Chew Eng Han continued to rebut the prosecution’s claims that the ARLA was sham.
Attempting to establish that the board only knew certain parts of the plan to use the Advance Rental Licensing Agreement proceeds to redeem both the Xtron and Firna bonds, the prosecution went through the minutes of two board meetings this morning, questioning Chew Eng Han on his recollection on what had been told to the board.
When Sharon Tan was on the stand, her counsel had produced her handwritten notes of the meetings to show that the plan to use the ARLA proceeds had been explained to the board members in these two board meetings; Tan’s notes also showed a diagram depicting the full plan. However, the prosecution worked hard to try to show that not all the things recorded on the handwritten notes were presented to the board. It was noted that the prosecution had not questioned the maker of the notes at such length while she was on the stand, prompting Tan’s counsel to stand up a number of times to question this.
Chew testified that there were too many details in it and Tan could not have written those details by herself outside of the meeting. He also said that even though he could not recall everything that was recorded in the handwritten notes, he was certain that the board was told about the ARLA and how it would be used to offset the bonds.
Chew also disagreed with the prosecution’s suggestion that the real intention behind the ARLA was for the redemption of the bonds; he maintained that there were two intentions for the ARLA: one, to give Xtron the mandate for property search, and two, to redeem the bonds.
Chew was grilled about the information given to the executive members and auditors, as well as what he had told Rajah & Tann lawyer Christina Ng, regarding CHC’s control over Xtron and the true purpose of the bond investments.
DPP Christopher Ong sought to point out that in order to avoid consolidation, the accused had given the auditors an inaccurate picture of the amount of control CHC had over Xtron. He also went to lengths to try to show that Ng also had not received complete information about the bonds, the ARLA and the secret letter. Chew repeatedly denied this, insisting that Ng knew and understood the purpose of what they were doing.
The prosecution also put to Chew that the only purpose for the Riverwalk deal and the Amended Bond Subscription Agreement was to extend the bond maturity dates.
Much time was also spent on the clauses contained in a board resolution that had been drafted at the advice of lawyers, but never passed by the board.
The court heard that the resolution was drafted in order to protect AMAC, Chew’s fund management firm, by showing on paper that the board members knew about the bond investments.
The prosecution rejected Chew’s explanation that the resolution was not passed due to an oversight. Instead, there were concerns regarding disclosure of certain bond-related information which would reveal to the auditors the real purpose of the Xtron and Firna bonds, said the prosecution.
Chew disagreed again, stating that Foong Daw Ching already knew about the purpose of the bonds.
When the prosecution made a sweeping statement that it was “uncharacteristic” of co-defendants Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng to tell the board things, Chew told the court that he knew Tan did not hide things from the board, neither was Tan afraid the board would not show support because it was “very supportive of the Crossover.”
Cross-examination and re-examination are expected to be completed tomorrow.
中文报道 – 城市丰收审讯：周：预付租金许可协议达到两项目的