24 Jan, 05:39PM in sunny Singapore!

City Harvest Lenient verdict

Subscribe to City Harvest Lenient verdict 0 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • bic_cherry's Avatar
    434 posts since Jul '05
    • City Harvest Lenient verdict shows Judiciary is Sleeping on the job by taking Anti-Terrorism message with a light pinch of salt.

      [Image: city-harvest-leaders-sentences---3660682.png]

      This association of the concept of 'agent' as a solely commercial / licensed professional limitation is a much too NARROW definition.

      By all accounts, Kong Hee proclaimed himself to be the 'agent' of God to City Harvest Church (CHC). Kong Hee was the primary mastermind in both GROOMING his flock to accept his unquestionable authority as well as masterminding the CORRUPT transfer of church funds towards the illicit and covert objective of satisfying his wife's childhood dreams of becoming an international sex-bomb pop-music icon.

      The high court has thus OVERLOOKED the highly culpable aspect of 'GROOMING' as well as self proclamation by the pastor to be the 'agent/messenger ' of God, which in the minds of the impressionable or lay public, is likely to cause them to be in a position of GREAT VULNERABILITY and thus part with LARGE SUMS OF MONEY.

      These ILLICITLY obtained finances obtained through the deceit of MISREPRESENTING religious texts can then be transferred towards even more nefarious causes such as mass killings and other inhuman terrorism related causes.

      Religion based terrorist commonly recruit followers and fund their attacks on innocent civilians by GROOMING illiterate or unsuspecting individuals into perpetuating their extremist ideologies by representing themselves as religious authority figures, aka 'agents/ representatives/ prophets of God'

      The ability of religious leaders to brainwash and indoctrinate is certainly much GREATER than any licensed professional such as an accountant, lawyer/ doctor etc since none of the listed licensed professionals ordinarily bring the concept of the AFTERLIFE into the picture.

      The quantum of monies corruptly misused is a good clue to the severity of crime committed.

      For the judiciary to navel gaze and insists upon sentencing LENIENCY merely based upon their limited and sudden knee jerk re-definition of the term 'agent' is to commit an error of judgement akin to missing the forest for the trees.

      The Judiciary has totally overlooked the issue of GROOMING which ought DOUBLE the culpability of Kong Hee's crime.

      The City Harvest Church High Court judgement is thus a MISTAKE that society will only live to pay the price for as religious leaders with terror objectives read it as a judicial LOOPHOLE/ OBSOLESCENCE, and encouragement for them to achieve their destructive, ethnic cleansing / genocidal outcomes.


      Why judges ruled to reduce the jail terms of City Harvest Church leaders
      The High Court, in a split decision, convicted Kong and his five accomplices of a reduced charge - the least aggravated form of Criminal Breach of Trust for which the punishment is up to seven years’ jail.

      (Clockwise from top left): Tan Ye Peng, Kong Hee, John Lam, Chew Eng Han, Sharon Tan and Serina Wee. (Photo: Ngau Kai Yan)

      By Vanessa Paige Chelvan
      07 Apr 2017 09:49PM (Updated: 15 Jun 2017 12:36PM) Share this content

      SINGAPORE: They were found guilty of misappropriating S$50 million of church funds - a record amount in Singapore’s legal history - but six City Harvest Church leaders saw their sentences reduced on Friday (Apr 7), in a twist to a long-running case that first went before the courts way back in mid-2013.

      image: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/8716804/0x0/1200/1262/89c4630ee651caad18a647d31055fa32/fc/city-harvest-leaders-sentences---3660682.png
      So why did the three-judge panel rule as it did?

      In 2015, the six members - Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Serina Wee and Sharon Tan - were convicted of the most aggravated form of Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) under the Penal Code: CBT by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent.

      Section 409 of the Penal Code states that:

      Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

      However the High Court, in a split decision, convicted Kong and his five accomplices of a reduced charge - the least aggravated form of CBT for which the punishment is up to seven years’ jail.

      For a conviction under the aggravated CBT charge under section 409 of the Penal Code to stand, the elements of the offence must be made out:

      1. The accused (namely, Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and John Lam) were entrusted with control over CHC’s funds.

      2. This entrustment was in the way of Kong, Ye Peng and Lam’s business as agents.

      3. Money from CHC’s funds were misappropriated for various unauthorised purposes as part of a conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds.

      4. The accused abetted each other by engaging in the above conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds; and

      5. The accused acted dishonestly in doing so.

      Majority of the panel - Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justice Woo Bih Li - decided the prosecution had not proved the second element of the offence.

      Their decision largely came down to the wording of section 409, hinging on the definition of the word “agent” and whether Kong and the co-conspirators could be said to be “in the business” of agents.

      The decision was also influenced by the judges’ interpretation of the law. They said an agent under section 409 must refer to “professional agents” as opposed to “casual agents”.

      The wording of the law “(cannot) conceivably encompass a person (a casual agent) who has been appointed the treasurer of a society and by virtue of that appointment is holding onto the funds of the society”, the judges said.

      Section 409 must refer to a “professional agent”, “one who professes to offer his agency services to the community at large and from which he makes his living”, they said. “It refers to a commercial activity done for profit.”

      In coming to their decision, JA Chao and Justice Woo abandoned a precedent which has been applied in Singapore for the past 40 years, to draw this distinction: To fall under the scope of section 409, the agent must be “external” to the company or organisation that is entrusting the property to him.

      Kong, Tan Ye Peng and Lam were directors of the CHC board, which were “internal” roles, the judges deemed.

      “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 and makes his living as an agent.”

      JA Chao and Justice Woo acknowledged their decision would upset the state of affairs, but said: “This does not, however, mean that we can ignore the wording of the section.”

      Between the most aggravated form of CBT (section 409) and least aggravated (section 406), there are another two sections covering other aggravated forms of CBT - sections 407 and 408 - for which the punishment is up to 15 years’ jail.

      “We agree that it is intuitively unsatisfactory,” the judges said, that “(under sections 407 and 408), a clerk, servant, carrier or warehouse keeper would be liable for an aggravated offence. This does not, however, mean that we can ignore the wording of the section”. “If an interpretation of a statutory provision is erroneous … it must be corrected notwithstanding how entrenched it may have become.”

      Justice Chan Seng Onn disagreed with the other judges.

      The convictions of Chew, Ye Peng, Serina and Sharon for falsification of accounts were upheld.

      Source: CNA/xk
      Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/why-judges-ruled-to-reduce-the-jail-terms-of-city-harvest-church-8716810

Please Login or Signup to reply.