People were surprised that he was challenging the conviction rather than the sentence. Looks like its all or nothing. Or is there more to it.
Do look at the questions right below in italics, they appear novel and even laughable. He was the main architect and he designed the various vehicles and the roundtripping flow. He also benefitted the most besides Kong and wife not from the actual siphoning of building funds but Kong and the Church gave substantial funds to his investment business.
He is basically asking if a theft has occurred but the committee has ratified the theft is it theft. And more alarming can it be considered theft if the person behind the theft thought it was legal. I am using theft to simplify it. He knows full well that the congregation was kept in the dark and their representative body did not give approval for using the building fund to fund the wife's career. The sales of her album releases were also grossly inflated. The fact that roundtripping was involved clears shows intent to conceal.
The press states that his lawyer friends only helped him with filing procedures but not the content.
He could have said that he followed blindly and out of loyalty to Kong. And that would be a mitigating factor or the plan was that the wife's career would reap substantial returns to the building fund but things went wrong.
When someone takes this approach, it suggest that he has something else in mind, needs to buy time and possibly might not be around. Or plain crazy.
The ten questions of law that Chew has submitted to the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1. The question as to what is the meaning of "misappropriate" and the scope of the offence of misappropriation.
2. The question as to whether the court has correctly interpreted the meaning of "wrongful loss" and consequently whether its manner of determining the element of dishonesty produces an unsafe conviction.
3. The question whether the High Court has in substance made the crime of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust an offence of strict liability.
4. The question as to the effect of consent and ratification on an offence against property.
5. Question as to whether there is a conflict of judicial authority on two rules of law.
6. The question as to whether dishonesty can be present if the accused believed in the legality of his actions.
7. Question as to whether intent to defraud was proven.
8. The question as to the rules for determining the falsity of accounting entries and the creation of a false impression.
9. Question of law as to whether a conspiracy allegedly done in pursuance of and to cover a previous conspiracy can continue to be upheld if the initial conspiracy no longer stands.
12. Questions of law as to whether the payment of tax (GST) in pursuance of an advanced rental arrangement (ARLA) can constitute misappropriation and wrongful loss.
Do look at the questions right below in italics, they appear novel and even laughable. He was the main architect and he designed the various vehicles and the roundtripping flow. He also benefitted the most besides Kong and wife not from the actual siphoning of building funds but Kong and the Church gave substantial funds to his investment business.
He is basically asking if a theft has occurred but the committee has ratified the theft is it theft. And more alarming can it be considered theft if the person behind the theft thought it was legal. I am using theft to simplify it. He knows full well that the congregation was kept in the dark and their representative body did not give approval for using the building fund to fund the wife's career. The sales of her album releases were also grossly inflated. The fact that roundtripping was involved clears shows intent to conceal.
The press states that his lawyer friends only helped him with filing procedures but not the content.
He could have said that he followed blindly and out of loyalty to Kong. And that would be a mitigating factor or the plan was that the wife's career would reap substantial returns to the building fund but things went wrong.
When someone takes this approach, it suggest that he has something else in mind, needs to buy time and possibly might not be around. Or plain crazy.
The ten questions of law that Chew has submitted to the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1. The question as to what is the meaning of "misappropriate" and the scope of the offence of misappropriation.
2. The question as to whether the court has correctly interpreted the meaning of "wrongful loss" and consequently whether its manner of determining the element of dishonesty produces an unsafe conviction.
3. The question whether the High Court has in substance made the crime of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust an offence of strict liability.
4. The question as to the effect of consent and ratification on an offence against property.
5. Question as to whether there is a conflict of judicial authority on two rules of law.
6. The question as to whether dishonesty can be present if the accused believed in the legality of his actions.
7. Question as to whether intent to defraud was proven.
8. The question as to the rules for determining the falsity of accounting entries and the creation of a false impression.
9. Question of law as to whether a conspiracy allegedly done in pursuance of and to cover a previous conspiracy can continue to be upheld if the initial conspiracy no longer stands.
12. Questions of law as to whether the payment of tax (GST) in pursuance of an advanced rental arrangement (ARLA) can constitute misappropriation and wrongful loss.
