corrupted city harvest church leaders win appeal

Corrupted city harvest church leaders win appeal code#

Where there are multiple acts of CBT pursuant to different transactions within the same overarching conspiracy, it does not follow that only one charge should be preferred. We do not think there is any merit to this argument.

Although none of the appellants raised this preliminary objection in the hearing before us, their written submissions indicate that some of them are still pursuing this point on appeal. The Judge rejected this submission and held that each drawdown was a separate act being abetted and was thus capable of forming the subject of a separate charge (the Conviction GD at –). They argued that the second charge was defective because the first and second charges both related to the same conspiracy ( ie, the entering into a bond agreement to use funds from the BF to purchase Xtron bonds) albeit to different drawdowns of the fund, and thus the Prosecution ought to have preferred only one charge.

Corrupted city harvest church leaders win appeal code#

We will refer to the different editions of the Penal Code collectively as “the Penal Code” unless the edition in question has significance.ġ5 Before the Judge, the appellants raised a preliminary objection in respect of the second of the three sham investment charges. Following the amendments, the maximum non-life imprisonment term for the offence was increased from ten to 20 years. This was because the offences in the latter two charges occurred after the amendments to the Penal Code came into effect on 1 February 2008. The charges were brought under two different editions of the Penal Code, with the first charge being under the 1985 revised edition ( ie, Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)) and the second and third charges being under the 2008 revised edition ( ie, Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)). These three charges pertained to the use of funds from the BF to purchase bonds from Xtron and Firna and were for the offence of conspiring to commit CBT by an agent punishable under s 409 read with s 109 of the Penal Code. We will adopt the same terminology but needless to say, this is solely for convenience and reflects nothing more. 14 The first category of charges which the appellants, save for Sharon, were convicted of was referred to by the Judge as the “sham investment charges”.