Seriously ah, how come Straits Times article can be so bias. This is not the first time i find that they are trying to portray a GUILTY image of the accused in City Harvest Church. Come on lar, as a paper that widely read by everyone is Singapore, please do not be bias and just report the facts instead of trying to influencing opinions. trying to cook up more juicy news? whats the real intention? these are lives of others ler..can simply just report and publish? wah seh...cannot take it man. 😡
Mitigating Factors Straits Times never publish!!
I refer back to City News, which report the other side of the story where by mainstream newspaper NEVER REPORT. not bias then wat? forget to report these important statements? whole team of SPH people working also can missed out ah?
"In the High Court’s oral judgment, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin stated that although this had been a case without direct precedence, and that although the appellants acted in what they believed was the best interest of the church, and that none of them benefitted financially from their offences, their fault lay in their adopting the wrong means.
*(I wonder how come others kept saying they steal $$, lie or cheat...please read the full facts hor before forming your opinion. )
The judges, in their written judgment, noted several mitigating factors on the part of the six appellants.
“In our view, the present case should not be viewed as a sinister and malicious attempt on the appellants’ part to strip the church of funds for their own purposes. We accept that the appellants resorted to deceit and lies in order to keep the use of the BF for the Crossover confidential and because they feared that questions would be asked. This included inflating Sun Ho’s success, keeping the true nature of the various transactions from the auditors, lawyers, the CHC Board and CHC’s members and presenting a misleading picture to CHC’s members even after the CAD had commenced its investigations. Such prevarication is undoubtedly an aggravating factor and should not be condoned, especially since most of the funds in question were from the BF, which were funds donated to CHC by its members for a specific and restricted purpose.”
“But, at the same time, the appellants’ various non-disclosures take on a different character when underscored by the overarching theme that they were acting in what they genuinely believed to be in CHC’s interests. Whether this may in fact be so is a matter open for debate, but what is crucial is that this was their belief.
“Thus, despite the fact that a large amount of funds from CHC was misappropriated, which would ordinarily have attracted a sentence at the higher end of the sentencing spectrum, we would allow for a significant discount given the exceptional mitigating factors in the present case.
“None of the appellants, particularly Eng Han, Ye Peng, John Lam, Serina and Sharon, could be said to have gained anything from what they did other than pursuing the objects of CHC.
*(They gain nothing ler..zero..understand? zero $$$!! it mean they never pocket any $$ lar! )
Indeed, it is not the Prosecution’s case that any of the appellants could be said to have benefitted financially from their offences. Their fault lies in adopting the wrong means.”
article taken from CityNews
https://www.citynews.sg/2017/04/city-harvest-trial-sentences-reduced-conviction-upheld/
Mitigating Factors Straits Times never publish!!
I refer back to City News, which report the other side of the story where by mainstream newspaper NEVER REPORT. not bias then wat? forget to report these important statements? whole team of SPH people working also can missed out ah?
"In the High Court’s oral judgment, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin stated that although this had been a case without direct precedence, and that although the appellants acted in what they believed was the best interest of the church, and that none of them benefitted financially from their offences, their fault lay in their adopting the wrong means.
*(I wonder how come others kept saying they steal $$, lie or cheat...please read the full facts hor before forming your opinion. )
The judges, in their written judgment, noted several mitigating factors on the part of the six appellants.
“In our view, the present case should not be viewed as a sinister and malicious attempt on the appellants’ part to strip the church of funds for their own purposes. We accept that the appellants resorted to deceit and lies in order to keep the use of the BF for the Crossover confidential and because they feared that questions would be asked. This included inflating Sun Ho’s success, keeping the true nature of the various transactions from the auditors, lawyers, the CHC Board and CHC’s members and presenting a misleading picture to CHC’s members even after the CAD had commenced its investigations. Such prevarication is undoubtedly an aggravating factor and should not be condoned, especially since most of the funds in question were from the BF, which were funds donated to CHC by its members for a specific and restricted purpose.”
“But, at the same time, the appellants’ various non-disclosures take on a different character when underscored by the overarching theme that they were acting in what they genuinely believed to be in CHC’s interests. Whether this may in fact be so is a matter open for debate, but what is crucial is that this was their belief.
“Thus, despite the fact that a large amount of funds from CHC was misappropriated, which would ordinarily have attracted a sentence at the higher end of the sentencing spectrum, we would allow for a significant discount given the exceptional mitigating factors in the present case.
“None of the appellants, particularly Eng Han, Ye Peng, John Lam, Serina and Sharon, could be said to have gained anything from what they did other than pursuing the objects of CHC.
*(They gain nothing ler..zero..understand? zero $$$!! it mean they never pocket any $$ lar! )
Indeed, it is not the Prosecution’s case that any of the appellants could be said to have benefitted financially from their offences. Their fault lies in adopting the wrong means.”
article taken from CityNews
https://www.citynews.sg/2017/04/city-harvest-trial-sentences-reduced-conviction-upheld/
No comments:
Post a Comment