In discussing various worst case scenarios pertaining to Xtron’s investment into the Crossover Project, Tan Ye Peng did not think that he was committing wrong, a view he has maintained throughout his time on the stand thus far.
Tan Ye Peng: Every cent CHC paid to Xtron had to be justified. CN FILE PHOTO
This afternoon saw the prosecution bringing up an email in which Tan and several others were discussing solutions in the event Xtron was not able to gain any album revenues from the Crossover Project.
The prosecution noted that there was no mention of falling back on Wahju Hanafi’s guarantee, and instead the accused were thinking of ways for more funds to be transferred from CHC to keep Xtron afloat.
Tan reiterated that any fees given to Xtron had to be for real services. He never thought he was committing wrongdoing, not even today. Why is it wrong to help safeguard an investment after I have invested into it? Tan asked.
Earlier today, Tan agreed that the drawdowns for the Xtron bonds were controlled by Kong and himself according to the needs of the US Crossover Project.
Under cross-examination by the prosecution, Tan explained that when the Xtron directors signed the first Xtron bond subscription agreement, they were agreeing that the amount that could be spent, i.e. the budget for the project would be S$13 million. Beyond that, they left the managing of the drawdown schedule to the Crossover team who would make operational decisions for the project.
The prosecution then put to Tan that because the drawdowns were controlled by him and Kong without the involvement of the Xtron directors, the Xtron bonds were thus not genuine. Tan disagreed.
The prosecutor next brought up an email in which fund manager Chew Eng Han said that the main thing that the Crossover team had to take care of was the interest of the Xtron bonds if the album sales did not come in by the time the bonds reached maturity; as for the principal amount, he said that they could re-issue new bonds.
Tan explained that Chew was talking about repayment of the interest in the event the album sales did not come in. It was not, as the prosecutor suggested, a case where they entered into the BSA thinking that the album would not be launched and that they could keep re-issuing new bonds.
The prosecution then asked Tan why he and Chew were trying to ways to repay Xtron bonds when they were not financially liable. Tan reiterated that City Harvest Church and Xtron were very close and when the church made an investment in Xtron, he wanted to make sure the church did not suffer any loss.
The prosecutor suggested that Tan and his co-accused were manipulating the flow of funds between Xtron and CHC via retainer and rental amounts, for the sole purpose of supporting Xtron financially.
Tan disagreed, pointing out that the church board had to approve the amounts, and Xtron’s staff had to agree to the cost of services in order to maintain operational sustainability. Every dollar paid to Xtron had to be justified with a service provided, he said.
The prosecution tried to assert that Tan was involved with creating “cover stories” as a justification to channel funds to Xtron, ensuring that it had money to pay the bond interest due to the church.
In his defense, Tan pointed the court to evidence showing Xtron staff members themselves proposing an increase in retainer fees, corresponding with the increase of manpower and other operational expenses required by the church.
Court resumes tomorrow at 9.30am.
中文报道 – 城市丰收审讯：陈一平问：协助保护投资为何不妥？
