CHC Trial
The prosecution highlights discrepancies between Chew’s and Lam’s statements to CAD; accuses Lam of making Chew a scapegoat.
In an attempt to show the “sham” nature of the Firna bonds, the prosecution grills defendant John Lam about the apparent lack of due diligence and his “anxious” efforts to minimize impairment in the church’s accounts.
John Lam explained to the court this morning how personal guarantees work, and why it was necessary to extend the maturity date of the Xtron bonds rather than rely on the personal guarantee.
5 August 2014 – Summary of Day 2 of CHC hearing.
Prosecution continues to defend its claims of misrepresentation and concealment of information from auditors and board members in cross-examination of John Lam today.
Unsold albums and lack of mention about personal guarantee by Wahju Hanafi formed the main points of the prosecution’s cross-examination of John Lam this afternoon.
Prosecution puts forth evidence which seemed to suggest building fund money was channeled to Crossover Project; John Lam explains it was a mistake, and that Wahju Hanafi’s intention had always been to fund the Project.
Xtron’s role as Sun Ho’s artiste manager was kept from the public in order to avoid unfavorable impressions, John Lam explains.
During cross-examination, the DPP questioned Lam on the board’s decision to seek out Foong’s advice instead of the engagement partner of Baker Tilly.
What was the conspiracy he is being charged with? Defendant John Lam admitted he wasn’t sure. He also agreed with Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan that had the 2010 investigations not occurred, the Xtron bonds would have been paid back in the normal course of events, testifies John Lam.
Chew Eng Han disagreed with Lam’s evidence that he had told him he wanted to manage CHC’s funds; insisted that the meeting had never taken place.
On his third day on the stand, John Lam reiterates his commitment to his church, his pastor and his roles as treasurer, audit committee member and investment committee member of CHC.