Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supporters of Kong Hee, (who is on trial with five of his colleagues on various charges pertaining to the alleged siphoning off of funds from CHC in Singapore), have long been maintaining that CHC suffered no financial loss, since bonds purchased from the company “Xtron” were fully redeemed.

Phil Pringle CHC Kong Hee Cover up

This naturally raises the question:

“From where, exactly, did Xtron obtain the funds to repay CHC, since Sun Ho’s foray into the music industry was a complete flop and her album was never released?”

The answer to this conundrum has been revealed in a post on the CHC confessions Facebook page, wherein a recent post had this to say:

“One of the mysteries of the trial is the accused insistence that CHC did not suffer any loss through all the sham bonds. Now the mystery is finally solved in City News’s own report:

http://www.citynews.sg/2015/04/city-harvest-trial-arla-and-sof-investments-not-sham-maintains-tan/

“Although Xtron had used part of the ARLA to buy up the bonds, Tan explained that it was still obligated to provide the corresponding value for which CHC had paid, which in this case was the use of venue for a pre-agreed length of time. Xtron, on its part, would service this obligation with the expected revenue that was to come from the US album sales.

In essence, AMAC and Xtron were legally bound to compensate CHC for what it had paid.”

But since there is [sic] no US album sales, Xtron won’t have the revenue to service the obligation and [at] some point in time CHC will either have to forgive the obligation or force Xtron into bankruptcy – [in] either case the money is gone.

The same with the SOF with AMAC. The money is gone. CHC can sue AMAC but it is not likely that it will ever recover the money.

So it is not true that CHC has not suffered any loss – it is just that they are kicking the can down the road and sooner or later will have to pay the piper.”

Source: CHC Confessions, CHC Confessions, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/CHCConfessions/posts/1003161419703235, 07/05/2015. (Accessed 15/05/2015.)

So what has apparently transpired is that since Xtron was unable to repay CHC, those whose scheme had been discovered – and who were desperate to clear the bonds off the books – resorted to an accounting thimblerig.

They simply shoveled more of CHC’s money into Xtron, a portion of which funds Xtron promptly returned to CHC as a repayment of the bonds, including both capital and interest due. Thus the accused have allegedly paid themselves (that is, Xtron) money with which they have subsequently reimbursed themselves (that is, CHC) to falsely convey the impression that Xtron is a profitable business being run at arms-length from CHC, rather than a shell company whose sole purpose is to facilitate the defrauding of CHC members via sham transactions. This practice is known as “round-tripping”, and it is illegal. It is over this matter, among others, that some of the accused parties are now being quizzed in the Singaporean courts. Naturally enough, attempts were made to disguise the ruse: funds that were allegedly round-tripped were referred to by the acronym “ARLA”, which stands for “Advance Rental Licence Agreement” (CW’s take on that is that “A Really Lame Artifice” would have been far more apropos).

Of course, even a novice who knows nothing at all about such things as business or accounting would be able to understand that if a business spends buckets and buckets of money but fails to earn a profit, then a loss has been incurred and there will inevitably be financial pain as a result.

The salient question for C3 adherents is “Does Phil Pringle understand that?”

This is because if he does, one could be forgiven for wondering why he has continued to mindlessly repeat the “No money was lost” mantra when it has long been clear that although Sun Ho spent CHC’s money like water to live the high life in the U.S., she never showed a return to justify the so-called “investment”.

Maybe Phil really is unquestioningly gullible, and he actually believes that no money was lost. Perhaps he would prefer to refrain from inquiring too closely or pondering too deeply, given how uncomfortable the truth would be for him – after all, he is both mentor and friend to Kong Hee, and his own credibility and reputation are very much on the line here.

But supposing we all give Phil the benefit of the doubt, what about the fact that he is supposedly a man of God who has a hot-line to the Most High? Why wouldn’t God have given Phil a “word” regarding the facts surrounding this tawdry affair? How is it that God is allowing his golden-haired apostle to back himself into the tiniest of corners without giving him a heads-up, without even dropping so much as the smallest of hints? Has Phil Pringle become like King Saul? Has he really become estranged from the One whom he purports to represent, and on whose behalf he presumes to speak?

TO PHILIP A. PRINGLE

We know that you read the articles on this site, Phil, even though you have strictly forbidden your followers from doing so.

We also know from our reliable sources inside C3 that you have recently discussed a certain unrelated issue with your “leadership”, and that you explicitly told those same “leaders” that you were unable to broach the subject with the wider membership of your organisation – that the information you gave was for the “leaders’” edification only, and was not for general consumption.

Given that precedent, we would like to know this, Phil Pringle: how much do you really know about Kong Hee’s case?

Have the “leaders” in your movement been apprised of facts to which the tithing drones in the pews have not been made privy? Surely you wouldn’t behave in a deceptive manner, would you? After all, you have been referred to as “Australia’s Pope”; indeed, you yourself have invited people to see you as an angel, and you have even, in all humility, have told people to liken you to the Old Testament prophet Elijah.

It’s all very heady stuff, and quite compelling – there’s no way a man of your caliber, an exulted personage of unimpeachable integrity, would deliberately withhold pertinent information from your followers…. is there? (Particularly since some of those followers have been been inveigled into giving money to support Kong Hee’s legal battle).

If we’ve got the wrong end of the stick, please feel free to comment here and set us straight, Phil; we await your anointed explanation with great anticipation.

RELATED ARTICLES

Phil Pringle Interview = Damage Control (Part 1)
Pringle Encouraging CHC Members To Shun Criticism & Promote “Good Guys”
Of Course Pringle Is Uh- Telling The- Uh- Truth About Kong Uh- Hee And Sun- Uh-Ho!
Phil Pringle Misleading His Church Over Kong Hee’s Case

Kong Hee To Phil Pringle: “You created this mess! You’ve Got To Come And Help Us Fix It”
Kong Hee Again Blames Phil Pringle For SunTec Mess: “… it’s all your fault, Pastor!”

“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…” (Part 1)
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…” (Part 2)

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2011 KONG HEE FINANCIAL SCAM
Prophet Pringle Plundering People’s Pockets For Kong Hee’s Cause

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2012 KONG HEE FINANCIAL SCAM
Where There’s A Phil There’s A Way

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2013 KONG HEE SCAM
Beyond Words… Pringle Sinks To New Depths At Global Presence Conference 2013

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2014 KONG HEE SCAM
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 1)
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 2) Hillsong “Stands” with C3 & CHC?
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 3) All faith – no substance
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 4) Kong’s “selfie” sermon.
Phil Pringle’s Kong job at Presence 2014 (part 5): Kong Hee and Phil Pringle Undermining Singaporean law?

Advertisements