Just when we thought the City Harvest Church funds misappropriation case had come to a close with the Court of Appeal's landmark decision to keep their sentences shortened, the case popped up again in Parliament on Monday and Tuesday this week.

It stemmed from a parliamentary question filed by Bukit Batok MP Murali Pillai, arising from something quite technical, but which the whole of Singapore more or less came to understand about our law: section 406 and 409 of the Penal Code.

What is it?

Those numbers may not immediately make sense to you, but the mention of "City Harvest" might bring everything back to mind.

Sections 406 and 409 are two severity levels of the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust — the law under which Kong Hee, Serina Wee and their four counterparts  (including the one who tried to escape on a sampan) were convicted of after they misappropriated S$24 million in the church's building funds to fuel Sun Ho's music career, and then used another S$26 million to cover the first missing S$24 million.

In the end, the Court of Appeal decided that the six convicts's crimes fell under the less-severe Section 406 of the law. Here's a more in-depth explainer on why that happened:

And this, in turn, led to Law Minister K Shanmugam more or less declaring that they would work toward changing the law:

He said then:

“It is now up to Parliament to amend the law, and that we should do soon. We will ensure that legislation provides for higher penalties for directors and other senior officers who commit criminal breaches of trust. We hope to make the amendment together with other wide ranging amendments to the Penal Code, which I have spoken about them.”

[related_story]

Implications on existing folks sentenced under Section 409

But some MPs, like Murali, who is a lawyer by trade, wondered about the implications of this new decision by the Court of Appeal on past decided cases of criminal breach of trust — because all those past folks never brought their cases before the highest court in the land.

Responding to the question he filed, Minister Shanmugam said there are now 15 people serving jail sentences under Section 409, three of whom were convicted in their capacity as "directors" — which is what the change in decision hinged on.

And now... to the point on home detention

In a follow-up question, Murali asked Minister Shanmugam "whether the Home Detention scheme and the remission scheme will be afforded to the persons involved in this Court of Appeal decision".

In other words, would the City Harvest Kongvicts get to serve out part of their sentences under home detention (where they stay at home, with their movements tracked with an electronic tag and observe a curfew), as well as the one-third discount on their sentences for good behaviour?

Minister Shanmugam's answer was: based on a prevailing policy that has criteria prisoners need to meet before getting home detention, the answer is no.

HOWEVER, the Commissioner of Prisons can ultimately decide whether to allow them to serve out any part of their sentences at home or not, when the time comes for him to do so.

"As for the City Harvest Church case, we looked at principles that are applicable, and took advice from AGC as to whether under law they would be entitled to Community-Based Programmes, which will include Home Detention.

And we have now a policy. And if that policy is applied by Commissioner of Prisons, those convicted in the City Harvest Church case will not qualify for home detention. It is something to be decided by Commissioner of Prisons, he has got the discretion. But if the policy is applied, and that policy has been cleared by AGC, then they will not qualify. Thank you."

So this means perhaps they may get their sentences further discounted on good behaviour, i.e. these could be the lengths of their sentences:

Sharon Tan, the sixth Kongvict, served the full seven months of her term and was released in November last year.

For more background reading:

Top photo collage: File, various sources