• About C3 Church Watch
    • Church Watch Rules
  • C3 Scandals
  • C3 Testimonies
  • C3 Tirade Brigade
  • C3’s Bible Garble
  • Church Leaders Speak Out
  • Finding a good church near you
  • LoveIs What Exactly?
  • Pringle’s Oracle Debacles

C3 Church Watch

C3 Church Watch

Tag Archives: case

Judge See Kee Oon’s assessment over CHC case

23 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

assessment, case, CHC, Chew Eng Han, City Harvest Church, John Lam, Kong Hee, See Kee Oon, Serina Wee, Serina Wee Gek Yin, Sharon Tan, Tan Shao Yuen Sharon, Tan Ye Peng, trial

All of the CHC six were found guilty of all charges in court on 21st Oct 2015 .

Six Accused

Judge See Kee Oon has published material explaining his judgments and findings.

Judge See Kee Oon

Judge See Kee Oon


IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

(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


ORAL JUDGMENT


PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V
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:

Overview

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.

Xtron bonds

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.

Firna bonds

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.

Conclusion

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.)

Like this:

Like Loading...

What did you say Pringle? (Part 1) Isn’t this what Kong did at CHC?

15 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

case, CHC, CityNews, court, mansion, Phil Pringle, Sun Ho

This piece is a follow up from our previous article:

Another CityNews interview with CHC Advisory “Pastor” Phil Pringle

Phil Pringle said:

‘That’s one of the greats [sic] difficulties in church life, because you have unscrupulous people who say, “Trust me, I’m a Christian, gimme $100,000, I’ll invest it for you.” So the person gives him $100,000 and he doesn’t [sic] invest the money but does something else with it, and then he comes back and says, “I’m sorry, I’ve lost it.” And those people get very hurt and leave the church. As pastors, we say to people, “Whenever you’re doing business together, make sure you’ve got contracts signed.” Don’t just say “He’s a Christian, I’ll trust him.” Some people have no shame. How can you take so much money and lose it, and say you’ll fight the person you owe?’

Has anyone else spotted what Phil Pringle has done here? Has Phil Pringle described to City News what Kong Hee has done?

1. “Trust me, I’m a Christian, gimme $100,000, I’ll invest it for you.”

Kong established a building fund with the understanding, naturally enough, that money contributed to that fund would be used to purchase a building for CHC. Then he importuned his congregation to give him money “until the tears [ran] down [their] face[s]”.

Kong Hee Is Not About “Building Buildings” But “Building People”? Really?

It’s sad if you think about it.

2. “So the person gives him $100,000 and he doesn’t invest the money but does something else with it […]”

Kong’s followers gave him buckets of money, and it appears he took SG$24,000,000 and spent it on “something else”, namely his wife’s pop-star fantasies.

And those fantasies where indulged to the very utmost, and in the most obscenely profligate manner. For example, Sun Ho lived the high life in Hollywood, staying in a mansion that cost $28,000 per *month* to rent – and this while Kong’s faithful sheep were downsizing their own housing in order to give him more money!

The House Of The Rising Sun

Of course, Kong missed his wife, so he just had to fly over to the U.S. to see her on a regular basis – and he clocked up airfares to the tune of $700,000, all paid for with hard-earned money that was given to him by the trusting and sincere members of CHC.

An Insightful Analysis To The CHC System (Part 5)

(Apparently Kong even took money from children: he wanted the contents of their angpows – red packets containing money that are given as gifts on special occasions in Chinese and other Asian societies. Obviously, when a jet-setting “pastor” has big bills coming in, no gift is too small – could a so-called “man of God” possibly stoop any lower than to do such a thing?)

3. “[…] and then he comes back and says, “I’m sorry, I’ve lost it.”’

Kong hasn’t got around to admitting his guilt yet, much less apologising to his thousands of victims; however he may well crack as the trial continues and the pressure on him builds. Nonetheless, Kong has certainly lost all the money – there is nothing to show for it other than a handful of tacky and tasteless “music” videos by his talentless partner, Sun Ho.

4. “And those people get very hurt and leave the church.”

A lot of people have left CHC, and many are extremely angry that they have been duped by Kong Hee, and understandably so.

5. ‘As pastors, we say to people, “Whenever you’re doing business together, make sure you’ve got contracts signed.” Don’t just say “He’s a Christian, I’ll trust him.”

So, according to Phil Pringle, we should be thinking along the lines of “Don’t just say ‘Kong’s a Christian, I’ll trust him'”. That’s excellent advice, “pastor” Phil – it’s just too bad that you didn’t give the good people of CHC that warning *before* Kong Hee and his accomplices took that money from them.

6. ‘”Some people have no shame. How can you take so much money and lose it, and say you’ll fight the person you owe?’

It’s true: Kong has no shame. Firstly he has the hide to stand in front of his followers and tell them that he “maintains [his] integrity” (as though he has ever shown any). Then he attempts to deflect the blame for his conduct onto his associates and underlings in a cowardly and pathetic attempt to save his own skin.

How indeed could Kong misappropriate such a huge amount and then turn around and swear blind that he is innocent? How could he be so shameless as to throw his fellow staff under the bus when it is plain as day that he and his wife were the principal beneficiaries of this outrageous scam?

Phil’s words raise an interesting question: was his oblique enumeration of events at CHC deliberate, or was it something unconscious?

Maybe the scriptures can help us answer this question.

“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.” 2 Peter 2:1-3

“For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” Philippians 3:18-21

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Quick Pringle! Attack the “haters” before the truth gets out!

05 Monday May 2014

Posted by Nailed Truth in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

allegations, c3 church, c3 cult, case, CHC, chc church, city harvest, City Harvest Church, city harvest cult, court, cult, cults, judge, Kong Hee, Phil Pringle, scandal

If you attend C3, don’t think. Don’t raise any questions around the Kong Hee scandal. Pringle and his leadership will make sure they squash any inquisitive mind who starts looking into the case. So leave quietly or just accept the deceitful stories peddled by Phil Pringle. Even better, ask Pringle himself why he doesn’t disclose the actual details of his close friends case to his congregation.

After his cunning stunts at his latest C3 Presence Conference, how do you think Phil Pringle is going to spin this latest turn of events to his congregation?

The Straits Times reports,

Judge throws out application to acquit City Harvest Church leaders

The trial against City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee and five others will continue, and all six of them will testify. The trial resumes July 14.

Their defence lawyers had claimed the prosecution had not done enough to show there was a case against the accused, and called on Presiding Judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon to throw out all of the charges.

 But on Monday, the judge rejected this, saying that there was enough evidence for the trial to continue with all of the charges intact. “In my view there is evidence to show that the investments were shams… and were merely disguises for something else,” he said.

 He was referring to several bond transactions which the prosecution believes were illegal and a way for the accused to misuse church funds. About $50 million is alleged to have been illegally used in various sham transactions to finance Kong’s wife Ho Yeow Sun’s pop music career and to cover this up.

By Feng Zengkun, Judge throws out application to acquit City Harvest Church leaders, Straits Times, http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/judge-throws-out-application-acquit-city-harvest-church-leaders-20#sthash.2zqPfbXY.dpuf, May 5, 2014 3:15 PM. (Accessed 05/05/2014.)

We at C3 Church Watch are committed to speaking the truth in love, including exposing the false prophets and shepherds within or associated with the C3 movement. However we are also very concerned about the well-being of those people within C3 churches who have been harmed by the false doctrine, unethical practices, and ongoing scandals within the movement.

This latest development further exposes the poisonous fruit of the C3 leadership. We urge members to honestly reflect on what is happening within the C3 movement. Flee to the Word of God, praying that He will be gracious and reveal to you the truth that leaders such as Phil Pringle and Kong Hee are not shepherds but rather are ravenous wolves not sparing the flock (Matthew 7:15-23, Acts 20:29-31). It is our earnest desire to see many snatched from the fire (Jude 3:23).

Related articles:

News that Pringle will NOT want you to hear: CHC “leaders have case to answer, says judge”

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

WATCH, DISCERN, AVOID

Follow Us
Facebook

Sowell

_________________________________

OUR OTHER SITES

Latest Insights

Nailed Truth on Noble Preaches Furtick Is Mess…
k on Noble Preaches Furtick Is Mess…
ashevillesveryown on C3 Asheville Scandal – M…
churchwatcher on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
Clinton on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
2expose1 on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
Tracker on My! What Big Faith You Ha…
Timothy Boisvert on C3 Asheville Scandal – M…
Bryce on Phil Pringle the “scam…
Tracker on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…

Latest Headlines

  • A Scholar On The Holy Spirit? Pringle And The Windy Way.
  • Phil Pringle – God’s Word confirms that you are a false prophet….
  • Have Christians lost the art of biblical discernment?
  • A valuable BTWN resource addressing dangers in evangelicalism

Bible Resources

bible.org

Good Christian Radio Resources

Good Church Resources

Good Discernment Websites

Feeling Supportive?

Must-Read Christian Books

The opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally we agree but not always.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • C3 Church Watch
    • Join 251 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • C3 Church Watch
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
    %d bloggers like this: