19 Steps to becoming City Harvest Church member.
-
Any news what happened on this last pre-trial date on the 22nd?
I scanned the papers but not a single reference.
-
Originally posted by JT1983:
Any news what happened on this last pre-trial date on the 22nd?
I scanned the papers but not a single reference.
bus strike more important.
-
City Harvest leader wants to hire Queen's Counsel
He says he cannot find senior counsel to represent him
Chew Eng Han said most senior counsel in Singapore cannot represent him for various reasons. -- ST FILE PHOTO
By JENNANI DURAIONE 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.
Top Of The News, The Straits Times Thursday, December 6 2012, Pg A9
-
If you from city shitty harvest fail to engage queen's counsel means that it is not meant to be. You people from city harvest do not have contrite hearts so even without contrite heartts your God also cannot save you. haa aa, admit your sins and repent this is the way to heaven, KONG HEE AND THOSE INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!! iF NOT go hell.
-
City Harvest case: April trial likely
THE trial of six leaders of City Harvest Church is likely to be at the end of April.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong told reporters after a pre-trial conference yesterday that the first discovery conference - a meeting between the defence and prosecution to exchange information regarding the case - will be held on Jan 31.
It is understood that this would put the trial date somewhere near end-April.
The mega church's senior pastor Kong Hee, 47, and five other key ministry leaders were arrested and charged in June last year 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, 42.
They are also alleged to have misappropriated a further $26.6 million in church funds to cover up the first amount.
Besides Kong, the others charged are his deputy Tan Ye Peng, 39; church finance manager Sharon Tan, 36; church investment manager Chew Eng Han, 52; former church finance manager Serina Wee, 35; and church management board member John Lam Leng Hung, 44.
Kong and Lam each faces three charges of criminal breach of trust while the others face between seven and 10 charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
None of the six defendants was present yesterday at the pre-trial conference at the Subordinate Courts. All six have indicated that they are likely to plead not guilty and will claim trial.
The trial date may also be affected by an application for a Queen's Counsel expected to be filed by Chew this month.
Last month, he told The Straits Times that he would be filing an application for a top British lawyer to represent him in court, after being unable to find a Senior Counsel here to represent him.
The firm he had originally hired, Rajah and Tann, was discharged from representing him in court in October, as it was one of the firms involving in drawing up the original documents for the bond investments.
The other five defendants from the 23,000-strong church are being represented by Senior Counsel, the local equivalent of Queen's Counsel.
JENNANI DURAI
Home, The Straits Times, Friday January 11 2013, Pg B10 -
oh yeah. *rubs his hands*
-
I thought one of them hired one of the party MP who is a lawyer?
Now all go for QC?
So rich.
-
such a long-winded thread
-
Everybody waiting but nothing happening.
-
CITY HARVEST CHURCH CASE
Leaders 'will get chance to defend name'
Commissioner of Charities denies the 9 members have 'no right to defence'
By JENNANI DURAI
THE charities watchdog yesterday denied claims that the City Harvest Church leaders at the centre of a corruption probe have not been given the chance to defend themselves.
All nine members are currently suspended and face being removed from their posts.
Earlier this month, a source close to a few of the members told The Sunday Times that they felt they had "no right to defence".
This was because they are being investigated by the Commissioner of Charities (COC) - but the issues it had raised may not not be heard at the upcoming criminal trial.
The source said the members were therefore afraid they could lose their positions permanently due to allegations which they would have no chance to contest.
Yesterday, the COC denied this, saying it had processes that gave those who faced being removed from their posts the right to present their side of the story.
For example, they can make representations to the commissioner's office before it reaches any decision, and also have the right to appeal to the High Court.
The City Harvest scandal broke last June, when six of its key leaders were charged with conspiring to cheat it out of millions of dollars. Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, Sharon Tan, Chew Eng Han, Serina Wee and John Lam Leng Hung are alleged to have put $24 million into sham bond investments in order to conceal funds channelled to further the music career of Kong's pop singer-wife Ho Yeow Sun.
Another $26.6 million of church money was then alleged to have been misappropriated to cover up the initial sum.
On the day of the arrests, the COC suspended the six, along with Ms Ho, Mr Kelvin Teo Meng How and Ms Jacqueline Tan Su Pheng. It launched its own inquiry - separate from the criminal probe - and revealed "misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the charity".
Yesterday, the COC said that before it makes orders to remove people from their posts, it gives them notice and allows them to make representations to the commissioner's office. "Affected individuals do have an opportunity therefore to present reasons why they should not be removed," said a spokesman.
He added the COC will then decide whether a removal order should be made based on the inquiry's findings and the representations received. The individual can also appeal to the High Court.
The spokesman said the COC's decisions about whether to suspend or remove the nine were based on the findings of its own inquiry and were independent of the criminal proceedings.
The case is expected to go to trial at the end of April.
Home, The Straits Times, Thursday, February 21 2013, Pg B8
-
This is absolutely hilarious.
The great Kong is being played and owned by Ang mo.
Fantastically stupid. What a loser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc9aEopEXJc&feature=youtu.be
-
Hi Just sign up to reply here,
Read from page 4 to 27. Love what you guys wrote. Here's something from my end. Hope you guys like it. Christian, Currently attending CHC penang because of my girlfriend absolutely hate it there (They have CHC KL, CHC Pg and of course CHC Sg). One of the week's sermon was on the topic of courtship, one of the pastor Christ like attributes to be found in the perfect partner.
1. Does he love God? - Reasonable i feel
2. Does he serve in Church? - The explenation here was that if he can't even serve in chuch what makes you think he'll pick up after himself when you are married to him. What makes you think he'll help you out in times of need. (hmmmm...... might goes either way. Whatever)
3. Does he tithe? - Tithe shows the ability to manage his finance. (This point is valid providing he can tithe and support himself/his family & bring the girl out on a nice date). The messed up part is the Pastor said girls find a CHC member as a partner and come to me and ask me about the guy. I'll tell you how good is he in tithing and giving. I'll tell you how much he tithe. (SERIOUSLY..... this is so meseed up)
4. Is he a true follower of Jesus Christ? - a true follower of Jesus Christ comes to church every sunday(Valid), attend every church events even though it clashes with a relatives wedding/some other stuff.
All of which has nothing to do with loving the girl, or showing any kind of love. Finding a partner is not having a list and see if they fit that criteria.
Worse still one of the prayers, they pray that all young adults(all those between the age of 25-35) working in Bayan Lepas area(Factory area in Penang) get saved in CHC Penang and let CHC penang grows into a bigger church. (I was so so so...... i don't even know how to describe how i felt, disgusted. As a Christian we should pray that people get saved regardless of which church they are in)
Anyway..... Story from CHC Penang. Enjoy.
P.S According to the Pastor in CHC Penang, they are fighting the case now this month, and we are to pray for them. Even in Penang they still love Pastor Kong, and that Ho...Sun.
-
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
I feel Christ everytime we worship Him. My whole body tingles when the Holy Ghost descends over me.
A Taoist temple medium has the same experience when his GOD descends over me.
What is your comment Zeeleewong.
-
CITY HARVEST CASE
Church leaders seeking one more extension
Some want more time to appeal against being removed from office
Church founder Kong Hee is asking the COC to defer the removal proceedings until after the trial.
Vice-chairman and trustee Tan Ye Peng is also asking for an extension to the COC's deadline.
Chew Eng Han is one of the two members who submitted their documents before the deadline.
By TAN DAWN WEI
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITORMOST of the eight City Harvest church leaders who face being stripped of office are believed have asked for a further extension to the deadline for them to submit their objections.
The cut-off date to make representations to the Commissioner of Charities was last Saturday - a deadline already extended from a previous one on May 13.
Church founder Kong Hee was among those who requested a further extension.
But at least two - Tan Ye Peng and Chew Eng Han - submitted their documents on time.
In April, the Commissioner launched a bid to discharge the eight from office after an inquiry revealed there was mismanagement of funds at City Harvest - in particular at least $23 million used to fund the music career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun.
The eight are: board member Kong Hee, board chairman and trustee John Lam Leng Hung, vice-chairman and trustee Tan Ye Peng, executive director of the church's administration division Kelvin Teo Meng How, and executive members Sharon Tan Shao Yuen, Chew Eng Han, Jacqueline Tan Su Pheng and Serina Wee Gek Yin.
All were suspended from office following the Commissioner's inquiry.
If the Commissioner is successful in removing them - which he can do only with the consent of the Attorney-General - the four key officers will no longer be allowed to hold any office positions in churches or any other charities for life.
The eight were given a month to submit their objections in writing, after which the Commissioner will assess their cases.
But when the May 13 deadline came, the Commissioner extended the deadline by another two months as a "goodwill gesture" after all eight asked for more time.
The May deadline coincided with the start of a criminal trial in which six members of the group face charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts.
Kong told The Straits Times yesterday that his lawyers had written to the Commissioner on Friday requesting that he defer the removal proceedings until after the trial has ended.
"Several of the issues that the COC has raised are also dealt with in the criminal trial and it makes sense for these issues to be addressed after the conclusion of the criminal trial.
"In the meantime, I have agreed not to perform any management or executive roles in City Harvest Church," said Kong, adding that he has not held those positions since 2010.
Sharon Tan's lawyer, Mr Jeffrey Ong, said his client asked for a further extension because she needed additional time to prepare papers.
The Commissioner's office told The Straits Times that the church leaders had asked to defer the removal proceedings until after the trial.
"We are currently reviewing the requests," said a COC spokesman.
The criminal trial involving Kong and five other church leaders will resume next month.
Chew, one of the accused, left the church last month after 17 years, citing "a collision of primarily spiritual and moral principles".
Home, The Straits Times, Friday, July 19, 2013, Pg B2
-
-
Reposting Conversation from FB CHC Confessions before it gets deleted... Patricia Lau Patrick, could you clarify how you know about the JW building being pledged as collateral for the Suntec deal? Apparently many CHC members still don't know about this and it seems that the EMs were not asked to vote on this matter either. I'd appreciate it if you could provide more details on this point. Thanks and God bless. Like · Reply · 1 · August 17 at 1:38pm via mobile Hide 26 Replies Patrick Liew @Patricia, I am actually surprised at this question. The pledging of JW church as collateral actually came to light (in 2010) when a businessman from the church (Mr Simon Teoh), actually complained to COC about the Suntec deal and published his letter to the press. In it, he indicated that the Church should not subject its members to major financial liabilities without consulting the church's ordinary members first. The indication that the JW church was pledged as collateral was also explained in the lawyer's letter (Drew and Napier) to the Church members during the AnB weekend celebration on 2-4 April 2010, which essentially explained the details of the Suntec deal including the NDA. This was put up in the CHC website as a PDF download. I believe this has been taken down since. The whole matter of the JW church pledged as a collateral is well-known to the general public, especially those who discuss it in the forums. The information can also be found here. http://exchersonesusaurea.blogspot.sg/2012/07/chc-accountability-and-transparency.html?m=1 Like · 3 · August 17 at 3:58pm · Edited Jean Chong No shadow lah. Not that these leaders didn't want to pledge JW, just that no bank want to take it. Reputation risk isn't worth it for the bank. A PE loan was taken at 9% to partially fund that initial purchase of 20% for $43.5m. A&B Fund had raised in excess of $100m at that time but it was so depleted after repeated raids by CEH/KH & gangs, hence the need to borrow at such a high interest. It was pathetic. Like · 2 · Yesterday at 12:28am via mobile Patrick Liew Yes, during the analysis of the CHC Financial Statement (YTD 2009), in 2010, the church had basically committed the majority of its funds into various instruments e.g. (1) $46.3 Million to Licensor just to find a place for the church, in the form of 'advance rentals' (2) Close to $90+ Million in unsecured financial instruments/equities, a large portion of which were sham bonds in the SOF (3) Many millions locked in the 'Miscellaneous Administrative Expenses'.........overseas speakers honorarium? (4) Huge expenditures on staff salaries (5) Church planting activities....etc etc. The cashflow situation was so tight, that many wondered how they managed the monies to purchase the shares in Suntec Singapore. At that time, there was some calculations made and the max stake calculated (based on existing cash) was at most 5-7%. But the church later announced that the initial stake was 20%. Hence, this could only be done with a loan from the bank. One wonders how many other loans the church is servicing in the name of the 'cultural mandate'? As a charity, it should not be taking out any loans at all, since it receives tithes from its members. Was the further 19.2% shares purchase also derived from further loans to the bank? As it if, there are at least 2 loans known....one (partially) for the 20% share purchase ($43.5 Million) and the other for the AEI for more than $70 Million. All these will be borned by the church members, on top of the increasing demand for AnB. It is a never-ending money pit Like · 2 · Yesterday at 8:11am · Edited Jean Chong Hi Patrick. The loan for first 20% had been paid up. The additional acquisition of 19.2% at $54m was financed with A loan of $50m from A BVI company, Galaxy Capital. These people are the vendors from the Indonesian consortium that bought the 80% stake originally. They are related to Wilmar International and they laughed all the way to the bank with ROI of 60+%. 1) True to form, KH turned a crisis into opportunity. A block of Wilmar shares was pledged by shareholders of Galaxy to get the $50m at a cost of 3%. Galaxy Capital then loaned to UPI at 10% with the 39.2% stake as collateral. KH & gang marked it up with an ANNUAL setup fee of 4-5% during the 3-year tenure, fleecing CHC $7-8m in the process. The repayment is $5m plus interest/fee biannually with a balloon payment of $25m at the end of third year. Balance is still $40m n KH & gang are trying to refinance it desperately. Previous effort to refinance balance $40m to 5 years was shot down as the marked up of annual 4-5% was still included, attempting to fleeceCHC additional $4-5m. Refinancing effort is still underway but kept away from Investment Committee which blocked previous refinancing push. 2) A&B Fund was depleted because KH & gang used A&B Fund to pay for rental at Expo n the hyper-inflated shifting n AVI equipment cost. This freed up $10+m from regular church budget EVERY YEAR so that they could deploy the freed-up $10+m YEARLY to "mission" which they don't have to give any itemized account. This is no small change considering the numerous moves since Expo days. The shifting cost during the first year at Suntec ALONE is $15m!!! broken into a few portions for masking purposes. Suntec was ideal site for KH & gang as they could justify at least 5 moves a year due to MICE needs. They intended to keep the A&B going as long as possible. 3) The $70.8m liability for AEI loan is not equity accounted as the loan is taken up by Suntec REIT, probably at HPIL which holds the 80% stake. If you take into the account of the liability ($70.8m AEI loan, $40m balance of Galaxy loan plus the exorbitant rates), the value of $130m+ A&B Fund is left with $10+m in the form of those hyper-inflated AVI equipment plus the $18m defaulted SOF loans owed by AMAC Capital. The last A&B campaign took in less than $10m and the next A&B campaign will be worse, especially after the 2nd tranche of trail in Aug. The most likely scenario is CHC will lose a big part of the 39.2% stake in Suntec and CHC will have to move back to JW to cut cost. This is such a wanton squandering of charity money. And we are talking about God's money. How sad.... Like · 3 · 21 hours ago · Edited Patrick Liew @JC they can't move back to JW like that. The default for failing to pay rental for Suntec Singapore for fixed minimum no. of years is the loss of the collateral (JW church). This is stated in the original letter by Drew and Napier to the church's members on the NDA. This is a catch 22 situation which CHC has to circumvent to avoid the loss of their $48 million asset. Either they stay and incur even more expenses and servicing of loans or lose their only asset. If they take the latter route, its probably back to Singapore Expo....everything start from square 1 Like · 3 · 18 hours ago · Edited Jean Chong Hi Patrick. Yes, you are right about the rental contract but there are X+Y years options in the rental agreement which I won't get into details here. Suffice to say that there are still good people in CHC that are looking out for the church and they recognize the cash crunch that are getting worse by the month. All I can tell you is JW is free of any encumbrance. (Imagine this news headline: Lee Ka Shing's listed property vehicle in Singapore forecloses a megachurch in Singapore!! No sane businessman will allow that to happen.) Expo Hall 8 was only $3.5m a year but the numerous shiftings a year cost more than that. When the case broke, KH & gang worried that there would be uproars if the congregation come to know that 1) The so-called $310m package only has a 20% stake which cost $43.5m only plus projected 10 years usage. 2) Rental at Suntec is $15m/year and shifting components are $15m for first year alone when the dividend as co-owner was only $2m+/year. To pre-empt these issues, KH & gang did the followings: A) Buy another 19.2% stake in Suntec at $54m even when the A&B Fund ($130m+) was depleted already. Hence the high-interest rate Galaxy loan which was exacerbated with a markup. Instead of renting Expo 8 at $3.5m/year during AEI period, rented Expo Hall 1 at $12m+/year to make $15m/year rental at Suntec seemed more palatable. This was done when there was a drastic drop in the attendance. KH refused to cut down the expenses even when the cash crunch is so severe. I guess he probably did it for selfish reasons. i) Put up the facade the everything is ok. Along with the claim that he has a good chance of getting off the hook from the trail, he can get more private donations for legal/family funds. He is also hoping that the members will keep the tithes flowing. 2) When he goes to Changi and the finances crumble, he can comfort himself that CHC could not survive without him......... The way they are squandering the funds, moving back to JW seems to be the only option. They can't even afford Expo Hall 8 by then. Like · 5 · 16 hours ago · Edited Josephine Lee Wow, kepala besar-besar. Any other options? 1. stay put at Suntec and lease out JW? 2. sublet Suntec to FCBC? 3. recover all the stolen money from the gang? Like · 2 · 15 hours ago via mobile Patrick Liew Wow then it seems that X is on the low side (since Y is the optional)....they have only been there 2 years..its good to hear that there are no encumberances. Won't pursue the exact equation on this, since it is a sensitive issue covered under the NDA. Thanks JC for all the detailed information. CHC members, especially those who are more accounting savvy, should be able to digest the information and discern for themselves....hopefully those who are able to translate the figures can tell those who are lost in all the figures. Like · 2 · 15 hours ago Lauschke Amy But actually, wasn't that NDA supposed to be only valid for 2 years? In my opinion, the NDA was put in place to facilitate the original majority stakeholders of Harmony Fund to exit without exposure. Like · 1 · 14 hours ago Jean Chong Patrick, hypothetically. If there is an annual markup of 4-5% for the $50m Galaxy loan, is it criminal? Like · 2 · 14 hours ago via mobile · Edited Lauschke Amy JC, this interest markup is only part of the whole CBT charge. By itself, I doubt you can classify as criminal. Like · 14 hours ago Grace Tan @ Jean, I think this is a pure intercompany transfer pricing issue. Is the annual mark up of 4 -5 % structured as an interest expense or as an annual set up fee? Is UPI a Singapore entity or a foreign entity? If UPI is a Singapore entity, irregardless of whether UPI (which acts as a flow thru conduit entity) passes the loan with an exorbitant mark up or as an annual set up fee, I do not think the IRAS will raise any issue as the huge markup will be subject to tax and yield a higher tax to IRAS. But there might be possible criminal charges under other laws. Like · 3 · 14 hours ago · Edited Jean Chong This is a good illustration on why many CHC members seem to allow the leaders to get away with outrageous abuses against the church. From the comments, there is no outrage against the fact that the Church, a charity organisation, has to pay extra $7-8m in dubious fees to unknown parties for a transaction that does not make any financial sense. Like · 4 · 13 hours ago via mobile Grace Tan Yap - from a tax perspective, as long as the exorbitant mark ups takes place between 2 Singapore entities, there is no tax leakage to IRAS since the tax deduction on the expense claimed by one entity will equalise with the tax paid on the income by the other entity. Its only when a huge tax deductible expense flows out of Singapore that the IRAS will be concerned. But the amounts at stake even in CHCs case is still unlikely to be material enough to be under IRAS' radar. Anyone aware of such a cross border exorbitant scenario? The fact that a BVI (tax haven country) company was involved really sends the whistles through the roof from a tax viewpoint. It really appears that only the CBT charge can nail them - which it is now by God's will. Like · 3 · 12 hours ago · Edited Patrick Liew Depending on the nature of the services/loans provided, a mark-up of up to 5% is accepted by IRAS. There is a clear illustration about this indicated here. http://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/page04.aspx?id=10588 Most of it is beyond my understanding. Perhaps Grace will like to elucidate. Like · 1 · 11 hours ago Grace Tan The 5% mark up is for pure cost plus services companies providing BASIC management services and is not applicable in an intercompany loan (interest expense/income). For cross border loans, the appropriate interest rate needs to be set from a detailed transfer pricing benchmarking study. But there is no cross border loan involved here right? All within Singapore, so no point for IRAS to pursue since no Singapore tax leakage at all from a tax perspective. And in the first place, is it really structured as a loan with an exorbitant markup or is it an annual set up fee? And its seems quite shady to have to pay a set up fee on an annual basis when one would expect it be a once off payment - or is it common practice? Like · 3 · 11 hours ago · Edited Jean Chong The setup fee is usually levied by a bank just to get more margin out of the loan. For a loan size of $50m with a tenure of 3 years, the setup fee is usually 60-80 basis point, that is $300k-400k in this case, as a once off payment. Like · 2 · 10 hours ago · Edited Jean Chong Patrick, have you ever wonder why that no one blows the whistle on this outrageous markup? Like · 2 · 10 hours ago Jean Chong Have you ever wondered how they managed to redeemed the bonds with Xtron and FIRNA? Pastor Aries claimed that CHC suffered no losses and got paid with interest. Like · 3 · about an hour ago · Edited Grace Tan Just realised that 10% interest income in BVI (paid to Galaxy Capital) does not get taxed at all. What company is UPI? What business activities is it engaged in? Is it a Singapore Company? Is it in anyway related to CHC/CHC Commercial entities or inner circle? Like · 1 · 10 hours ago Lauschke Amy JC, much as I also want the authorities to dig further, I have little hope here. From the very outset, I see that the authorities have been handling him and the case with velvet gloved hands. Is the govt going to stop at just this CBT charge, thus limiting the exposure of the deep-seated ongoing abuses? And why? Like · 1 · 2 hours ago Jean Chong I think I am threading on thin ice here. I think I will just leave it here. However, I hope that the authority will get to the bottom of the abuses instead of stopping at the current CBT charges that do not give any clue to the massive abuses that has taken place over many years. Like · 1 · about an hour ago Patrick Liew @JC and Amy, please do not be pessimistic about the proceedings. Much that people like to believe, the PAP MP was probably ask to represent to 'present the view that the government is not persecuting any religion'. If there is no case, why would the AGC and CAD even bother to press the charges in the first place? COC not acting on the suspensions is not handling the matter with kid's gloves. At this point it is inconsequential also because a sentencing of the individuals, immediately causes them to be removed as trustees of charity and grounds for permanent removal. Like · 3 · about an hour ago Patrick Liew What does one want the authorities to do? The case had already dragged for so long and to uncover even more evidence would have caused it to drag even further......any delays is complicated by the fact that COC had to move to protect the assets of the church in the interim. All 'that is revealed here further by Confessions posters, I do not believe is unknown to the authorities but they have to strike a balance what charges to press. CBT as agents are life sentences (x3) and each of them have at least 3 of these charges to disprove in court. Life sentence in Singapore is now truly life sentence and no possibility of parole application before the 20th year in imprisonment. It is not easy for the AGC/CAD to press charges for multiple life sentences, as they have to practise due dilligence before pushing for such charges. How does this show that the government is handling this case with velvet gloves? Like · 2 · 48 minutes ago · Edited Josephine Lee @Jean--Could you re-post the (now deleted) list of the 6-7 questionable activities / areas for investigation in the main Confessions page for all of us? I thought they were so spot-on. Like · 1 · 43 minutes ago via mobile Grace Tan Agreed with Patrick as the authorities are unable to take any more harsh measures when the members do not voice out any discontent/unhappiness - as the Govt might be seen as persecuting the faith. Already, when you go to CHC FB page, there are photos of banners from 2 churches reflecting rather "vague" prayers for CHC leaders. They could have made it clearer that they were praying for the truth to be revealed. Such "vague" prayers does seem to support the leadership in playing the "CHC is being persecuted" story...
-
wot.