Prosecution sought to qualify witness’ answers to defense counsels in re-examination.
CN PHOTOS: Michael Chan
In a short re-examination of 12th prosecution witness Sim Guan Seng this morning, deputy public prosecutor Christopher Ong attempted to restate some of his points that came up during examination-in-chief.
He asked Sim again that if he had access to internal emails and other documents that had been shown to him by the prosecution, if he would have signed off on the audit completion checklists without further questions, Sim replied no. The defense had shown over the past two days that the emails and documents Sim had to give evidence for were internal emails and discussions, with a few documents between the defendants, and that he was being called to speculate over the meanings of the emails.
Today, Sim told the court that had he been privy to such private exchanges, there could have been some things he would have clarified, such as the intention behind the $20.8m bond, which had already been redeemed by the time audit began. When shown an email between Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina Wee discussing Xtron cashflow—it had been shown in court that Kong liaised with the American music producers about Sun Ho’s upcoming album—Sim said he found it unusual investors would discuss this but qualified that had he seen this email, he would have asked Tan to explain the context of the email. He added that “it’s very difficult” for him to comment in detail about the email.
During cross-examination, Sim had agreed with several defense counsels that the entries concerning the bonds were properly documented in CHC’s books and were “true, fair and accurate”. Ong asked if Sim was to conclude, based on other information, that advance rental license agreement and/or the Special Opportunity Fund were actually not investments, would his answers regarding the correctness of the journal remain?
Sim replied that this was a hypothetical question and auditors are unable to make a legal determination whether something is fraudulent or not. However, he replied that if it was really the case the ARLA was only there for the redemption of bonds then it would not be what he was told.
The DPP tried to raise the legitimacy of the church building fund being used for rental payment. His witness replied that the issue he raised had nothing to do with “whether using Building Fund to pay for rental expenses is proper or improper, because that has been resolved, the Board have approved, the members have approved.” He explained that his issue, which he discussed with CHC’s board was on whether there could be an “alternative to how we present information in the financial statements, so that it will give a better disclosure of such expenses in the financial statement of the account.” It had been heard yesterday that the CHC management had taken his advice on many matters.
Court is adjourned until Tuesday, January 28 when the 13th prosecution witness will take the stand.
中文报道 – CHC审讯：检方以简短的再质询结束沈元成出庭作证的时间
