The six church leaders [Photo: CNA]

The High Court has reduced the sentences of all six former City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders on Friday (7 April) in favour of their appeal.
The founder and senior pastor Kong Hee has had his prison sentence reduced to three years and six months from eight years.
As for the others that were charged, former fund manager Chew Eng Han had his six-year sentence reduced to three years and four months, deputy pastor Tan Ye Peng’s sentence was lowered from five-and-a-half-year sentence to three years and two months, former finance manager Serina Wee Gek Yin’s sentence got reduce from five-year sentence to two years and six months, former finance committee member John Lam Leng Hung got a reduced sentence from three-year sentence to one year and six months, and former finance manager Sharon Tan Shao Yuen got her sentence lowered from 21-month jail sentence to seven months.
The hearing was attended by a three-judge panel – Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justices Woo Bih Li and Chan Seng Onn.The verdict was finally delivered after the long-running trial which started in 2013.
Kong, Lam, Chew, Wee and Tan Ye asked the court to have their sentences to start in two weeks so they can still celebrate Easter day with their families. The court agreed to this.
Sharon, on the other hand, asked for two months deferment as her family is moving to the United States. She wants to be able to help her child adjust to the new environment. The court also agreed to her request.
Chew has two weeks to consider if he wishes to bring the case up to the apex court.
Last September, all of them appealed against their convictions and sentences in a five-day hearing. Prosecutors also appealed for longer sentences of five to 12 years’ jail for the six former leaders who were convicted of varying counts of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts at the same time.
During the appeal hearing, prosecutors argued for harsher punishments for the CHC leader because the church members supported the moves by CHC as they were not given “full facts” on the matter.
The project was financed with S$24 million from the church building fund through sham bonds. Another $26 million was used to cover up the first amount to fool auditors and to conceal the fact that money from the church’s building fund had been used for an unauthorised purpose. The case which is apparently the largest amount of charity funds ever misappropriated in Singapore.
Tens of thousands of worshippers had donated the millions of dollars to the church. However, the money was used to bankroll the secular music career of the pastor’s wife Sun Ho, without the knowledge of the congregation.
In the oral statement, Justice Chao stated that the majority decided to reduce the respective criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges against the CHC.
They were initially charged with an aggravated form of CBT. However, the Judges decided to change it to a “simple” form of CBT.
The law states that the person convicted of the charges must be a public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or an agent when committing the crime.
The Judges said, “While a director undoubtedly holds an important position in a company or organisation, it cannot be said that a person by becoming a director has offered his services as an agent to the community at large or that he makes his living as an agent.”
The case is unprecedented as the church suffered no financial loss.
Jason Chan, Kong’s lawyer stated that if this is the largest amount going out the door, it is also unprecedented in that it is the largest amount coming back.
However, the judge stated that the actions of the CHC were criminal as they took the funds into their own hands to use as they pleased, despite them being plainly not authorised to do so.
Most of the congregation supported Ho’s career. However, they were unaware that they were the ones who were funding it.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

A failed restructuring will be painful for all: Lim Swee Say

In his May Day message, Labour Chief Lim Swee Say warned that…

Majority of Singaporeans support the protests in Hong Kong, according to survey

Over 75% of 1,000 Singaporeans polled in June support the Hong Kong…

SIA not involved in Air India deal for now but refuses to comment on future plans

Last month, it was reported in the news that Singapore Airlines (SIA)…

舆论:保障人民,还是维护自家人?

政治拘留者、人权律师张素兰撰文于本社英语站 只要人民行动党在位越久,严刑峻法只会越发令人窒息。 《2009年公共秩序法令》以及《2016年司法(保护)法案》就是最好例子,它们不是为了捍卫人民或司法公义,反而是保护政府免受批评。 遗憾的是,法院容许这些法规的荒谬定义:一个人也可以构成“非法集会”,行为艺术也被当作“非法游行”。没有构成任何公共财产损坏,只是张贴海报都可以被告“破坏公物”,面对监禁和罚款。 即使对于个人来说,都没有言论自由的空间,这种恶法还可以糟糕到什么程度? 就在今年4月1日愚人节,律政部长提呈长达81页的《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》,在国会一读,不过他可没在开玩笑。 这是有史以来,但恐怕不会是最后一次,所有的部长和他们的政府机构同侪、公务员,只要冠以“主管当局”之名,就可以正正当当地对着所有个人、媒体机构、网络平台指点江山,发出更正指示修改他们所谓的真相。 只要他们相信任何影像、文章或贴文“违反公共利益”,就可以下令撤下、封锁之。 “公共利益”的定义如此广泛,连“导致公众对任何政府机构的信心减弱”都得严加防范。 甚至这些部长或公务员不需要聆听相关人员或机构的解释,就可以发出指示,“违规者”要做的,就只能服从,否则面对严苛的罚款或坐牢刑罚。但是,若当权者决策时有判断失误,却不必然要负责。 虽然在防止假消息法条文中,有提及个人如果不满意部长发出的更正指示,可以对部长上诉。可是又有哪位部长愿意承认自己的判断失误? 律政部长还坚称,法庭会是最终的仲裁者,但依据司法的精神,为何不把法庭的裁决权限放在首位或至少第二位?…