Criminal breach of trustCriminal breach of trust

[Piyopico]

Criminal breach of trustCriminal breach of trust

[SimonTan]

Last time my friend joked to me, that all he has to do to gain entrance to heaven is to repent at the last minute on the hospital death bed. No need to attend church every week with his parents.

 

[Jman888]

they can say whatever they want or to sync all their statement inline within the church if all of the members think it is ok, to get their pastor out of trouble..... then more fighting will come later [laugh]

 

not my business anyway :D

[Alpha78]

From a business law point of view:

 

1. If a person is an authorized signatory of a company, and he withdraws company funds to pay for his gambling debt, after which he puts back the money with interest, is that CBT? - Yes, as long as the money is taken out without authorization, even for one day, it's CBT even if the money was put back immediately.

 

2. If a person who is a business owner, gives himself an interest-free loan from company funds, so that he can pay for his gambling debt, after which the money is slowly returned via instalments, is that CBT? - No. Everything is done in a transparent manner, with the required approval.

 

For the CHC case, is it CBT? That's for the courts to decide, for the lawyers to slug it out.

[Acemundo]

the issue is they are entrusted with the money to do it within certain permissible way of administrating the funds.

 

permissible way would mostly be determined by

 

1) legal and common law principles

2) specific statute applicable (in this case Charities Act)

 

for the act of falsifying accounts, i am sure it is able to fall within 1)

 

for 2), we can go back to refer to section 8 (duty) and section 11 (use) to determine if there was wrongdoing.

 

for section 8, it is clear the purpose of donation have to be announced and made known. that they purposely hide it, especially after the roland poon incident, shows that this ambit of the statute is triggered.

 

for section 11, it has to be used wholly to the benefit of that charitable organisation. while this is debatable, it is not clearly in KH and company favor that funding Sun's secular music endeavor can bring benefit to CHC as a whole.

 

in short, no matter how we look at it, there is still wrongdoing.

[Joseph22]

From a business law point of view:

 

1. If a person is an authorized signatory of a company, and he withdraws company funds to pay for his gambling debt, after which he puts back the money with interest, is that CBT? - Yes, as long as the money is taken out without authorization, even for one day, it's CBT even if the money was put back immediately.

 

2. If a person who is a business owner, gives himself an interest-free loan from company funds, so that he can pay for his gambling debt, after which the money is slowly returned via instalments, is that CBT? - No. Everything is done in a transparent manner, with the required approval.

 

For the CHC case, is it CBT? That's for the courts to decide, for the lawyers to slug it out.

the question is, if the church members are aware and allow it, will it still be CBT?

[Alpha78]

the question is, if the church members are aware and allow it, will it still be CBT?

 

Technically no. But considering the monies in question here are from the charity arm which is registered as IPC, the CoC's rules and regulations have to be followed.

 

But then, I'm just a layman, and that's just my opinion based on my understanding of the law. I may be wrong.

[Acemundo]

the question is, if the church members are aware and allow it, will it still be CBT?

 

read my earlier post la.

 

1) falsfication of accounts

2) failure to comply with provisions of charities act

 

it is a fact not all church members know, even one about to get sued for talking about it.

[Joseph22]

Technically no. But considering the monies in question here are from the charity arm which is registered as IPC, the CoC's rules and regulations have to be followed.

 

But then, I'm just a layman, and that's just my opinion based on my understanding of the law. I may be wrong.

that was what i am wondering. what is CoC guideline and if the guideline was indeed breach and if its not due for personal gain. will they still sue? or just like standard audit, consider it as major fault and need to be rectify?? (btw i am talking in general not on specify case)

[Joseph22]

read my earlier post la.

 

1) falsfication of accounts

2) failure to comply with provisions of charities act

 

it is a fact not all church members know, even one about to get sued for talking about it.

i am not talking about CHC case lah. i talking about in general.

 

if thre is 1. then break the law. but if its 2, and its not for personal gain but for say church/organisation mission/vision (even if it fail) will it be consider CBT??

[Acemundo]

i am not talking about CHC case lah. i talking about in general.

 

if thre is 1. then break the law. but if its 2, and its not for personal gain but for say church/organisation mission/vision (even if it fail) will it be consider CBT??

if 2) they msut demonstrate they have not gone against the provision. cannot just say not for personal gain.

 

if personal gain is the acid test, then sun ho would have been charged already. you realised why she not charged? because she was not part of the administrator of the church funds that were donated.

[Joseph22]

if 2) they msut demonstrate they have not gone against the provision. cannot just say not for personal gain.

 

if personal gain is the acid test, then sun ho would have been charged already. you realised why she not charged? because she was not part of the administrator of the church funds that were donated.

i see. okay. more clearer now. thanks.

 

anyway previous post at the other thread.

 

i talking about super pro opposition. not normal one. those i refer to are those die die everything is MIW fault even if its not one. so different from Oppostion. dont want to clarify there cause its a hot hot thread.

[Samshio]

i am not talking about CHC case lah. i talking about in general.

 

if thre is 1. then break the law. but if its 2, and its not for personal gain but for say church/organisation mission/vision (even if it fail) will it be consider CBT??

 

I believe it is still against the law, but the judge will take into consideration any mitigating factors in the sentancing.

 

For example, you steal money to feed the homeless and starving, you did a good deed but break the law. So you are still guilty, just that the judge may go easy on you

[Babyt]

but i tot this one is use money to feed a horse but the result is intangible (supposed to crossover to non-christians)..how to justify?

Edited June 29, 2012 by Babyt

[Acemundo]

but i tot this one is use money to feed a horse but the result is intangible (supposed to crossover to non-christians)..how to justify?

 

that's why under the provisions of the charites act of usage of funds to be wholly for the benefit of the donors, it will likely fail the test.

[Mockngbrd]

Last time my friend joked to me, that all he has to do to gain entrance to heaven is to repent at the last minute on the hospital death bed.

well, thats somewhat what the dying thief next to Jesus did.

[Babyt]

well, thats somewhat what the dying thief next to Jesus did.

 

well if jesus appears in front of me whether anytime, i will sure believe in him...but for now...no idea, cant feel, no calling, no voice...nothing.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Babyt

[Piyopico]

that's why under the provisions of the charites act of usage of funds to be wholly for the benefit of the donors, it will likely fail the test.

 

Does the act dictate that monies have to be utilized wholly for the benefit of donors?

 

That does not make sense. Look at Ren Chi and NKF, the donors are never members of the charities and they never benefit in any form.

 

Many religious organizations have set ups that benefit non members in many ways thru offering of social services, charitable giving etc.