Defense counsel Edwin Tong sought to establish that CHC team had repeatedly send Foong Daw Ching emails to update him and seek his advice on issues such as the Xtron bonds.
CN FILE PHOTO.
Related party transactions and the CHC-Xtron bonds were two of the issues Serina Wee and Tan Ye Peng had sought witness Foong Daw Ching’s advice on.
Edwin Tong, defense counsel for Kong Hee, produced emails to show that Wee had sent emails to seek Foong’s advice regarding CHC investing into Xtron. Also, the court saw that Tan had sent emails to update Foong on the relationship between Xtron, City Harvest Church and AMAC.
Foong, however, repeatedly claimed that he could not recall reading e-mails that had been sent to him. Tong then suggested to Foong that it is “a very convenient excuse that suddenly all these e-mails which raise very clear points concerning Xtron and CHC, and the relationship, and the bonds, you suddenly don’t recall”.
Foong disagreed, and claimed that being asked whether he had read an email or not was a “very subtle” question.
Earlier this morning, Tong showed evidence that Kong sent text messages at the end of 2003 to update Foong on Ho’s progress in US. Foong congratulated Kong on Ho’s success, to which Kong replied that he would need Foong’s “ever vigilant advice”.
CN PHOTO: Daniel Poh.
The court was also shown an email from Kong to Foong in 2006 in which the pastor had said he was concerned about related party transactions and conflict of interest that could arise from his wife, Sun Ho, being an artist and being paid by Xtron. Kong said that he and Ho would be willing to step down from the church management board if it helped, and that he did not want to bring any reproach to the church. Kong asked Foong for help in managing the accounts so that they would withstand “the strongest scrutiny” from the authorities.
Foong insisted he could not recall what he did with the email, even when the defense lawyer suggested that this was a serious concern of a client.
The court also heard that Drew and Napier was the law firm that had drafted the video script for Foong, which he read out for CHC’s annual general meeting in April 2003. The prosecution had brought this up in the course of the examination-in-chief and Foong had testified that he had made changes to the script.
Tong then produced an email from the lawyer at Drew and Napier that contained the original script and highlighted several changes made by Foong. He sought to establish that contrary to Foong’s claim that he was in a hurry at the time the video was recorded, Foong actually had time to edit the script and did not leave out the fact that he was the lead partner.
Tong also established that after the video was showed in the AGM, he never disavowed the script he read out.
Court resumed at 2.30 pm.
中文报道 – CHC审讯：检方提议冯道清“刻意”不记得CHC的重要文件
