The Straits Times writes,
It asks that 4 leaders be jailed 11 to 12 years each; sentencing could be as early as Friday
Channel News Asia has been continually reporting the unfolding of events in the Singapore courts of the sentencing of six City Harvest Church leaders.
The judge has sentenced Kong Hee eight years jail in prison.
This is the latest update:
City Harvest trial live updates: Leaders sentenced to jail
SINGAPORE: The six City Harvest leaders who were found guilty of criminal breach of trust and falsifying church accounts were on Friday (Nov 20) received jail terms of between 21 months and eight years.
3.00pm: The six leaders have been sentenced to between 21 months’ and eight years’ jail, with senior pastor Kong Hee receiving the heaviest sentence of eight years behind bars. Judge See Kee Oon said Kong Hee, the church’s founder, was found to be the most culpable among the convicted church leaders.
The bail for all six of them was extended, and the start of their jail terms have been deferred to Jan 11, 2016.
1.57pm: “For us ex-members we’ll leave it to the judge. We have to respect the Honour’s decision. As what the prosecutor says, we need to do it right now because it will have a great repercussion on other mega churches on what and what cannot be done,” said a man who identified himself as a former City Harvest member.
1.32pm: Judge says he will pass the sentence at 3pm.
1.28pm: Prosecution: “In pursuing the Crossover Project, the accused have clearly crossed so far over the line that a substantial sentence is certainly called for.”
1.04pm: Prosecution: “This Court has found that loans were sought from a number of individuals in order for Xtron to return the ARLA (Advance Rental Licence Agreement) to CHC… Tan Ye Peng sold his house to pay back. Well, the alternative was to come to court and admit what he has done.”
12.55pm: Prosecution: “We submit that nothing in their circumstances will render the “clang of the prison gates” so thunderous as to justify a short term of imprisonment.”
12.48pm: Prosecution: “Where an offence involves a breach of trust, this is generally treated as an aggravating factor. Its powerful influence is shown by the degree to which it
outweighs factors which would normally go in mitigation. Indeed, there is the paradox that some of the strongest factors in mitigation (unblemished career, model citizen, good employment record) are often present in these cases and yet do not tell greatly in the offender’s favour.”
“The reason is that positions of trust are not normally given to individuals unless they have unblemished references, and so the offence may be seen as a betrayal of those very basis of trust, and one of the burdens of a position of trust is an undertaking of incorruptibility.”
12.39pm: Prosecution: “As this Court has observed, each of the accused persons played their respective roles in a conspiracy with intent to cause wrongful loss to CHC and to defraud the auditors.”
“They did not merely wait passively for Kong Hee to instruct them to carry out each specific act and deception needed to drive the conspiracy forward. They took their own initiative to deceive and mislead the trusting members of CHC where necessary, and cannot escape responsibility for those acts.”
12.34pm: Prosecution: “Kong Hee intentionally fostered an organisational culture of
unquestioning trust in relation to the Crossover Project. He did so by capitalising on CHC’s collective fear of external attack in the wake of the Roland Poon incident, convincing members that they ought to simply trust CHC’s leaders to manage the Project without questioning their motives or reasons.”
12.27pm: Prosecution: “The criminal breach of trust offences which the accused persons committed involve the largest amount of charity funds ever misappropriated in Singapore’s legal history.”
“This long-running case involving criminal breach of trust by the most senior managers of a charity has clearly attracted public disquiet, and inevitably affects public confidence that funds donated for charitable purposes, especially to large and well-resourced charities, are managed honestly and properly safeguarded.”
12.11pm: Lawyer Andre Maniam said: “Serina Wee was not a parish priest commanding respect. Until she was charged, most of Singapore did not know who she was.”
“The accused believed it (the usage of the funds) was for an evangelistic purpose that was positively mandated by the vision and mission of CHC.”
11.55am: Serina Wee’s lawyer Andre Maniam said: “This is an unprecedented case. Neither the prosecution nor the defence has been able to turn up a precedent when Criminal Breach of Trust was committed by using a charity’s funds for its own purposes. We are in uncharted waters.”
11.17am: Lawyer N Sreenivasan: “Insofar as personal relationships are concerned, Tan Ye Peng’s former close relationship with Chew Eng Han has been affected. He feels sorry for what happened to Sharon and Serina.”
“He is not, he is not a participant in the heist of the century or other emotional words the prosecution has used.”
Source: ByCity Harvest trial live updates: Leaders sentenced to jail Published 20/11/2015 07:48, UPDATED: 20/11/2015 15:50. (Accessed 20/11/2015.)
I am a current City Harvest Church (CHC) member and still in my teens. I do feel anxious and am unsure why I feel this way. To be honest, I do not want to attend CHC and am aware that Kong Hee and the leadership are guilty for their fraud (and rightfully agree so), but I am coerced to attend CHC by my mother who remains a faithful follower even though me and my own father disagrees with CHC and accuse her of blind faith.
I attended CHC since 2002 when I was a kid. To me, staying in CHC or leaving would not make a difference in my thoughts towards them. Compared to Admin 1’s testimony (goo.gl/NDdXri), CHC now is not as “hard sell and forceful” as they used be during Admin 1’s days. However, there is that implicit pressure going on and I do feel stressful hanging out with my cell group (CG).
In the past, my dad had to disconnect the phone line because they kept calling me. As a 12 year old back then, it was really stressful. They would surround me in large groups, but today, my CG leaves me alone most of the time. My mother still coerces me to go, thinking that it can help me in my anxiety and fears. She thinks I’m a hermit. She also coerce my father to attend CHC and will nag and give him sleepless nights if he refuse to attend for too long.
I find their prosperity sermons boring, that it makes me want to sleep, because they always keep talking about the same things. Pastor Tan Ye Peng speaks the best in my opinion, while Kong Hee is just a savvy speaker. The preaching has been less doctrinal for the past 5 years, as most of the time was spent on praising Kong Hee and his wife, Sun Ho. I don’t care about their prosperity gospel much as I knew it was a lie from day one. I am content with what I have.
My connect group leader (different from cell group leader) keeps asking me to donate to this year’s building fund, claiming that I should donate out of “love for God”. On the stage, the message is about donating to receive financial blessings in return. Honestly, the “successful” testimonies they bring on stage are just 1 out of a 1000 people who donated, while the rest who donated suffered badly. It’s basically a sales pitch, a big propaganda machine. I don’t like it and that’s why I don’t tithe. And why should I since I don’t make any income?? They expect me to use my savings or money given to me by my parents. As my dad does not want to argue with my mom, he lets her be and lets her donate. He knew way long ago that the funds were channelled towards Sun Ho before they were exposed.
I lectured my connect group leader a few days ago, when he asked me about my view on the verdict. He isn’t in the position to comment back to me though since I was in CHC way longer than him. I just told him as a matter of fact, the this was indeed a breach of trust. I was very happy when Kong Hee and the leaders involved got arrested. They cheated me of my money when I was a kid.
Both of my mum’s first two cell group leaders left CHC and they were executive and board members. I am also aware the the cell group and connect group leaders themselves are controlled and pressured from the top.
When I tell my CG leader that I am stressed out, they can’t do anything much and my mum tells them that I have anxiety issues, not realising that CHC and she coercing me to go are the cause of it. I even have a psychiatrist letter proving I have that condition.
My mother however has it worse. Since attending CHC, she became very paranoid and very anxious. Anything that does not go her way smoothly, she will make the ridiculous claim that the Devil is acting against her, like having a minor car accident etc. Sometimes when she presses the wrong number on her mobile, she would blame the Devil for it. She keeps worrying about things and scolds me for being anxious when she in fact, is anxious herself! It’s hard to convince her to leave CHC but to be fair, her current CG people are moderate and many of them dislike Sun Ho’s antics.
When the judge said that Kong Hee was capitalising on people’s fear and paranoia to galvanize support for channeling funds in a discreet manner towards the crossover project, he was not wrong. Indeed, look at what Kong Hee has done to me and my mom now. When Kong Hee made the daring claim some time ago that God said sorry to him, he’s hallucinating! Sometimes I wonder if his dreams and visions are hallucinations or vain imaginations.
After the verdict, I saw the service live online where Kong Hee apologised and bowed his head to the congregation. However, his apology sounded more like he was sorry for the inconvenience caused rather than the fraud and the false doctrines he preached. A.R Bernard who is right now in Singapore, continues to praise Kong Hee and Sun Ho. The previous time he came, he even told the church to obey and trust Kong Hee fully.
I do want to leave CHC but I will do so when I get older as I do not want to cause myself anymore emotional turmoil as I am experiencing right now.
Jayden (name has been changed to protect identity)
We thank Jayden for sharing his testimony with us. Please pray for him and his family, and that the Lord will give him the courage to leave and guide him to the truth in His Word alone.
Source: From Ex-Charismatics, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/groups/c3churchwatch/permalink/1030406617015638/, Published 13:08 26/10/2015. (Accessed 27/10/2015.)
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” – Luke 8:17
This scripture is very applicable to the charges against Kong Hee and cohorts.
Before the “Sermon review”, Chris Rosebrough decided to play audio segments of Phil Pringle. He has this to say about Phil Pringle before reviewing him, in light of the verdict.
“Now what we’re going to be listening to are two bits of audio from videos put out by, well Phil Pringle, who I think has a LOT to do- a LOT to do behind the scenes regarding Kong Hee and Sun Ho’s Crossover project- and was one of the men who was directly coaching and, um – leading, (you know, casting vision for Kong Hee).
And that is Phil Pringle of C3. And so these two have a tight friendship. And like I said, a few years back at the Presence Conference, one of the things that Kong Hee said was that it was Phil Pringle who got him into this mess. And I don’t think that was a slip. I think that was absolutely the truth.” 24:25
Last year we published a two part series from a C3 Church insider on Phil Pringle’s involvement with Kong Hee, Luke 8:17 being the scripture reference for the heading.
You might want to read those articles before listening to Chris Rosebrough’s review. His [Good] “Sermon Review” is by Dr. Paul Choo, who has proven to be a faithful shepherd in Singapore, exposing the prosperity wolf pack consisting of David Yonngi Cho, Kong Hee, Joseph Prince and so on.
This is another very important episode to tune into:
The Verdict On Kong Hee
00:00:00 The Verdict on Kong Hee
00:44:47 Sermon Review: Prosperity Gospel by Dr. Paul Choo
Source: Chris Rosebrough, The Verdict On Kong Hee, Fighting for the Faith, http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2015/10/the-verdict-on-kong-hee.html, Published 23/10/2015. (Accessed 24/10/2015.)
Recent media reporting on
Phil Pringle’s secrecy and culture of insecurity at C3 Church Kong Hee’s secrecy and culture of insecurity at City Harvest Church.
Today Online writes,
CHC slammed for ‘secrecy, culture of insecurity’
SINGAPORE — Criticising what he called the culture of insecurity that six City Harvest Church leaders convicted on Wednesday operated under, Presiding Judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon saved some of his strongest words for church founder Kong Hee in his 270-page written judgment released to the media yesterday.
The six leaders — Kong, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, former church accountant Serina Wee, former church investment manager Chew Eng Han, former finance manager Sharon Tan and former church board member John Lam — were found guilty on all of counts of criminal breach of trust and/or falsification of accounts.
Judge See had delivered his oral judgment, a condensed version of the written grounds, on Wednesday. He found that they had acted dishonestly and in breach of the trust reposed in them to cause wrongful loss of S$50 million to the church and to defraud auditors.
In his judgment grounds, the judge wrote that Kong capitalised on the church climate of paranoia and fear in 2003 to galvanise support for the Crossover Project — using his wife Ho Yeow Sun’s secular pop music to reach out to non-Christians. The collective fear arose after then-church member Roland Poon publicly commented that church funds had been used to promote Ms Ho’s music career.
Kong’s response to the incident revealed “both his personal dominance and deep insecurity”, said JC See. The pastor rallied the church “around the big idea that they (i.e. CHC’s leaders and by extension the entire church) were being maligned and under attack, and hence had to be discreet,” he added.
“He convinced them that if CHC’s leaders believed they had to be discreet in order for the Crossover to succeed, then they ought to simply trust them and not question their motives or reasons.”
The effort to keep the church’s financing of the Crossover discreet led to the set-up of Xtron Productions to manage Ms Ho’s career. The criminal charges in this case relate in part to sham bonds worth millions of dollars that the church bought from Xtron to channel church funds to the Crossover.
All six leaders’ committed zeal for the Crossover vision may have clouded their objectivity and judgment and obscured the need to safeguard money which was not theirs to use as they wished, said judge See. They chose to create cover stories and clever round-trips concealing their unlawful conduct, he added.
“The allure of power that can be exercised in secrecy is difficult to resist. When shrouded under a cloak of invisibility, much like the mythical ring of Gyges, persons in such positions of power have no fear of accountability and tend to become their own worst enemies,” he wrote.
The ring of Gyges is a mythical artefact that grants its owner the power to become invisible at will, mentioned in Greek philosopher Plato’s The Republic.
Judge See wrote: “It has thus been wisely said that the real tragedy is when men are afraid of the light, and if they choose not to come into the light they do so for fear that their deeds will be exposed, as they surely will in time.”
Kong would not have been able to act alone and could not orchestrate every move, and the five other leaders were both trusted and trusting, he added. They wanted to ensure their conduct and choices lived up to Kong’s expectations.
Noting that none of the six was aware of all the details, the judge said it could be because there were far too many moving parts in the plan for the Crossover to the United States, which grew more ambitious over time.
The US foray involved Ms Ho’s debut English album, which had hip-hop star Wyclef Jean roped in at one point. It led to the church’s sham bond investments worth S$24 million in Xtron and another company, and four of the leaders then misused another S$26.6 million of church funds to try to cover up the first amount.
“But this may have also been the inevitable consequence of CHC’s election to carry out its affairs and operations relating to the funding of the Crossover in a discreet fashion. This was merely a euphemism for a culture of insecurity mired in secrecy and opaqueness where asking difficult or awkward questions was taboo,” the judge wrote.
There was no way that Kong – who the judge found to have controlled Xtron – could fail to realise that once CHC had bought Xtron bonds that the bond proceeds would be “entirely within his control”.
Judge See also noted that Kong had sought to mislead a different set of auditors, Ernst & Young (since renamed EY), who were conducting a governance review of CHC on behalf of the Government towards the end of 2007. Kong helped prepare replies to questions that the auditors might ask, and the church would have told auditors that Xtron’s directors were separate and independent of the church board – which he knew was untrue, said judge See.
He also said Kong exploited Chew’s forceful personality and his determination and drive to achieve objectives, although Chew also glossed over the fact that he himself had bought Ms Ho’s Mandarin albums when he blamed Kong for deceiving him about the true measure of her success.
Separately, Kong broke his silence on the verdict yesterday, posting on Facebook his belief that God would use the outcome of the case for good. The pastor also thanked his supporters and said: “The days and steps ahead are challenging, but with God’s grace and love, I have no fear.”
The six will be back in court on Nov 20, where they could be sentenced.
Source: By Neo Chai Chin, CHC slammed for ‘secrecy, culture of insecurity’, Today Online, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/chc-slammed-secrecy-culture-insecurity?singlepage=true, Published 11:33 PM, 22/10/2015, Updated 10:10 AM, 23/102015. (Accessed 25/10/2015.)
An ex-C3 member writes,
“Today, after 5 long, drawn-out years, the longest criminal trial in Singaporean history, the executive leadership of City Harvest Church, including pastor Kong Hee, were found guilty of misappropriating $50 Million worth of church funds.
Sentencing has been postponed to a later date, but already I have witnessed a flurry of Christians online all resolved to stand by Kong Hee throughout this process. And I just need to ask, for the sake of clarity, what exactly do you all mean by “stand by”?
Do you mean “pray for” Kong Hee? “Help support the distraught family of” Kong Hee? “Encourage and pray for the disappointed, also distraught church family of” Kong Hee? If that’s what you mean then that’s all fine, highly commendable, and I’ll happily join you in that, feel free to read no further.
But if you mean “Protest the Court’s ruling and insist upon the exoneration of” Kong Hee, I just need to ask, on what basis? I’ve seen a persistent narrative at play here, promoted by many Christians and even Christian leaders, in which this entire 5-year trial has essentially been dismissed as a complete smokescreen, an entirely groundless, deceitful attempt by an unbelieving nation’s Courts to act as tools of Satan and oppose Christ’s church, because of the great work Pastor Kong has been doing.
Brothers and sisters, I know this is a far more comforting way of looking at the situation, but… what if Kong Hee actually IS guilty? What if the same charming, smiling man who you’ve seen preaching at conferences, the same man who is so close and friendly with and vouched for by… certain OTHER pastors you respect, actually DID commit this awful, awful crime and awful, awful sin, of which he is still yet to repent?
Should secular courts not be allowed to convict Christians of crimes as long as those Christians maintain that they were doing the Lord’s work? Should Christians continue to voice unqualified public approval of men who, by their actions, demonstrate themselves to be THOROUGHLY disqualified for leadership in Christ’s church, as long as we like their preaching? No, we must be honest, and live our lives with integrity as good citizens as well as good Christians.
The Courts have spoken, and those who wish to oppose their ruling must first demonstrate a fault in their reasoning or provide evidence of corruption serious enough to support the idea that they seriously just spent 5 years of their time building a thoroughly false case on non-existent evidence.
Christ’s name has been dragged through the mud of Asia for long enough because of this trial. If you want to express an opinion on the verdict, get off the bandwagons and do some research for yourselves.”
CItyNews did a fantastic job after the trial, in their interview with Phil Pringle. They gave him enough rope to continue to be misleading but also exposed him as a liar.
ON TOP OF THE FACTS OR NOT?
The video at the end of the CityNews article has Phil Pringle stating:
“It seemed to me that the judge – uh, ruled that- uh, seemed to say the summation- although I couldn’t say I fully understand all of the facts to do with this case [fake smile] against Kong Hee and the other five…”
Thank you CityNews for exposing Phil Pringle as a liar. In past CityNews publications, Phil Pringle asserted that he was “abreast” of what was happening in court and still insisting on Kong Hee’s innocence a few hours before the verdict.
AT THE TIME, IT OBVIOUSLY SEEMED RIGHT?
Think this statement through. How would Phil Pringle know?
“It’s easy on hindsight to pass criticism, but at the time, it obviously seemed right to them, as they had sought professional advice on their plans.”
This begs the question. Was Phil Pringle somehow involved in all this? Thanks to our C3 insiders, we would like Phil Pringle to explain his dialogue with Kong Hee that he reiterated with his church here:
PP: Don’t do anything illegal.
KH: That’s alright. We can do that in Singapore.
PP: You couldn’t do [any of?] that in Sydney. You couldn’t take money out of the building fund. [Source]
“At the time”, it obviously appeared “right” to Phil Pringle since he prophesied over Kong Hee and Sun Ho to buy the SunTec convention center and to take the Crossover Project further into Asia. Wouldn’t it have been handy for “Prophet for Profit” Pringle to prophetically warn Kong Hee and the other five to get themselves into order? Did he offer prophetic advice to CHCs financial governance?
Furthermore, it was Kong Hee who copied Phil Pringle’s financial giving models, practices and philosophies! So was it “right” for Phil Pringle to allow Kong Hee to do this? Remember, Kong Hee blamed Phil Pringle for all the mess he was in:
“You created this mess! You’ve got to come and help us fix it!” [Source]
Another time Kong Hee retold his circumstances of Phil Pringle leading him and said to Pringle “So it’s all your fault, Pastor!”
As long as City Harvest Church keeps Phil Pringle as advisory pastor, you can probably expect another disaster because of his lies and ongoing false prophecies.
PRINGLE REVILING COURT’S VERDICT?
CityNews also asked Pringle how members should react to “revilers”. Pringle’s response?
“The Bible says, don’t revile people who revile us, but bless those who curse us. And leave any negative response in the hands of God. Our calling is to love, to love those who hate us.”
Sounds very hypocritical considering Pringle’s history maligning people in the pulpit and press. We still find this dialogue very entertaining:
“It’s a criminal act to assassinate someone’s character and not be accountable, to be anonymous. So we’re living with a nameless, faceless, spineless group of people who don’t even have the courage or conviction to identity themselves, while we’re up here—you see my face, you know my name, you have all the numbers to use. The idea these Internet haters have that “I’m protecting myself and my family”—what from? If you’re doing the right thing you have nothing to fear. I know we’re [sic] doing the right thing.” [Source]
That quote was taken from a CityNews article in 2014. What’s changed? In the latest interview Phil Pringle is STILL portraying the Singaporean authorities as falsely condemning Kong Hee:
“Jesus was accused of breaking the law and breaching the Sabbath and the law of blasphemy. Paul was accused of treason. Peter was imprisoned for preaching, which was deemed against the law.
We sometimes have sanitized Christian history. But when Jesus was treated like a criminal and executed, his disciples fled. We must learn from these moments that though people make mistakes, it’s not a reason to leave them. When people are unjustly accused or unfairly treated, it’s not a time to depart.“
By using this analogy, Phil Pringle is conveying the idea that either Jesus was rightly condemned for his sins or that Kong Hee was falsely tried and convicted. Now that
Jesus Kong Hee and co-accused have been found guilty of all charges, Pringle’s advice to CHC was that “when people are unjustly accused or unfairly treated, it’s not a time to depart.”
How does Phil Pringle convince CHC that Kong Hee is innocent? By appealing fallaciously to piety (“It’s never been popular to be a Christian, especially when you’re standing for somebody or something”), misdirected faith and guidance, experience (“You simply need to trust in the Lord, and trust what you know about Pastor Kong from your years in church”), and mob appeal (“He is endorsed by many ministers around the world and the faithful members of the congregation who’ve been with him since the start”).
It might be time for Phil Pringle to read CHC Confessions.
CHC STANDING STRONG?
Pringle insisted that “The church will stay together.” That is false, the church can stand through anything. But a cult WILL try to stand together. The sad truth is that City Harvest Church IS “built on Kong Hee” and not Jesus Christ.
In answer to a question, Pringle says, “The church is not built on Kong Hee.” In an answer to another, Pringle says, “If you could appeal, you should. [Kong Hee] has a responsibility to CHC to do that—the church needs him.”
So if the church is built on Jesus Christ, then a cult is built on its leader.
The facts are, CHC has suffered terribly through the ongoing trial with many people leaving and its global reputaiton in ruins thanks to Sun Ho’s smutty music productions and Kong Hee’s unbiblical sermon productions. It’s been these false teachers who have persecuted Christ’s church, and Pringle is still standing quite comfortably with them in their defense.
What is absolutely clear now, is how badly Phil Pringle is trying to keep his “sheepskin” on, trying to give the impression that Kong Hee is still qualified to be seen as a minister of God, despite the fact that the bible clearly disqualies him. Ministers have every right to condemn Kong Hee and Phil Prngle for their deceptive behaviour.
It’s Kong Hee, Sun Ho, Phil Pringle and A.R. Bernard who have caused the world to blaspheme the name of Jesus Christ. They have not repented. They have no shame. CHC has clearly departed from the faith “through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared” (2 Timothy 4:2).
It is absolutely unacceptable for Phil Pringle continuing to insist on Kong Hee’s integrity and innocence, and insist that he has the right to remain a minister despite the fact of the bible clearly disqualifying Kong Hee from holding that office. This is why City Harvest Church and the C3 movement are like cults – they are STILL accountable to no one.
Phil Pringle, City Harvest Church’s advisory pastor, was in court yesterday morning to support CHC’s senior pastor Kong Hee. We spoke to him after the verdict.
How did you feel when the verdict was delivered?
Obviously, the verdict is very serious. I was initially shocked, and then deeply concerned for the families—I’m praying for comfort for them. I know Kong is more concerned about others, especially about Sun and his family.
I feel that even though the judge commended them for intending to do the right thing, he [found] that the investment strategy of CHC was not acceptable to the law. I think the situation was that he said, “You meant well, but you did wrong.”
It’s easy on hindsight to pass criticism, but at the time, it obviously seemed right to them, as they had sought professional advice on their plans.
I also think that the judge felt that Pastor Kong was the only one making decisions and that everyone was simply doing what he was directing. I think it’s true Pastor Kong presided over the larger vision; however, the activating was certainly in the hands of many people in the team.
The judge noted the facts that Pastor Kong has not wrongfully gained, nor church wrongfully lost money. However, that fact that the funds had been, in his words, misappropriated, attracted the judgment he delivered.
So, in the light of all these events, we remain filled with faith, that the promises of God are not deactivated by negative circumstances. All of us have made mistakes. We can be thankful to God that He continues to work with us through grace despite our shortcomings.
Let’s continue to stand together believing in the sovereign hand of Almighty God.
We’ve prepared for this as best as we could but the shock of the verdict and the flood of attacks from the public—and even friends and family—may be hard for some of our members to take. Remind us again what we should do.
The Bible says, don’t revile people who revile us, but bless those who curse us. And leave any negative response in the hands of God. Our calling is to love, to love those who hate us. We shouldn’t try to engage those who have only negative things to say—if we can’t say anything constructive, we should be silent.
Jesus was accused of breaking the law and breaching the Sabbath and the law of blasphemy. Paul was accused of treason. Peter was imprisoned for preaching, which was deemed against the law.
We sometimes have sanitized Christian history. But when Jesus was treated like a criminal and executed, his disciples fled. We must learn from these moments that though people make mistakes, it’s not a reason to leave them. When people are unjustly accused or unfairly treated, it’s not a time to depart.
How should members deal with public humiliation?
It’s never been popular to be a Christian, especially when you’re standing for somebody or something. Don’t get into that strange thing when you’re persecuted and you think, “They appear so good, yet the verdict from court has declared them wrong.” You simply need to trust in the Lord, and trust what you know about Pastor Kong from your years in church. He is endorsed by many ministers around the world and the faithful members of the congregation who’ve been with him since the start.
Do you, as our advisory pastor, think we are prepared for this?
More than anybody! The church will stay together. You’ll be strong. You’ll only get stronger. The church is not built on Kong Hee. It’s built on Jesus Christ. The church is more together and more resilient than you think it is. It survives any kind of persecution. The worst kind is when Christians fight against each other, when ministers criticize each other. It’s the worst kind because it’s confusing for the younger believers.
At this moment Pastor Kong is still discussing with his lawyers about an appeal. Do you think he should? Would it be prideful if he did?
To not appeal is to say “Okay, I guess I’m a criminal.” It’s not an arrogant pride. It’s a pride that says “I know who I am. I am not a criminal.” If you could appeal, you should. He has a responsibility to CHC to do that—the church needs him.
It’s a tough time for us all. What do you want us to fill our minds with?
This is the God of Jesus Christ, of David, of Moses—all who seemed like they were in impossible circumstances, but God delivered them. God’s glory is manifested in the darkest hour. We can trust God: His love for CHC will shine through.
Phil Pringle will be preaching, together with CHC’s advisory chairman AR Bernard at CHC the weekend 31 Oct and 1 Nov, 2015.
Source: City News Team, Phil Pringle: “CHC Will Only Get Stronger”, CityNews, http://www.citynews.sg/2015/10/phil-pringle-chc-will-only-get-stronger/, Updated on October 22, 2015 at 4:56 pm. (Accessed 22/10/2015.)
All of the CHC six were found guilty of all charges in court on 21st Oct 2015 .
Judge See Kee Oon has published material explaining his judgments and findings.
IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others
(1) Lam Leng Hung
(2) Kong Hee
(3) Tan Shao Yuen Sharon
(4) Chew Eng Han
(5) Tan Ye Peng
(6) Serina Wee Gek Yin
LAM LENG HUNG & 5 ORS
State Courts — District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon
21 Oct 2015 Judgment reserved.
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon:
1 This was a 140-day trial involving 43 charges against the 6 accused persons. They were tried primarily on charges of conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) by dishonestly misappropriating funds belonging to City Harvest Church (“CHC”) that had been entrusted to one or more of them. There are two broad groups of charges involving CBT. The first group comprises the first to third charges and pertains to what have been referred to in the course of the trial as the “sham bond investments”. The second group comprises the fourth to sixth charges, pertaining to what has been termed “round-tripping”. A third group of charges, the seventh to tenth, concerns falsification of accounts in CHC’s books relating to the “round-tripping” transactions.
2 I do not propose to set out the evidence as it is lengthy and voluminous. It suffices to note that the main background facts are largely undisputed or uncontroversial. I will set out my findings in relation to the elements of the offence of CBT first, leaving aside the issue of the mens rea of dishonesty. I will then focus primarily on the extent of the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the plans to use funds belonging to CHC for the Crossover Project (“the Crossover”) and on whether their conduct in the circumstances shows that they had acted with dishonest intent.
Criminal breach of trust – elements
3 In relation to the elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust by an agent, leaving aside the mens rea element, I shall state my conclusions briefly. First, I am satisfied that Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng (“Ye Peng”) and John Lam Leng Hung (“John Lam”) were, as members of CHC’s management board, each entrusted with dominion over CHC’s funds, whether in the Building Fund (“BF”) or the General Fund. Second, I am bound to hold that they were entrusted with such dominion in the way of their business as agents because, being board members, they were so entrusted in their capacities as agents of CHC. Third, I am satisfied that the various plans to use CHC’s funds amounted to putting these funds to unauthorised or wrong use.
“Wrong use” of CHC’s funds
4 The BF was a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or investments for financial return. I find that the Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were a wrong use of the BF. I find also that Tranches 10 and 11 of the Special Opportunities Fund (“SOF”) were not genuine investments but were transactions designed to create the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. I find, finally, that the payment under the Advance Rental Licence Agreement (“ARLA”) was not abuilding-related expense but was a transaction designed to perpetuate the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. They were therefore all wrong uses of CHC’s funds.
5 I turn next to the accused persons’ involvement and knowledge in the various plans to use CHC’s funds.
Funding the Crossover – being discreet
6 The accused persons understood that Kong Hee’s preference to be discreet about the funding for the Crossover was for the sake of ensuring the success of the Crossover, but being discreet was also synonymous with non-disclosure and mis-statements. Kong Hee had explained that it was his preference to avoid disclosure of CHC’s involvement in Xtron to avoid any misconception that Sun Ho’s secular music career was “not real” and that CHC was (still) using its money to promote her career. But in relation to both aspects, the evidence shows that it was true that her perceived success was inflated from rather more modest levels and Xtron and the Crossover team had to rely heavily on sponsorship from CHC members or supporters to help prop up her album sales and promote her career. When these sources of financial support which did not directly flow from CHC were insufficient, they had to come up with other means.
7 Xtron was CHC’s special purpose vehicle for the Crossover, and for this purpose Xtron was clearly under CHC’s control and not independent. The plan formulated in 2007 was that CHC’s funds, specifically funds from the BF, would be channelled through Xtron to be used for the Crossover, and the use of the funds was controlled entirely by Kong Hee and his team. In truth, this was analogous to an elaborate extension of a pattern of financial assistance via “sponsorship”, lending or prepayment to Xtron that had already either been taking place or been contemplated prior to 2007. These were seen as short-term measures to put Xtron in funds and support the Crossover. The mindset was thus that the Xtron bond issues were only yet another “temporary plan” albeit one which involved borrowing from CHC’s BF, and hoping that the funds would somehow find their way back to CHC at some unspecified future point.
8 Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han (“Eng Han”) and Serina Wee (“Serina”) each clearly played a substantial role in conceiving and executing this plan to channel CHC’s BF through Xtron for the Crossover. John Lam’s role was evidently less substantial, but I am satisfied that he had his own part to play as a board member and investment committee member. All of them knew that the BF was a restricted fund to be used only for specific purposes. They claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were genuine investments. They believed the Xtron bonds would bring CHC financial return. But on my evaluation of the evidence I consider that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not hold that belief.
9 I find that the accused persons were planning on the basis of Sun Ho’s planned US Crossover album being realistically capable of generating sales of
only 200,000 units, and although their projections showed that the bonds could not be redeemed by the maturity date, they were unconcerned since Eng Han assured them that the maturity date for the bonds could always be extended or fresh bonds could be issued. I am unconvinced that they could have had a genuine belief in Sun Ho’s prospects of success for the US Crossover given their consciousness that much of her earlier success was contrived and contributed to by CHC itself. Serina readily conceded that Sun Ho’s Asian Crossover albums all made losses and Xtron had thus incurred substantial accumulated net losses. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and John Lam also knew that CHC was involved in propping up her Mandarin album sales. I am unable to see how there can be any genuine or honest grounds for their claims that they expected far higher sales for her planned US album well in excess of the projection of 200,000 units. This was no more than an optimistic hope. It was definitely not a realistic expectation. All this strongly militates against their claims that the Xtron bonds were motivated by the realistic prospect of financial return and were genuine investments.
10 Further, the accused persons were all involved in making plans to put Xtron in funds to redeem the bonds. They knew that these plans would involve CHC paying money to Xtron under the guise of legitimate transactions, when in fact the real concern was Xtron’s cashflow difficulties and the purported transactions were mere excuses for CHC to channel money to Xtron. Thus they knew that there was a strong possibility that the apparent financial return under the Xtron bonds would come from CHC itself. This knowledge further undermines their claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment.
11 In addition, the accused persons hid or obscured material information from others. Eng Han and John Lam kept the truth about the Xtron bonds from Charlie Lay. All of them at various times gave the auditors the impression that CHC and Xtron were independent of each other, when they knew that Kong Hee in fact made all decisions on Xtron’s behalf in relation to the Crossover without reference to the Xtron directors, who were mere figureheads. The auditors were not told that Xtron was in fact controlled by Kong Hee and Ye Peng and that they together with their co-accused would exercise control over the use of the bond proceeds. There is no doubt that they knew that they had something to hide.
12 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the accused persons knew that the Xtron bonds were conceived first and foremost to support the Crossover and not for financial return. The prospect of any financial return was a secondary consideration at best and even then I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho’s music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return. They knew that any financial return to CHC might be illusory in the sense that it was CHC’s own money that might need to be channelled to Xtron to redeem the bonds. Given their knowledge, I cannot accept their claims that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment. Accordingly, they caused CHC to subscribe to $13 million in Xtron bonds knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so. Thus they acted dishonestly, and I find that the first and second charges have been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.
13 In respect of the Firna bonds, the accused persons all knew that the primary purpose of the bonds was also to channel money from CHC’s BF to the Crossover. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and Serina knew that they, and not Wahju, were the ones controlling the Firna bond proceeds and deciding how the proceeds should be applied towards the Crossover. Yet they took the inaccurate position that Wahju was somehow “independently” supporting the Crossover using his “personal monies”, and this was what they told the auditors and lawyers. They knew that the financial return under the Firna bonds would not come from the profits of Firna’s glass factory business but depended entirely on the success of the Crossover. If the revenue from Sun Ho’s albums was not adequate, they would find alternative sources of funds for Firna, and that might include channelling CHC’s own money into Firna through various means. Given this knowledge, I do not think Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina could have believed that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, and so they could not have believed that the bonds were a genuine investment.
14 John Lam was further removed from the Firna bonds than the other accused persons. But he signed the “secret letter” that secured the signature of Wahju’s father-in-law on the Firna BSA. I am satisfied that he knew that the prospect of financial return for CHC did not depend on the success of Firna’s glass factory business. He knew that it was a very real possibility that the Crossover would not be profitable. Thus I find that he too did not believe that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, meaning that he did not think the bonds were a genuine investment.
15 Therefore, in causing CHC to subscribe to $11 million in Firna bonds, the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to do so. They thus acted dishonestly. As such, I find that the third charge has been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.
16 At the centre of the first to third charges is how the BF came to be applied for the Crossover when it was a restricted fund for specific purposes – either for building or investment. In my judgment, the Crossover was not one of these purposes. It was not an investment since by their own characterisation, it was meant to serve a “missions” purpose all along. I am not convinced that there was any “mixed motive”, “dual purpose” or “hybrid” intent behind the use of the BF. These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word “investment”. They were plainly fabricated in an attempt to justify their past conduct and misuse of the BF. I do not see how they can be said to have acted in good faith in relation to the charges they face.
17 The accused persons have of course pointed to the fact that the money did come back to CHC with interest. However, this is patently due to their efforts to put Xtron, Firna and AMAC in funds to facilitate these repayments through the round-tripping transactions. It does not confirm that there was any actual intention at the outset to invest for the purpose of maximising returns. What is more telling is that it was consistently represented to CHC’s Executive Members that investing the BF in this fashion was meant to maximise returns. There was no mention at all that the investment was in the Crossover, let alone that it was for “spiritual returns” or for both spiritual and financial return from the Crossover. The failure to mention those facts buttresses my conclusion that the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into the Xtron and Firna bonds.
Round-tripping and falsification of accounts
18 As revealed by the evidence adduced at trial, there was never any financial “return” derived from any of Xtron’s and Firna’s Crossover-related activities. Instead, when the time came to deal with the auditors’ queries and to address Sim Guan Seng’s concerns, they resorted to removing more funds from the BF and also the General Fund under the pretext of making further “investments” into Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF and purportedly for a building purchase by Xtron through the ARLA. The round-tripping transactions were crafted to create the appearance that these were genuine transactions involving the redemption of bonds when they were not. They were not genuine transactions because the accused persons controlled these transactions every step of the way, and the substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself.
19 Given that Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon Tan (“Sharon”) were fully aware of the whole series of transactions, they could not have believed that Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF were genuine investments, or that the payment under ARLA was a building-related expense. They say that they viewed all this as “restructuring”, but that to my mind is fundamentally inconsistent with a belief that the transactions were genuine investments or building-related expenses, and this inability to provide a coherent explanation for their conduct strongly suggests that they knew they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into these transactions. They may have apprised the CHC board of an earlier version of the transactions, but they kept that knowledge from the lawyers and the auditors. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the fourth to sixth charges have been made out against them.
20 I am also satisfied that there was falsification of CHC’s accounts following from the attempts to disguise the SOF and ARLA transactions as genuine transactions. In relation to the ninth charge, the accounting entry recording a redemption of Xtron bonds in the form of a set-off against advance rental was false, because it was not a case of CHC and Xtron making independent decisions to pay advance rental on one hand and redeem bonds on the other. I find that the accused persons knew that false accounting entries would have to be made pursuant to their plan to create the appearance of redemption of bonds, and hence I find that they each had intent to defraud. I am therefore satisfied that the seventh to tenth charges have been made out against Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon.
Objective evidence and inferences
21 I note that there was an extensive record which comprised an elaborate patchwork of emails, Blackberry messages, phone SMSs, hard copy documents and numerous other documented exchanges in some form or other. The fact that there was a mass of available evidence which when woven together amounted to a paper trail is not necessarily indicative of innocence. In my view insofar as much of it was incriminating, it is more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness, demonstrating that the accused persons were overconfident in their belief that they could replace the funds in time before suspicions were aroused.
22 The case against the accused persons depended heavily on inferences to be drawn from the objective evidence. Much of these inferences can be readily drawn as the tenor and language in the communications adduced at trial strongly point to their dishonest intent. In short, the documentary evidence goes a long way in demonstrating their subjectively guilty knowledge. I am not convinced that they have raised any reasonable doubt in this regard.
23 I find that the accused persons were variously inextricably entangled in two conspiracies to misuse CHC’s funds. One conspiracy consisted of misusing BF monies for the Crossover, and the other involved misusing CHC’s funds, a substantial portion of which comprised BF monies, to create the appearance of bond redemptions and to defraud the auditors via falsified accounts through the various roles they played. Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery. Although there are distinctions in their respective levels of knowledge and participation, I am unable to discern any rational basis to exclude any of them from being implicated and characterised as conspirators.
Beliefs, motives and mindsets
24 Much of the defence centred on the beliefs and motivations of the accused persons. If it can be shown that they genuinely, honestly and reasonably held the view that what they were doing was legitimate in the sense that they were legally entitled to do it, and they went ahead to act in good faith as a result, I think there may well be room for doubt as to whether they had acted dishonestly. The weight of the evidence however points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise.
25 Where professional advice was sought, this was really mainly an attempt to seek out self-supporting confirmatory advice based on selectively-
disclosed information. They omitted mention of the crucial fact that CHC remained in control of Xtron and would correspondingly control the use of the funds. They provided leading questions for belief confirmation and support from only those advisors whom they trusted to support the Crossover vision and were quick to reject or filter out any disconfirming information.
26 The accused persons chose to support the Crossover vision and to act and participate in acts in support of it. The Crossover became a comprehensive logic for justifying their beliefs and actions, and for doing whatever was expedient for its advancement. The pervasive mindset seemed to be one of short-term expediency; the use of means involving dubious methods was worth the risk to them if there was some hope of longer-term gain.
27 In their defence, all the accused persons testified largely to the same effect: they love CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC. They consulted and cleared their proposals with their lawyers, the auditors and the CHC Board. They were motivated by CHC’s cultural mandate and they believed in the Crossover vision. They pointed to pure motives and a justifiable purpose in the use of CHC’s funds. Ultimately the funds which were removed were for Church purposes and were returned to CHC.
28 The crux of their defence was that there was no conspiracy and no dishonesty. All six would never intend to cause harm or loss to CHC and the ultimate objectives were in furtherance of the Great Commission. It may be arguable that all of them thought they were not acting dishonestly to cause wrongful loss since no permanent loss was intended, but this was premised on their unquestioning trust and belief in Kong Hee and their confidence that the Crossover would succeed. Thus they convinced themselves that it was both morally and legally permissible to temporarily use the money from CHC’s funds when they knew it was not.
29 The accused persons chose to engage in covert operations and conspiratorial cover-ups. They contrived to create cover stories and clever round-trips concealing their unlawful conduct. They chose to participate in the conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds, which included siphoning off large amounts from the BF for Sun Ho’s music career and eventually for the round-tripping transactions to enable the bond redemptions. They chose to defraud the auditors with falsified accounts suggesting a series of genuine transactions for the redemption of bonds and advance rental. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a finding that they had all acted dishonestly and in breach of the trust reposed in them and they played their respective roles in a conspiracy with intent to cause wrongful loss to CHC and to defraud the auditors.
30 I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the six accused persons are guilty of all the charges that have been brought against them. I note that all of them believed that they had acted in what they considered to be the best interests of CHC. There is no evidence of any wrongful gain – that was never the prosecution’s case in any event as the charges were premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC’s funds.
31 I consider that John Lam, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon were all acting in accordance with the instructions of people they considered to be their spiritual leaders deserving of their trust and deference, and Ye Peng, although a leader in his own right, similarly trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee. But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one’s leaders, regardless of the context in which that trust operates, these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out. In my judgment all the elements of the relevant offences have indeed been made out. Accordingly, the accused persons stand convicted as follows:
(a) John Lam is convicted on the first to third charges;
(b) Kong Hee is convicted on the first to third charges;
(c) Sharon is convicted on the fourth to tenth charges;
(d) Eng Han is convicted on the first to tenth charges;
(e) Ye Peng is convicted on the first to tenth charges; and
(f) Serina is convicted on the first to tenth charges.
Source: PDF, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3A-00dAvijTNXAyaGEyLUtZdW8/view?pli=1. (Accessed 23/10/2015.)
Phil Pringle, you have a LOT of explaining to do.
Straits Times reports,
Happening now: City Harvest trial
The six accused are found guilty of ALL charges against them, says Judge See.
For a recap of the charges each are facing, read: http://str.sg/ZLf8
Source: Straits Times, http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/st-now-news-as-it-happens-oct-21-2015, Accessed 21/10/2015.
[UPDATE 27/10/2015: Transcript of video added]
In the below article written by Phil Pringle and in his YouTube video, Phil Pringle once again claims Kong Hee’s innocence to his church, once again insinuating that the Singaporean courts are being used by the devil.
Worse still in the video, Phil Pringle is deliberately throwing pictures out to portray Kong Hee as Christ and the Singaporean authorities as the corrupt court of the Sanhedrin, who relied on blood money and false accusation to murder Jesus. This is no different to Kong Hee’s message at Presence Conference 2012 to win blind support for his case in front of hundreds and thousands of Christians around the world.
Why is it acceptable to portray the Singaporean government as slanderous murderous men?
Furthermore, Pringle in his video also portrays Kong Hee as the Apostle Peter before governing authorities. But there is a huge difference between the Apostles and Kong Hee. They were persecuted for preaching the gospel and falsely accused because of their message.
However, Kong Hee is not in court because the government wants him to stop preaching the gospel. He is in court for mishandling church funds of up to $46,000,000 to finance his wife’s musical career. That’s a far cry from the “crimes” of the Apostles.
Phil Pringle writes,
PHIL PRINGLE COMMENT ON KONG HEE COURT CASE
This Wednesday, the CHC court case will end, and a verdict will be read over Kong Hee. Our job as fellow believers is to stand in faith with our brother.
On Wednesday 21st October, Pastor Kong Hee’s court case in Singapore will conclude and a verdict will be read. Below is video footage containing my comments on the matter. This video was recorded during our 6 p.m. service at C3 Church Oxford Falls.
When you’re building the Church, you’re never going to be found without a fight. Our job as fellow believers is to stand with each other when we are facing trouble. At the end of the day, it’s easy to stand for Jesus, but it’s more challenging to stand for one of his servants when they are facing difficulty. In this coming week, our good friend Pastor Kong Hee (Senior Pastor of City Harvest Church, Singapore) is going to be standing in a courtroom and a verdict will be passed on him after a 5 year long trial – the longest trial in Singapore’s history. I know Pastor Kong Hee to be an honest, true and faithful minister of Christ. He has also been extraordinarily effective in raising up one of the truly great churches (CHC) in the world, bringing hundreds of thousands of people to Christ. Jesus has told us this kind of advancement would not go uncontested. We must be prepared to be immovable, strong and faithful to Christ through all the challenges we face in building His Church. Ultimately, it is the Courts job to arrive at a verdict. But we are praying for victory. There is a sentiment against believers, but the devil has always got it wrong. He thinks if he attacks the church it’s going to die, he even tried it with Jesus, but He just came up out of the ground again. I believe we have a victorious Christ ruling over His house, His Church and His Kingdom.
You can find a reliable summary of the trial available here: http://www.citynews.sg/2015/09/city-harvest-church-trial-15-sep-2015-video/
See you in church!
Source: Phil Pringle, PHIL PRINGLE COMMENT ON KONG HEE COURT CASE, http://philpringle.com/blog-/phil-pringle-comment-on-kong-hee-court-case#.VibwGfmqqkr, Published 21/10/2015. (Accessed 21/10/2015.)
“I want to take a second, for us all just to take a minute to pray for Pastor Kong Hee.
This Wednesday he is going to be standing in a court room in Singapore after five years of trial, the longest running trial in Singapore history. And so I’m going to go up there and stand with him in the court room and ahh you know it’s not my job to judge, rights and wrongs but I do believe it is our job to stand with people who are in struggling situations.
He is one of the most pure hearted, holy men of God I know. One of the most devoted, dedicated, like rugged soldiers for Christ that I’ve ever met. There are some people that are like ‘I’m not so sure I actually want to try to stand but Kong Hee he’s impeccable in integrity in these areas and it’s just that he’s been caught up in it.
This has become a very complicated processes, the prosecution has not been able to provide one piece of evidence of him wrongfully gaining anything or the congregation wrongfully loosing anything, in terms of finances.
But as I say it’s not our part to reach that judgment, that’s in the court’s hands. And do you know Paul and Peter, a lot of these guys found themselves in very difficult situations with the Government authorities and put in predicaments that were scary for the Christians cause they were associated with them and ahh when Jesus got convicted as a criminal and was sent to the cross to die, it was pretty difficult for the disciples to say, ‘we know him, he’s a friend’ they scattered and I don’t want to be that, I want to say I’m standing, I don’t understand everything all the time but I think when we see a good brother, a faithful brother in trouble we should stand with them, in Jesus name.
So let’s pray for one minute here for him right now, Lord we pray for your hand to be upon Pastor Kong and the anointing of the Holy Spirit to be in his life, let the power of Christ rest on him, in Jesus name. Let a miracle come to pass, a miracle of deliverance and victory by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, in Jesus name, let your presence fall now on our brother and those other defendants, let them all know the power of God on their life. In Jesus mighty name we believe God, Your presence, Your power, Your Holy Spirit falling in Jesus mighty name, our God we praise You.”