project (“the Crossover”) and on whether their conduct in the circumstances shows that they had acted with dishonest intent.

Criminal breach of trust – elements

3 In relation to the elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust by an agent, leaving aside the mens rea element, I shall state my conclusions briefly. First, I am satisfied that Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng (“Ye Peng”) and John Lam Leng Hung (“John Lam”) were, as members of CHC’s management board, each entrusted with dominion over CHC’s funds, whether in the Building Fund (“BF”) or the General Fund. Second, I am bound to hold that they were entrusted with such dominion in the way of their business as agents because, being board members, they were so entrusted in their capacities as agents of CHC. Third, I am satisfied that the various plans to use CHC’s funds amounted to putting these funds to unauthorised or wrong use.

“Wrong use” of CHC’s funds

4 The BF was a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or investments for financial return. I find that the Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were a wrong use of the BF. I find also that Tranches 10 and 11 of the Special Opportunities Fund (“SOF”) were not genuine investments but were transactions designed to create the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. I find, finally, that the payment under the Advance Rental Licence Agreement (“ARLA”) was not abuilding-related expense but was a transaction designed to perpetuate the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. They were therefore all wrong uses of CHC’s funds.

5 I turn next to the accused persons’ involvement and knowledge in the various plans to use CHC’s funds.

Funding the Crossover – being discreet

6 The accused persons understood that Kong Hee’s preference to be discreet about the funding for the Crossover was for the sake of ensuring the success of the Crossover, but being discreet was also synonymous with non-disclosure and mis-statements. Kong Hee had explained that it was his preference to avoid disclosure of CHC’s involvement in Xtron to avoid any misconception that Sun Ho’s secular music career was “not real” and that CHC was (still) using its money to promote her career. But in relation to both aspects, the evidence shows that it was true that her perceived success was inflated from rather more modest levels and Xtron and the Crossover team had to rely heavily on sponsorship from CHC members or supporters to help prop up her album sales and promote her career. When these sources of financial support which did not directly flow from CHC were insufficient, they had to come up with other means.

Xtron bonds

7 Xtron was CHC’s special purpose vehicle for the Crossover, and for this purpose Xtron was clearly under CHC’s control and not independent. The plan formulated in 2007 was that CHC’s funds, specifically funds from the BF, would be channelled through Xtron to be used for the Crossover, and the use of the funds was controlled entirely by Kong Hee and his team. In truth, this was analogous to an elaborate extension of a pattern of financial assistance via “sponsorship”, lending or prepayment to Xtron that had already either been taking place or been contemplated prior to 2007. These were seen as short-term measures to put Xtron in funds and support the Crossover. The mindset was thus that the Xtron bond issues were only yet another “temporary plan” albeit one which involved borrowing from CHC’s BF, and hoping that the funds would somehow find their way back to CHC at some unspecified future point.

8 Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han (“Eng Han”) and Serina Wee (“Serina”) each clearly played a substantial role in conceiving and executing this plan to channel CHC’s BF 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 BF 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.

9 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. Serina readily conceded that Sun Ho’s Asian Crossover albums all made losses and Xtron had thus incurred substantial accumulated net losses. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and John Lam also knew that CHC was involved in propping up her Mandarin album sales. I am unable to see how there can be any genuine or honest grounds for their claims that they expected far higher sales for her planned US album well in excess of the projection of 200,000 units. This was no more than an optimistic hope. It was definitely not a realistic expectation. All this strongly militates against their claims that the Xtron bonds were motivated by the realistic prospect of financial return and were genuine investments.

10 Further, the accused persons were all involved in making plans to put Xtron in funds to redeem the bonds. They knew that these plans would involve CHC paying money to Xtron under the guise of legitimate transactions, when in fact the real concern was Xtron’s cashflow difficulties and the purported transactions were mere excuses for CHC to channel money to Xtron. Thus they knew that there was a strong possibility that the apparent financial return under the Xtron bonds would come from CHC itself. This knowledge further undermines their claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment.

11 In addition, the accused persons hid or obscured material information from others. Eng Han and John Lam kept the truth about the Xtron bonds from Charlie Lay. All of them at various times gave the auditors the impression that CHC and Xtron were independent of each other, when they knew that Kong Hee in fact made all decisions on Xtron’s behalf in relation to the Crossover without reference to the Xtron directors, who were mere figureheads. The auditors were not told that Xtron was in fact controlled by Kong Hee and Ye Peng and that they together with their co-accused would exercise control over the use of the bond proceeds. There is no doubt that they knew that they had something to hide.

12 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the accused persons knew that the Xtron bonds were conceived first and foremost to support the Crossover and not for financial return. The prospect of any financial return was a secondary consideration at best and even then I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho’s music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return. They knew that any financial return to CHC might be illusory in the sense that it was CHC’s own money that might need to be channelled to Xtron to redeem the bonds. Given their knowledge, I cannot accept their claims that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment. Accordingly, they caused CHC to subscribe to $13 million in Xtron bonds knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so. Thus they acted dishonestly, and I find that the first and second charges have been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

Firna bonds

13 In respect of the Firna bonds, the accused persons all knew that the primary purpose of the bonds was also to channel money from CHC’s BF to the Crossover. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and Serina knew that they, and not Wahju, were the ones controlling the Firna bond proceeds and deciding how the proceeds should be applied towards the Crossover. Yet they took the inaccurate position that Wahju was somehow “independently” supporting the Crossover using his “personal monies”, and this was what they told the auditors and lawyers. They knew that the financial return under the Firna bonds would not come from the profits of Firna’s glass factory business but depended entirely on the success of the Crossover. If the revenue from Sun Ho’s albums was not adequate, they would find alternative sources of funds for Firna, and that might include channelling CHC’s own money into Firna through various means. Given this knowledge, I do not think Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina could have believed that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, and so they could not have believed that the bonds were a genuine investment.

14 John Lam was further removed from the Firna bonds than the other accused persons. But he signed the “secret letter” that secured the signature of Wahju’s father-in-law on the Firna BSA. I am satisfied that he knew that the prospect of financial return for CHC did not depend on the success of Firna’s glass factory business. He knew that it was a very real possibility that the Crossover would not be profitable. Thus I find that he too did not believe that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, meaning that he did not think the bonds were a genuine investment.

15 Therefore, in causing CHC to subscribe to $11 million in Firna bonds, the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to do so. They thus acted dishonestly. As such, I find that the third charge has been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

16 At the centre of the first to third charges is how the BF came to be applied for the Crossover when it was a restricted fund for specific purposes – either for building or investment. In my judgment, the Crossover was not one of these purposes. It was not an investment since by their own characterisation, it was meant to serve a “missions” purpose all along. I am not convinced that there was any “mixed motive”, “dual purpose” or “hybrid” intent behind the use of the BF. These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word “investment”. They were plainly fabricated in an attempt to justify their past conduct and misuse of the BF. I do not see how they can be said to have acted in good faith in relation to the charges they face.

17 The accused persons have of course pointed to the fact that the money did come back to CHC with interest. However, this is patently due to their efforts to put Xtron, Firna and AMAC in funds to facilitate these repayments through the round-tripping transactions. It does not confirm that there was any actual intention at the outset to invest for the purpose of maximising returns. What is more telling is that it was consistently represented to CHC’s Executive Members that investing the BF in this fashion was meant to maximise returns. There was no mention at all that the investment was in the Crossover, let alone that it was for “spiritual returns” or for both spiritual and financial return from the Crossover. The failure to mention those facts buttresses my conclusion that the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into the Xtron and Firna bonds.

Round-tripping and falsification of accounts

18 As revealed by the evidence adduced at trial, there was never any financial “return” derived from any of Xtron’s and Firna’s Crossover-related activities. Instead, when the time came to deal with the auditors’ queries and to address Sim Guan Seng’s concerns, they resorted to removing more funds from the BF and also the General Fund under the pretext of making further “investments” into Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF and purportedly for a building purchase by Xtron through the ARLA. The round-tripping transactions were crafted to create the appearance that these were genuine transactions involving the redemption of bonds when they were not. They were not genuine transactions because the accused persons controlled these transactions every step of the way, and the substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself.

19 Given that Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon Tan (“Sharon”) were fully aware of the whole series of transactions, they could not have believed that Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF were genuine investments, or that the payment under ARLA was a building-related expense. They say that they viewed all this as “restructuring”, but that to my mind is fundamentally inconsistent with a belief that the transactions were genuine investments or building-related expenses, and this inability to provide a coherent explanation for their conduct strongly suggests that they knew they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into these transactions. They may have apprised the CHC board of an earlier version of the transactions, but they kept that knowledge from the lawyers and the auditors. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the fourth to sixth charges have been made out against them.

20 I am also satisfied that there was falsification of CHC’s accounts following from the attempts to disguise the SOF and ARLA transactions as genuine transactions. In relation to the ninth charge, the accounting entry recording a redemption of Xtron bonds in the form of a set-off against advance rental was false, because it was not a case of CHC and Xtron making independent decisions to pay advance rental on one hand and redeem bonds on the other. I find that the accused persons knew that false accounting entries would have to be made pursuant to their plan to create the appearance of redemption of bonds, and hence I find that they each had intent to defraud. I am therefore satisfied that the seventh to tenth charges have been made out against Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon.

Objective evidence and inferences

21 I note that there was an extensive record which comprised an elaborate patchwork of emails, Blackberry messages, phone SMSs, hard copy documents and numerous other documented exchanges in some form or other. The fact that there was a mass of available evidence which when woven together amounted to a paper trail is not necessarily indicative of innocence. In my view insofar as much of it was incriminating, it is more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness, demonstrating that the accused persons were overconfident in their belief that they could replace the funds in time before suspicions were aroused.

22 The case against the accused persons depended heavily on inferences to be drawn from the objective evidence. Much of these inferences can be readily drawn as the tenor and language in the communications adduced at trial strongly point to their dishonest intent. In short, the documentary evidence goes a long way in demonstrating their subjectively guilty knowledge. I am not convinced that they have raised any reasonable doubt in this regard.

23 I find that the accused persons were variously inextricably entangled in two conspiracies to misuse CHC’s funds. One conspiracy consisted of misusing BF monies for the Crossover, and the other involved misusing CHC’s funds, a substantial portion of which comprised BF monies, to create the appearance of bond redemptions and to defraud the auditors via falsified accounts through the various roles they played. Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery. Although there are distinctions in their respective levels of knowledge and participation, I am unable to discern any rational basis to exclude any of them from being implicated and characterised as conspirators.

Beliefs, motives and mindsets

24 Much of the defence centred on the beliefs and motivations of the accused persons. If it can be shown that they genuinely, honestly and reasonably held the view that what they were doing was legitimate in the sense that they were legally entitled to do it, and they went ahead to act in good faith as a result, I think there may well be room for doubt as to whether they had acted dishonestly. The weight of the evidence however points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise.

25 Where professional advice was sought, this was really mainly an attempt to seek out self-supporting confirmatory advice based on selectively-
disclosed information. They omitted mention of the crucial fact that CHC remained in control of Xtron and would correspondingly control the use of the funds. They provided leading questions for belief confirmation and support from only those advisors whom they trusted to support the Crossover vision and were quick to reject or filter out any disconfirming information.

26 The accused persons chose to support the Crossover vision and to act and participate in acts in support of it. The Crossover became a comprehensive logic for justifying their beliefs and actions, and for doing whatever was expedient for its advancement. The pervasive mindset seemed to be one of short-term expediency; the use of means involving dubious methods was worth the risk to them if there was some hope of longer-term gain.

Conclusion

27 In their defence, all the accused persons testified largely to the same effect: they love CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC. They consulted and cleared their proposals with their lawyers, the auditors and the CHC Board. They were motivated by CHC’s cultural mandate and they believed in the Crossover vision. They pointed to pure motives and a justifiable purpose in the use of CHC’s funds. Ultimately the funds which were removed were for Church purposes and were returned to CHC.

28 The crux of their defence was that there was no conspiracy and no dishonesty. All six would never intend to cause harm or loss to CHC and the ultimate objectives were in furtherance of the Great Commission. It may be arguable that all of them thought they were not acting dishonestly to cause wrongful loss since no permanent loss was intended, but this was premised on their unquestioning trust and belief in Kong Hee and their confidence that the Crossover would succeed. Thus they convinced themselves that it was both morally and legally permissible to temporarily use the money from CHC’s funds when they knew it was not.

29 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.

30 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.

31 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. In my judgment all the elements of the relevant offences have indeed been made out. Accordingly, the accused persons stand convicted as follows:

(a) John Lam is convicted on the first to third charges;

(b) Kong Hee is convicted on the first to third charges;

(c) Sharon is convicted on the fourth to tenth charges;

(d) Eng Han is convicted on the first to tenth charges;

(e) Ye Peng is convicted on the first to tenth charges; and

(f) Serina is convicted on the first to tenth charges.

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3A-00dAvijTNXAyaGEyLUtZdW8/view?pli=1. (Accessed 23/10/2015.)

Why Team Ministry Is Better Than a One-Man Show

by J. Lee Grady


Last week I served alongside a team of pastors at a ministry school in Debrecen, Hungary, a city I've visited four times. Even though I don't speak Hungarian (it's one of the most difficult languages on the planet), I had a blast working with my friends Zsolt, Eugene, István, Pál and Attila. We shared meals, worshiped and prayed together and opened our hearts on a deep level—with the help of my interpreter and, on a few occasions, the Google Translate program on my phone.

Nobody tried to be the star as we shared teaching slots during the week. We preferred each other and encouraged each other. And we laughed a lot because we really enjoyed each other's company. Every leader contributed his part—and in the end the students were blessed that their teachers flowed in harmony.

Teamwork is an essential part of God's plan for ministry. In both the Old and New Testaments, we see teams of people working side-by-side to further His kingdom. Moses shared leadership with Aaron and Miriam (see Micah 4:6) and David had a group of "mighty men" who performed valiant deeds under his command. Solomon appointed a team to serve as his deputies, Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem with teams of workers, and Esther's maidens prayed and fasted with her before she saved Israel from genocide.

Jesus loves teams. He gathered a group of hand-picked disciples and then sent them out to minister in pairs (Luke 10:1). He involved them in feeding the multitudes and healing sick people. In the same way, the apostle Paul never traveled anywhere alone, and he always credited the people who helped him. His love for Timothy, Phoebe, Luke, Silvanus, Titus, Priscilla and other team players is an obvious backdrop in his epistles.

So if teamwork is so essential to Christianity, why do we prefer the celebrity model of ministry today? Here are five clear reasons that teamwork is a better approach:

1. Teamwork accomplishes more. Anybody who has ever chopped down a tree with an axe or painted a house knows the job gets done quicker and easier when more people are working. Ecclesiastes 4:9 says: "Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor." Ministry leaders are compared to oxen in the Bible, and Jesus said He would place a "yoke" on us when we are called to ministry (see Matt. 11:29). A yoke connects a team of oxen. Jesus never referred to his followers as renegade stallions who run off on their own. He called us to be yoked together with others. You will not achieve as much if you insist on doing everything yourself.

2. Teamwork unlocks people's potential. In a one-man show, a leader performs the up-front job, a few overworked people help in the background, and the crowd watches. Religious spectators are trained to sit—as if they have nothing useful to contribute. Yet the New Testament tells us the Holy Spirit gives every believer certain gifts, and we all are to use these gifts for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7, 11).

In today's megachurch culture, the celebrity pastor looms large on the big screen, and he may even broadcast his message to several satellite congregations. This might effectively reach some people for Jesus, and it might be a short-term solution for growth, but does it encourage every church member to discover his or her potential? The best leaders know how to involve lots of people to reach God's goal.

3. Teamwork encourages healthy relationships. It's easier to do ministry alone. But you will never grow if you do a solo act. When you are part of a team you must deal with competitive attitudes, jealousy, pride, complaints and hurt feelings. This is exactly why Jesus wants us to work together! You will never confront the flaws in your character unless you work with others. They will expose your selfishness, and you will expose theirs. Proverbs 27:17 says: "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." God will use Brother Bothersome and Sister Sandpaper in your life to make you more loving—and more humble!

4. Teamwork prevents scandals. Years ago after televangelist Jim Bakker was released from prison, he admitted that he had surrounded himself with yes men who didn't have the courage to tell him he was making unethical business decisions. Leaders with a one-man-show mentality are in danger of doing incredibly stupid things because they lack accountability. Team ministry encourages transparency, and senior leaders recognize the value of getting honest feedback from their colleagues. You will fail as a leader if you don't have wise counselors who have access to you. Surround yourself with team players and ask them to point out your blind spots!

5. Teamwork keeps us from idolizing men. A well-known pastor in Nigeria was known to record his sermon each week and then send tapes of his message to his pastors throughout the country. The pastors were then expected to stand in their pulpits the following Sunday, play the recorded sermon ... and move their mouths to the words! They had no message of their own. They were simply clones of the "All-Important Man of God."

That may sound silly, but aren't we guilty of similar foolishness when we put leaders on pedestals and idolize their preaching style? The one-man show may have worked in the past, but the emerging generation has zero tolerance for religious phoniness. People today want healthy leaders who know how to share power instead of grabbing or abusing it.

J. Lee Grady is the former editor of Charisma. You can follow him on Twitter at leegrady. He is the author of The Holy Spirit Is Not for Sale and other books.

City Harvest Church leaders tried to "bamboozle" auditor: Prosecution

By Alice Chia : 25 Sep 2014 Channel NewsAsia

Messages between church leaders Sharon Tan and Chew Eng Han were cited by prosecutors as proof that they tried to not let the church's auditor find out that church funds were used to redeem Firna bonds.

• APTION 

SINGAPORE: At the City Harvest Church trial on Thursday (Sep 25), the prosecution said finance manager Sharon Tan was not the "innocent follower" that she tried to paint herself as, when it came to plans to use church funds to redeem sham bonds.

Tan was taking the stand for the tenth day. She is one of six church leaders who are accused of using millions of dollars from the church's building fund to buy sham bonds in two companies, Firna and Xtron.

Lead prosecutor for the case, Mavis Chionh, showed the court messages between Tan and co-accused Chew Eng Han, in which Tan proposed using a third party to redeem the Firna bonds. She had proposed using Pacific Radiance, a company linked to member John Lam who is one of those on trial.

In one message, Tan said that even if church auditor Mr Sim Guan Seng suspected that church monies were used to redeem the bonds, "he can't fault or pinpoint". The prosecution accused Tan and Chew of trying to "bamboozle" Mr Sim and not let him find out that church funds were used to redeem the Firna bonds.

Tan disagreed and said that she was worried about "disclosure" as she had the understanding that the drawdown from the Firna bonds would be used to support the Crossover Project, which involved church co-founder Sun Ho recording and launching secular music albums.

The prosecution also showed a chart drawn by Chew during a meeting on Sep 29, 2008, with co-accused Serina Wee and Tan. The chart illustrated the flow of funds and transactions for the redemption of Xtron and Firna bonds. After the meeting, Tan updated deputy senior pastor and co-accused Tan Ye Peng about the plans.

It is the prosecution's case that these were not genuine investments and that the four accused were planning to use church funds to redeem the Firna bonds by roundtripping the funds in a series of transactions.

For example, in one chain of transactions, the church would invest S$11.4 million in a Special Opportunities Fund by investment company AMAC Capital Partners (AMAC), which has Chew as its sole director.

AMAC would then loan the amount to Ultimate Assets, a company owned by Indonesian businessman and church member Wahju Hanafi. Ultimate Assets would in turn loan the amount to Firna, which would use the money to redeem the bonds.

- CNA/xy

CHC - E-mail with :) under the spotlight (Emoticon would not be sent if there was a conspiracy, says accused)

BY FENG ZENGKUN  September 19, 2014



A smiley face emoticon which one accused e-mailed another came under the spotlight in the City Harvest Church trial yesterday.

Former church fund manager Chew Eng Han said the icon, which was sent to him by church finance manager Sharon Tan, showed that he and his alleged co-conspirators did not believe they were doing anything illegal.

"Sharon, you and I have been charged for conspiring to defraud the auditors," Chew told Tan, who turns 39 today.

"If we were really conspiring, would you put a smiley face (in the e-mail), unless you are a seasoned conspirator?"

Tan, who had inserted the icon at the end of a series of e-mail messages discussing what to tell church auditors about various church-financed investments, replied: "No."

Tan, Chew, church founder Kong Hee and three others face charges for their part in allegedly misusing some $50 million of church funds for the secular music career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, and then covering it up.

Chew, who is representing himself, yesterday used his chance to cross-examine Tan to refute the prosecution's allegation that his fund management firm AMAC Capital Partners was nothing more than a shell set up to funnel church funds illegally into Ms Ho's career.

AMAC had helped the church buy $13 million worth of bonds issued by Xtron, the company that managed Ms Ho's singing career. The bonds, allege the prosecution, were "sham".

In one e-mail, Chew instructed Tan to keep details of various AMAC investments financed by the church from auditors, since there was no legal obligation to disclose the information.

He told the court yesterday that he did so because "some of the loans that were made to shareholders of listed companies were sensitive information".

"We were not trying to make the job difficult for the auditor," he said.

He also pointed out how AMAC, through investments unrelated to Xtron, had also made "serious money" for the church, with one deal reaping $703,500.

Tan simply nodded or said yes to most of Chew's assertions, a stark contrast to her demeanour earlier in the day.

Having broken down on Wednesday as the day's hearing drew to a close, she was again in tears yesterday when describing her long relationship with the church, which she insisted precluded her from doing anything to harm the organisation.

She told the court how she had joined City Harvest when she was 15, then worked there for more than a decade and married a cell group leader. Now, her three children are members.

"This is my first and only church. Everything that is me right now I learnt from this church," she cried. "I never had the intention to cause any loss to the church. Never."

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/chc-funds-case/story/e-mail-under-the-spotlight-20140919#sthash.OEkZAHTO.dpuf

City Harvest trial: Finance manager concedes her action may have deceived auditors

BY IAN POH  26 September 2014



SINGAPORE - City Harvest Church finance manager Sharon Tan broke down on the stand on Friday, even as she conceded that information she had inserted into church board meeting minutes may have deceived auditors.

Choking up under cross-examination by Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh, the 39-year-old said: "Your honour, it might be seen like they are being deceived, but... it wasn't my intention."

Tan had inserted information into the document, dated Sept 12, 2009, that the board had approved "advance rental" payments to music production firm Xtron of $7 million per year for eight years - part of a plan to purge bonds held in the firm from the church's books.

The court heard that the information was false, as no such approval was received from the board on that day.

Tan is one of six people, including founding pastor Kong Hee, accused of misusing $50 million of church funds to boost the music career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, and covering up the misuse. The prosecution believes that all of the accused, except Tan, channelled money from the church's building fund into sham bond investments in Xtron, which is Ms Ho's management company, and glass manufacturer Firna. Four of them, including Tan, then allegedly devised transactions to clear the sham bonds from CHC's accounts to throw auditors off the scent.

Friday's hearing has centred on the church's book-keeping, with Tan taking the stand for the tenth day. This is the third time she has broken down on the stand.

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/chc-funds-case/story/city-harvest-trial-finance-manager-concedes-her-action-may-have-d#sthash.xgmnDDOF.dpuf

Beware of Superstar, Self-Appointed Church Personalities

BERT M. FARIAS



Are these popular ministerial personalities great in the sight of the Lord or only in the sight of man? Are they really known in heaven or only on the Earth? Are they God-anointed or self-appointed? Is it ministry they deliver or some subtle form of hype?

"Many who are great in the sight of the Lord are living in cottages and hovels, and are scarcely known, unless to a few neighbors equally obscure," said William Jay.

Believers, especially Christian ministers, need a baptism of clear seeing and holy discerning. Our ministry marketing budget may be soaring high, but our perception can sometimes be so low. Our motives need refinement. The refiner's fire is near the door. Will you open it? Can you see the narrow way to holiness? Or is all the smoke blocking your view?

Before me now I see the impression I saw months ago. There are two scenes. One is of a clear and sunny horizon lined with an endless row of people. The other is of a vast forest. Dense fog covers the forest, and out of the fog comes the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ, for the most part, is not found among the general populace. People have to really look to recognize Him.

Think about it. Our Savior was not born in a big metropolis, but in the small town of Bethlehem. And He grew up in the despised region of Galilee. He was not born in a palace where kings are, but in a lowly stable. The wise men had to really search and diligently follow the star to find Him. When Jesus entered into ministry, it is written that He had no place to lay His head (Luke 9:58). He did not have a ministry headquarters. He died a criminal's death on a cross, naked and nearly alone. His grave was a borrowed tomb. His throne was an invisible one hidden from the multitudes of those who were healed and delivered through His ministry. He was called meek and lowly; certainly not the description fitting for a king. But today, ministry is so different.

A church brings in a special speaker. He's known all over, so the people flock to hear him. They come from everywhere, every night. At the meetings they jump, sing and shout. They hear the newest revelation proclaimed with jubilation. The people are saying of the special speaker:

He's on TV,
I love his personality.
His ministry is so big,
His clothes I really dig.
He's so wonderful!
And his wife looks so smart,
Her latest hit song
Is at the top of the chart.
Oh, I love to hear him speak,
And I hate to see him go.
Maybe he'll stay another week,
Or speak again on his daily show.

The same church brings in a name unknown. The people stay away by the droves. A few faithful gather to hear the Word of God. They long for holiness and a vision of Jesus. With a broken heart, the little "no-name" preacher weeps for lost souls as he delivers a word from God.

The big personality was sent by man. The little "no-name" was sent by God. The crowds who came from miles away came to hear a man. The smaller group came seeking Jesus. One set of meetings produced much excitement but no fruit of holiness. The other smaller meetings generated far less excitement but resulted in a brokenness and a lasting work of holiness in those who came. This may seem like an extreme example, but it makes the point.

Just because someone or something is big doesn't mean it's godly (and it is also understood that bigness is not tantamount to ungodliness either). In fact, it's a greater test of our devotion to be big (whatever "big" means to us) and yet remain holy, than it is to be small (whatever "small" means to us) and holy. And let's not forget that smallness is not equivalent to godliness either. Discerning the difference between hype and holiness is what's important. But we are so often fooled by the "big" while being unaware and undiscerning of the "small."

Holiness is not only sought but bought: "Buy of Me gold tried in the fire that you may be rich" (Rev 3:17). Have you been tried in the fire? Have you tested your teachings? Have you experienced and even suffered for the truth you believe? Truth is to be bought, not sold. We sell the truth when we sell our souls to pleasure, profit and earthly popularity. We buy the truth when we are tried and found true, when we suffer with godly sorrow the pains of our personal Gethsemanes, and yet remain private about them. When we allow God to strip us of all glory-seeking and subtle pride, we are buying the truth.

Too many today are selling messages they never bought. When we minister forth from what we've personally experienced or suffered, the Spirit will produce a far greater effect of holiness in the hearers. The deeper the suffering is—or has been—usually the more perfect the obedience. The more fiery the trials, and the deeper the burning, the purer and richer the vessel becomes.

This is what we must understand: God's measuring gauge and standard of holiness is so different from man's. Bigness and smallness are terms not found in Christ. Here is the criterion for holiness: Is Christ made visible? Is He seen and heard? Is the ministration of Christ being imparted? Is His Word being made manifest? Are the people changed more into His likeness? Is it producing a spirit of holiness and an increase in the fruits of righteousness? Are they paying less credence to men and personalities and reverencing God?

The problem with today's generation is that we elevate the teachings of popular Christian teachers and we have a tendency to place greater value on them than the Scriptures. We elevate their charisma, their eloquence, their humor and wit, their style, and even their cuteness and good looks. We even sow our finances into the same.

Beware of hype. Beware of those who glory in appearance void of substance. Beware of emotional excitement that lacks depth. Beware of hypnotic smoke with no holy fire.

Hype fakes the happening while delaying true holiness. Hype is infinitely more dangerous than we can ever imagine, because it lies to us and tells us that something great is happening, when in fact, very little is going on.

Bert M. Farias, revivalist and founder of Holy Fire Ministries, is the author of several books, including the newly released My Son, My Son, which he co-wrote with his son Daniel for the purpose of training up a holy generation. He is also co-host of the New England Holy Ghost Forum, a school of the Spirit. Follow him at Bert Farias on Facebook or at @Bertfarias1 on Twitter.

CITY HARVEST CHURCH trial – Sun Ho was pissed off by online bloggers

TR EMERITUS

Dear TRE,

For some reason the ST is under-reporting the CHC trial. Many key and interesting details are not revealed. Most of the details are found here : https://www.facebook.com/CHCConfessions?fref=ts


The most sensational day was yesterday and here’s the posting:

Summary for Kong Hee’s testimony on 18 Aug 2014

Mr Chew Eng Han (CEH) spent considerable time to query Kong Hee on the Irregularities surrounding the Multi-Purpose Account (MPA).

The unsuspecting donors to the MPA were 28 couples and a few individuals handpicked from the inner circle.

The donations were meant for evangelism through Sun’s concerts in Asia.

(Note : Our understanding is that the… donors’ list to MPA was later expanded to include 50 pastoral staff and other staff. They were told to tithe to a Man of God instead of the church or Building Fund)

CEH confronted Kong Hee and said he felt cheated by Kong Hee as Kong Hee presented a fake account on MPA in 2009.

CEH alleged that Kong Hee lied to the donors and proclaimed a lower figure collected than the actual amount donated.

CEH alleged that Kong Hee lied so that he could claim that the donations were not enough as Kong Hee urged the donors to give more.

Kong Hee countered that the amount he presented in 2009 was after paying Sun Ho $400,000 for royalties and salaries.

(In 2009, the average collection in MPA was $1.5mil-2mil.)

Kong Hee chided CEH that only CEH and his wife made an issue whereas other donors did not say they were disappointed.

Kong Hee further said it is CHC culture not to reveal details.

Kong insisted that MPA is meant not just for the purported crossover but also to cater for Kong Hee’s and Sun Ho’s livelihood.

Kong Hee also countered that MPA donors were the initiators on the donations and they were all willing donors.

CEH went on to show an email that CHC bought $1 million worth of Kong Hee’s products.

Kong Hee insisted that it was the board’s decision.

CEH went on to show evidence that Serina Wee used Hanafi’s company, (FIRNA) account to refund Kong and CEH sought to prove Kong engineered these financial transactions.

Kong insisted it was Wahju’s own initiative that he wanted to bless Kong Hee.

CEH said this is clearly another round-tripping which used CHC funds to purchase FIRNA bonds so as to channel funds to Kong Hee’s personal bank account.

Kong disagreed and said it was Wahju’s own initiative.

CEH then said the bonds are clean and it was what Kong Hee did with the money that made the bonds sham.

CEH wanted to show Kong Hee preached hard to get the money to pay for the penthouse at Sentosa Cove.

Kong Hee sought to show that he preached a lot on soliciting donations due to his love for mission work to reach out to the unsaved.

CEH rebutted that and said it was for Sentosa Cove and the evidence was in a 4.5hr recording.

CEH alleged that Kong Hee mentioned in the recording that he preached like “siao” because he needed to meet payments for the penthouse at Sentosa Cove.

(CEH wanted to use a 4.5 hour recording but the Judge stopped it as Edwin Tong and Tan Ye Peng’s lawyer objected to it repeatedly.)

CEH showed evidence that Serina Wee had Hanafi’s (FIRNA) bank account and Kong Hee had control on how to channel monies to Kong Hee’s personal bank account via FIRNA’s bank account.

Kong Hee denied and said he did not know how Serina Wee had access to Wahju’s company bank account.

But the email evidence showed Serina asking permission regarding some funds transfer via FIRNA to Kong Hee’s personal bank account.

Kong maintained that he was not sure why Serina Wee would have such access to Wajhu’s company’s bank account.

Edwin Tong objected as CEH moved on to show evidence that CHC KL was also used by Kong Hee for round tripping.

Kong insisted the refund via CHC KL was an independent action of CHC KL’s board.

CEH went on to talk about a confession letter where Jimmy Yim (the previous lawyer) wanted Kong Hee to take the rap.

Kong said he wanted to take the rap but didn’t in the end.

CEH insisted Kong Hee never had the intention to take the rap.

CEH also asked Kong Hee to present the confession letter.

CEH went on to ask about the CAD interview with Sun Ho and how Kong Hee lied that it was because of CAD investigations that Sun Ho could not continue with the release of the albums.

CEH said Sun Ho’s passport was returned back to her after they put up a bail of $500k with the court.

Kong insisted investigations by CAD was the reason they never continued the release of the albums.

The investigations gave them no morale to continue.

CEH went on to show evidence that Sun Ho knew that Xtron was bankrolled by CHC.

CEH showed emails that Sun Ho was in the loop.

Kong denied and said Sun Ho didn’t know.

CEH then showed the email but Kong Hee said Sun Ho might not have read.

(CEH said then I will ask her myself before the court…..)

CEH went on to ask if Kong gave to the Building Fund (BF) or gave tithes to CHC.

Kong replied he gave to MPA.

CEH asked if MPA was for his livelihood then how could he tithe to himself?

Kong said his tithe was used for crossover.

CEH asked Kong Hee that from 2005-2010 whether Kong Hee gave tithe to CHC or gave to Building Fund (BF).

Kong Hee said he gave to MPA, not tithe to CHC or Building Fund.

CEH then asked in year 2005-2010, there was one year where Kong went on stage and told the members that God spoke to him (Kong Hee) to up the donation amount and he instantly obeyed and changed the amount (on the cheque) on stage.

How come now Kong Hee say he never gave to the Building Fund?

CEH said Kong Hee was acting on stage.

Edwin Tong and Tan Ye Peng’s lawyer objected but the Judge ruled in favor of CEH and asked Kong Hee to answer the questions.

Kong said he never pledged any money at that moment but gave an offering, Edwin Tong objected on irrelevance…CEH insisted that what Kong Hee did on stage was an act because there is no record of Kong Hee’s pledge or offering (to the BF).

CEH moved on to say crossover is not church mission but Kong Hee’s and Sun Ho’s personal mission.

Kong insisted 2007,08,09 monies were needed for crossover So all his tithes and donations to building fund goes to MPA.

For crossover Kong Hee insisted that the money came from MPA and Kong Hee tithed to MPA.

CEH went on to say he didn’t have the same ulterior motives as Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng.

When CEH helped them, he genuinely believed it was God’s mission.

CEH went on to show that Kong Hee hired private investigators before the CAD raid in June 2010.

They hired private investigators in March 2010 and they found out all the bloggers’ n forumers’ identities.

CEH showed blackberry messages that Sun Ho said: “Can we shut the mouths of all these haters? Can we take legal action against them?”

CEH moved on to show emails he sent to Kong Hee and Sun Ho, asking them not to worry about the bloggers and the truth will show we are clean.

CEH was trying to show that his state of mind was that he genuinely believed in the crossover project as mooted by Kong Hee.

The blackberry messages showed Sun Ho was pissed off by the bloggers.

City Harvest, Singapore Megachurches Using Pop Culture, Mass Consumption Model for Growth

BY STOYAN ZAIMOV, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER

The rise of megachurches in Singapore has been documented in a new report that reveals how they are modeling the pop culture and mass consumption structure of society to achieve financial success.

"Mega churches have been able to articulate Christianity in a very contemporary manner," said Terence Chong, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in the report by Bloomberg News. "Being able to adopt the language of pop culture, mass consumption -- we think this appeals to the new middle class, people who are aspiring middle class."

Among several growing churches in Singapore, the report also highlights the rise of City Harvest Church, the non-denominational church founded by senior pastor Kong Hee, who is currently facing allegations of using donation money to further his wife's music career and for other personal purposes. Hee has denied the charges, however, and City Harvest is said to be standing by him as he awaits trial.

Since 2010, City Harvest has amassed more than 20,000 members, and like a number of other megachurches, is reportedly investing big in Singapore malls and other businesses. Its plans in 2010 included spending $248 million to invest in the Suntec International Convention & Exhibition Center, a major multi-use development center, as well as paying for rent and renovation costs.

City Harvest Church Executive Pastor Aries Zulkarnain apparently even "used PowerPoint slides to instruct churchgoers how to give offerings via cash, check and credit card, and highlighted the online donation system," according to Bloomberg. Zulkarnain reportedly shared in the presentation how the congregation had raised close to $18 million for the center since last year.

"The message here is: The more you give, the more you get back from God. It's like an investment," explained Gerard Ee, former President of the National Council of Social Service.

As for the spiritual connection, the Bloomberg report notes that megachurches are linking precisely the economic aspect of church building to people coming closer to God by showing their commitment to their church through their financial contributions.

As they come forth Lord to sow, release upon them Father the power to get, to create, to receive wealth in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," prayed Senior Pastor Joseph Prince of rising megachurch New Creation Church during one service. "Prosperity is right. Amen. We prosper to prosper others. We prosper to prosper God's kingdom, so come believing."

Prince's ministry is a prime example of a megachurch using all available forms of technology and social media to spread its message, and raise donations around the world, according to Bloomberg. The pastor speaks at no less than four sessions a day, and his iTunes podcast is set to reach millions of people across North America, Europe, Africa, Australia, Israel, and Singapore.

"Market-friendly ideologies associated with individualism and self-empowerment are often blended with selective Christian theologies to emphasize positive living and blessings, while deflecting overtly negative Christian doctrines such as suffering, judgment, sacrifice, hell or death from sin," commented Jeaney Yip, a lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School, whose studies focused on marketing practices of megachurches. "Their church services are scripted and 'produced' with deliberate use of contemporary music, sound and lighting."

City Harvest leader wants to hire Queen's Counsel

BY JENNANI DURAI


Chew Eng Han said most senior counsel in Singapore cannot represent him for various reasons.





ONE of the ministry leaders accused of conspiring to cheat City Harvest Church of more than $50 million is applying to hire a Queen's Counsel (QC) - the most elite of British lawyers - to represent him here.

Chew Eng Han, 52, the church's investment manager, told The Straits Times he is taking the unusual move because he could not find a senior counsel to represent him.

The mega church's senior pastor Kong Hee and five other key ministry leaders, including Chew, were arrested and charged in June with conspiring to cheat the church of millions of dollars.

They are alleged to have funnelled $24 million into sham bond investments to further the music career of Kong's pop singer wife, Ho Yeow Sun.

They are also alleged to have misappropriated a further $26.6 million in church funds to cover up the first amount.

QCs are specially appointed senior barristers recognised for their specialised skills and expertise.

"I've gone through the list of senior counsel many times, and most of them can't do it for various reasons," Chew said. He added that he wanted a lawyer who was an elite in his profession and who had experience in cases of this nature, so as to not short-change himself, as he was central to the court case as the church's investment manager.

"This is the least I need to do for my family, to get the best legal representation to clear my name and to establish my innocence," he said.

Chew, deputy pastor Tan Ye Peng, 39, church finance manager Sharon Tan, 36, and former finance manager Serina Wee, 35, face between seven and 10 charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts. Kong, 47, and former church management board member John Lam Leng Hung, 44, each face three charges of criminal breach of trust.

With the exception of Kong, who will be represented by MP Edwin Tong, all the other accused have hired senior counsel (SC) to represent them.

Chew's move to get a QC comes after the firm he originally hired, Rajah and Tann, was discharged from representing him in court after the last pre-trial conference in October.

It is understood this decision was made by the firm to avoid any possible conflict in the case, as Rajah and Tann was one of the firms involving in drawing up the original documents for the bond investments. Chew said the other firm involved was Drew and Napier.

Chew was to have been represented by Senior Counsel Francis Xavier, who is overseas and could not be reached for comment. Ms Tan Wen Hsien, a senior associate at Rajah and Tann, confirmed that the firm was no longer representing him.

In addition to the law firms involved in drawing up the bond documents, those representing the other defendants decided they could not represent more than one to avoid a potential conflict of interest, said Chew.

There are 65 SCs in Singapore, 10 of whom are in firms that were involved in drawing up the bond documents and 13 of whom are in firms that are representing the other accused. Another 22 of them are professors or judges or are attached to the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Chew said he had already met a QC to represent him, but declined to reveal his name. He said he plans to submit his application early next month. A hearing will then be held to determine if a QC can be admitted for the case.

Before the law was changed in April, the main consideration for allowing a QC was whether the case was complex enough to justify one. This is now only one of several considerations. A senior member of the law profession, who declined to be named, said Chew has a "strong argument" for getting a QC. "One of the things the court can take into consideration is equality in terms of representation, as almost all the other defendants are represented by SCs. The complexity of the case does appear to indicate that you do need an SC. If he feels he needs an SC to represent him but can't find one because they are either conflicted or already engaged by someone else, I think it would be a relevant consideration."

The senior lawyer added that it is mandatory for the application for a QC to be served on the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Law Society, which will both have the option of giving their views on the matter during the hearing. The ultimate decision, however, lies with the court.

Representatives for each of the accused will meet in court today for a pre-trial conference. All six have indicated that they are likely to plead not guilty and will claim trial.



Court dismisses application for QC

BY BRYNA SINGH
THE application by City Harvest Church (CHC) member Chew Eng Han (above) for an elite British lawyer to defend him was rejected yesterday.

That leaves him with just two months to find a lawyer for the high-profile trial, which is slated to begin on May 6.

Said Justice V.K. Rajah, who, in rejecting the application to admit Queen's Counsel (QC) Jonathan Caplan, noted the shorter time left for the defendant to look for a lawyer: "Chew is the sole author of this predicament."

The 52-year-old Chew, who had told The Straits Times last week that he believed he had "a compelling case", was expressionless when the judgment was read.

Later, when asked what his next step would be, Chew admitted that he had "no concrete plan".

"I don't know where to search," he said.

Chew is one of six CHC leaders charged last June with conspiring to cheat the church by funnelling $24 million into sham investments to further the career of senior pastor Kong Hee's pop-singer wife, and then misappropriating another $26.6 million to cover up the misuse of the first sum.

Yesterday, Justice Rajah gave several reasons for dismissing Chew's application for a QC, who may be admitted here when the case is complex, involves novel points of law, and when no local legal experts are available.

He agreed with Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong that the CHC case was straightforward, not complex. Either the usage of funds was "genuine" or there was "window dressing", he said.

He added that the case also did not involve the appropriateness of religious doctrines or practices, and did not have wider ramifications for those working in fund management or financial sectors.

And while the documents involved in this case were voluminous, they were not beyond the understanding of local counsel, said Justice Rajah.

Chew's lawyer P.E. Ashokan argued on Monday that his client had approached several Senior Counsel (SC) here, including SC Amarjeet Singh and SC Michael Hwang, to take up his case, but all of them declined.

Justice Rajah found Chew's efforts "neither objectively reasonable nor conscientious". He said that several of the SC approached had either not been seen in local courts for a considerable time or were no longer doing court work.

He felt that Chew ought to have cast his net wider to include "other experienced counsel", and not just SC, as there was a "substantial number of more than competent counsel" who could represent him.

Chew told The Straits Times that he had sought out only SC because "it's natural when somebody is fighting for his life, to look for the best". But in the light of the judgment, he said: "I have no choice. I have to be open to anything."

He said he would also ask for a postponement of trial dates if the need arose.

There may already be hope for Chew. Said Mr Ashokan, who helped him make the QC application: "There is a possibility I could represent him."

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/chc-funds-scandal/story/city-harvest-leader-wants-hire-queens-counsel-20121206

Megachurch Pastor Kong Hee Still Wading Through Singapore Church Financial Scandal

Charisma News

After a setback on Monday when Singapore’s City Harvest Church failed to get its case dismissed in court, it appears the megachurch’s two-year legal drama is still not over.

A judge ruled that six current and former leaders—including the church’s founding pastor, Kong Hee—need to answer allegations that they misused millions in church funds to finance the career of Kong’s pop-star wife, Sun Ho.

The 20,000-member church, founded in 1989, has become one of the country’s largest and fastest-growing churches. According to The Wall Street Journal, City Harvest’s followers are “drawn by its charismatic style of evangelism and teachings that material wealth is compatible with Christian beliefs.”

The newspaper adds, “The case has stoked debate over the growing wealth and influence of megachurches in the multireligious city-state, which takes pride in maintaining social harmony with secular policies.”

Presiding judge of the state courts, See Kee Oon, dismissed the arguments from Kong’s defense lawyers that prosecutors haven’t produced enough evidence to show a crime was committed.

The other defendants are Pastor Tan Ye Peng, members Chew Eng Han and Lam Leng Hung, and accountants Serina Wee Gek Yin and Sharon Tan Shao Yuen. They all face 10 to 20 years if convicted.

Prosecutors last month said that church leaders conspired to misuse around 24 million Singapore dollars ($19.2 million) in donated money, which was to go to building-related expenses, to help fund Ho’s career. Additionally, four of the six—not including Kong—allegedly misused 26.6 million Singapore dollars ($21.3 million) to cover up the previous transactions.

The charges of conspiring to engage in criminal breach of trust were filed in mid-2012 following a two-year investigation by Singapore's commissioner of charities and the police. All six have denied the charges.

Ho, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, resumed her role as City Harvest’s executive director last year after her suspension was lifted. Kong continues to lead the church as senior pastor.

The trial is expected to resume in July.

Home-Schooling Leader Bill Gothard Resigns Amid Abuse Allegations

Charisma News

Bill Gothard, an Illinois-based advocate for home schooling and conservative dress who warned against rock music and debt, has resigned from the ministry he founded after allegations of sexually harassing women who worked at his ministry and failing to report child abuse cases.

Gothard’s resignation from the Institute in Basic Life Principles, according to a letter sent to families affiliated with the ministry he founded, comes a week after he was put on administrative leave. According to an organizer involved in the whistle-blowing website Recovering Grace, 34 women told the website they had been sexually harassed; four women alleged molestation.

RNS spoke with several women who alleged they were sexual harassed, including one woman who alleged that Gothard molested her when she was 17.

Gothard is 79 and single.

Gothard told the Board of Directors he wanted to follow the New Testament command to listen to those who made accusations against him, according to an email sent from David Waller, administrative director of the Advanced Training Institute to families involved in the ministry.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus directs his followers to “go and be reconciled” if “your brother or sister has something against you.”

“To give his full attention to this objective, Mr. Gothard has resigned as president of the Institutes in Basic Life Principles, its Board of Directors, and its affiliated entities,” Waller’s email said.

Waller said the two institutes will continue under interim leadership, including upcoming conferences in Nashville and Sacramento under ATI president Chris Hogan.

Gothard’s ministry had been a popular gathering spot for thousands of Christian families, including the Duggar family from TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting.” Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute conferences were also popular among families within the Quiverfull movement, who eschew birth control and promote big families.

Gothard has also rubbed shoulders with Republican leaders. He and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee were photographed at a campaign lunch together; former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue spoke at one of Gothard’s conferences; and Sarah Palin, when she was a small town mayor in Alaska, attended his International Association of Character Cities conferences declaring  Wasilla among Gothard’s “Cities of Character.”

The allegations against Gothard dovetail with financial woes. In recent years, IBLP’s net revenue has dropped significantly, and the ministry is losing money. Between 2009 and 2012, it lost $8.6 million. Its net assets dropped from $92 million in 2010 to $81 million in 2012. It held 504 seminars in 2010, but that number dropped to fewer than 50 in 2012.