Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh did not mince her words in her closing oral submissions on Sept. 14, 2015, for the long-running City Harvest Church trial.

She not only questioned their credibility, but also pointed out their sophistication and slammed each of the six co-accused for distancing themselves from their alleged crimes.

The six accused are: Kong Hee, 50; Tan Ye Peng, 42; Serina Wee, 38; Sharon Tan, 39; John Lam, 47 and Chew Eng Han, 54.

Culled from three sources, (here, here and here), we compared the closing oral submissions made by the defence and prosecution.

The last day of the trial is today, Sept. 15, where the defence counsels of the six accused have the opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s closing submissions.

Here is the side-by-side comparison:

Kong Hee

Defence: Kong always believed that it was legal to invest the church’s building fund to support the Crossover Project. He repeatedly gave instructions to his team to seek advice from the church’s lawyers and auditors before executing the transactions. Evidence showed that his instructions had been carried out to protect the interests of the church. It would have been against logic that a person with dishonest intent would bring his plans to advisors.

Kong had also never been told by these advisors that the building fund could not be invested and used to support the Crossover Project. He always had the intention of fulfilling the obligation of repaying the bonds

Prosecution: The deputy public prosecutor told the court to reject his testimony, and called Kong a "well-practised liar" with an "utter lack of credibility".

Kong was also criticised for not being able to maintain a consistent position on critical factual issues and sought to portray his leadership role in managing CHC as being hands-off and indirect. And when faced with damning evidence, he insulated himself by attributing his approval for the sham transactions to information given to him by professionals.

Tan Ye Peng

Defence: The CHC case was unique as it had no complainant, there was no expert evidence heard and what was also unique was the relationship the accused had with one another. The court was urged to look at the actions of the accused, as evidenced from the emails they exchanged, and the discussions of cash flow showed they were not talking about something that was a sham.

Prosecutor: Tan played an indispensable role in relation to the sham investment and his authority was second only to Kong’s in the management of the Crossover Project. His defence was an attempt to cast responsibility for any and all incriminating acts on co-accused Kong and Chew.

Serina Wee

Defence: There was never a conspiracy to commit wrongdoing. There were various instances where the language the accused used in her email correspondences with her co-accused were consistent with her testimony.

Prosecution: Serina Wee was the most inextricably involved in the conspiracy because of her role as the Crossover project administrator. She had to keep track of the accounts and budgeting for Sun Ho’s music career, which included monitoring the movement and planning and monitoring the progress of the sham transactions.

Sharon Tan

Defence: She lacked motive and she loved City Harvest Church. She had no reason to cause losses to the church. She also had nothing to gain from the conspiracy, with no cut of the proceeds, pay rise or promotion but had everything to lose.

Prosecutor: The defence of the City Harvest Church finance manager Sharon Tan was described as deeply cynical and self-serving.

Her evidence demonstrates her full participation in the planning, execution and subsequent cover-up of the conspiracy.

But yet she portrayed herself as a hard-working but naïve church employee roped in to help with the sham, in blissful ignorance of any wrongdoing that her co-accused might have intended.

The DPP said CHC was not some struggling new voluntary outfit run by bumbling amateurs with no experience of the financial world.

John Lam

Defence: The prosecution relied on its own inferences that Lam knew about the plans.

The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bonds were sham in nature, his client knew of the sham nature and agreed to the conspiracy.

At the inception of the first bonds, Lam was not involved in the structuring of the bonds and was not included in the correspondences that discussed the repayment plans.

Prosecution: Lam was the “inside man” in City Harvest Church's governance and oversight bodies, who prevented the sham investment bonds from being found out. Lam, a former CHC board member, had a “special role” that none of his co-accused could have fulfilled.

Chew Eng Han

Defence: Chew Eng Han reiterated that his frame of mind had been pure when he was alleged to have conspired with the other co-accused to commit criminal breach of trust. He submitted that the bonds he had structured as investment manager of the church were in line with common market practices.

Prosecution: Chew lacked coherence and credibility as he had argued that the sham investments into Xtron and Firna were actually investments into Sun Ho's music career. This exposed that the bonds were not investments after all.

He then went on to take multiple irreconcilable positions, saying that the bonds were indeed genuine investments in Xtron and Firna.

Conclusion

Defence: It is not enough to ask if the accused knew that they were doing wrong. Rather, it is to ask if they actually committed wrongdoing in order to cause wrongful loss. In the case of CHC, there was insufficient evidence of this wrongdoing.

Prosecution: It is a fallacy to believe that a crime committed, to further what the perpetrator considers to be a good cause, is not a crime.

Therefore, it is completely irrelevant that they did this with the motive of advancing CHC’s interests, the prosecutor said.

Top photo via City News

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.