Category: Gospel for Asia

ECFA Report: Gospel for Asia Solicited Funds for Narrower Purposes Than the Eventual Expenditure of Funds

Since 2015, I have investigated the mission giant Gospel for Asia. First privately and then publicly, former employees of GFA sounded alarms about financial and personnel management. A former donor alerted me to the situation and eventually numerous insiders in India and the U.S. came forward with information about the second largest mission organization in the U.S.

At present, former and current leaders of GFA are defendants in two lawsuits which allege that they conspired to defraud donors by using donations in ways contrary what donors intended. One case is stalled in federal court but the other — Murphy v. GFA — is moving forward.

At the heart of Murphy v. GFA is the allegation that GFA didn’t use donations as donors intended. The judge in the case, Timothy Brooks, ordered GFA to produce documentation which could address this basic allegation. Because GFA has not produced documentation responsive to Brooks’ requests, he signaled his intention to appoint a Special Master to oversee the discovery process.

Although the federal suit is potentially more serious, GFA has been investigated on these allegations before. In 2015, the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability investigated GFA’s financial dealings and eventually evicted GFA from membership due to multiple violations of ECFA standards.

The ECFA Investigated GFA’s Financial Accountability

Prior to removing GFA, the ECFA prepared a report of their investigation which was provided to GFA board members. The report was written in the form of a letter dated September 2, 2015 to GFA founder and president K.P. Yohannan. Former board member Gayle Erwin provided it to me after his resignation from GFA’s board.

Periodically over the next few weeks, I am going to highlight aspects of the ECFA report which are relevant to issues raised in Murphy v. GFA. This is especially relevant to the decision of GFA attorneys to ask the 8th District Court of Appeals to force Judge Brooks to withdraw his sanctions and not appoint an attorney to oversee the discovery process.

Since the key issue in the case is about how GFA spent donor funds, I will start with what the ECFA found on this question. On page 4 of the letter, ECFA’s representative wrote:

6. GFA solicits funds for narrower purposes than the eventual expenditure of the funds.

During ECFA’s review on August 12, GFA staff provided a document to demonstrate the flow of funds from GFA to field partners. ECFA learned that donor-restricted donations are appropriately tracked by particular revenue classifications. However, we also discovered, and it was confirmed by GFA staff, that the disbursement of the gifts are tracked in much broader categories. For example, donations were received and tracked for 38 different specific items including kerosene lanterns, bio sand filters, chickens, manual sewing machines, blankets, bicycle rickshaws, and others, but related expenses were only tracked as “community development.” In other words, donations were raised for 38 specific items, with the donations pooled for expenditure purposes instead of expending them specifically for the purposes raised.

ECFA did not find any evidence that donors to the 38 different giving categories had awareness that their gifts were grouped and used in a broader category than the specific categories in which the gifts were raised. ECFA’s staff raised concerns regarding GFA’s compliance with ECFA Standard 4, 7.1, and 7.2 in raising funds for a particular purpose but then failing to document the actual use of those funds by the particular donor-restricted purpose.

Subsequent to this conversation, on August 16, GFA staff indicated that GFA field partners will begin tracking expenditures by specific item accounts to provide adequate transparency as to the use of designated funds.

The Murphys donated $34, 911 to GFA between 2009 and 2014. According to the information provided by GFA to the ECFA, expenditures were not tracked by specific item accounts until at least after August 2015. GFA led donors to believe their donations would go for one of 38 items, but GFA did not track the way those funds were spent to know if the funds were spent as intended. “Community Development” is a label which could obscure many activities and allow GFA’s field partners to spend money on things not contemplated by donors. This admission by GFA staff, some of whom are defendants in Murphy v. GFA, seems particularly relevant to the discovery process but has not been disclosed to the Court by GFA’s attorneys.

Thus, I am left wondering which account is true – the one in the ECFA report or the one offered by GFA attorneys in various Court pleadings. To the ECFA, GFA staff claimed field partners in India didn’t track expenditures by specific items accounts. In their filings, GFA attorneys have indicated that documents in exist in India.  In the recent writ of mandamus to the 8th District Court of Appeals, GFA attorneys wrote:

There are millions of such documents spread over 12,000 locations in almost every part of India. SASA00718-SA00720. Plaintiffs have made no effort to inspect those documents. Petitioners also secured and produced over 60,000 pages of bank statements, ledgers, and summaries from the field. (p. 16)

Presumably, when this case gets to trial, the ECFA report will be entered into evidence. It might be that ECFA staff who were involved will be deposed. Eventually, the admissions made by GFA staff regarding the same questions at issue in this trial will come out.

 

Gospel for Asia Asks 8th District Court of Appeals to Withdraw Sanctions

Gospel for Asia’s Writ of Mandamus Contradicts Investigation Filed by Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability

On June 18, Gospel for Asia’s legal team took the extraordinary step of petitioning the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for writ of mandamus which, if granted, would vacate Judge Timothy Brooks’ sanction of GFA and his order for a Special Master to oversee discovery in the fraud case against GFA brought by Garland and Phyliss Murphy.  Earlier this month, Brooks found that GFA had willfully delayed discovery and failed to comply with court orders. In response, he sanctioned GFA and signaled his intention to give an attorney access to GFA’s records as a means to speed up GFA compliance with court ordered discovery of information in the case.

Despite being a nonprofit organization, GFA has faced repeated questions and frustration from Judge Brooks over the inability to produce sufficient responses to discovery requests. Now, with the prospect of additional transparency, GFA is seeking to have the action reversed through the Court of Appeals.

GFA’s Case

In their June 18 filing, GFA defendants claim that Judge Brooks should not have sanctioned them because they have done their best to produce documents showing how they spent donor funds. Judge Brooks recently ruled that GFA had not done enough and abused the discovery process. As a result, he sanctioned the mission group.

GFA now counters by claiming that Judge Brooks erred by assuming GFA leaders in the U.S., namely K.P. Yohannan, have more control over operations in India than they actually do. GFA attorneys claim Brooks presented no evidence that Yohannan has the power to compel the production of necessary documents.

GFA also claims that Judge Brooks did not adequately take into consideration the burden of discovery as compared to the claims raised by the case. Specifically, the Murphys donated nearly $35,000 but the discovery requests involved over $360-million in donations.

GFA’s 100% Claim

As a part of GFA’s prayer to the appeals court, they make some claims that are at odds with other information in the public record. GFA’s attorney’s state:

As explained in opposition to Plaintiffs’ certification motion, GFA encouraged donors to participate in the good works GFA was sponsoring in Asia, but it’s the representations it made to donors varied. ECF73. For example, GFA told many donors that “100% of what you give toward sponsorship goes to the field,” ECF1, ¶17, but donations must be made “without restrictions” with GFA retaining discretion to use donations to best fulfill its mission. ECF71 at 4. There was no guarantee that each of the $376 million donated would be used for its exact designated purpose.

There is little dispute that GFA frequently touted their claim to spend 100% of donations on the field. This became a point of contention after concerns about their spending practices in India became public. After that, GFA made some changes which allowed them more flexibility.

In 2015, when interviewed by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, GFA representatives acknowledged the claim that they sent 100% to the field. On page 5 of the ECFA report to GFA, this admission is clear:

Use of funds restricted for the field for other purposes. On June 3, ECFA discussed GFA’s claim that 100 percent of field funds are sent and used in the field. GFA staff confirmed that this was accurate.

On August 24, ECFA was informed that GFA India made a gift to GFA of $19,778,613 in 2013 to complete GFA’s new office. On August 27, GFA’s staff confirmed that the funds relating to this donation were originally received by GFA as gifts restricted for the field and GFA transferred to field partners to fulfill donor restrictions.

It appears to me that the attorneys for all sides might want to interview the people who conducted and participated in this report. Here we have an admission that nearly $20-million was donated for field work but then was sent back to the U.S. for completion of the Texas headquarters. The ECFA report continues:

Reallocating gifts donated for field purposes contradicts GFA’s claim that 100 percent of funds are sent to the field. In fact, a significant amount of donations restricted for the field made a circuitous trip back to GFA and were used for the headquarters construction, as though they had never gone to the field. This appears to be a violation of Standard 7.1.

GFA claimed that the field partner (presumably Believers’ Church) took out a loan to pay back the $20-million and then used field generated money to pay back the loan. If that is the case, then it should be a simple matter to produce the documents.

In May 2015, defendant David Carroll told me via email:

Our field office is also audited by an independent accounting firm, to ensure compliance with regulations governing the recognition and spending according to donor designations of monies received.

While I don’t know if these audits have been offered as a part of the discovery process, I have to wonder if they actually exist.

GFA’s Claim About Control over the Field

GFA’s attorneys claim Judge Brooks used the wrong definition of control in reference to the GFA defendants. Furthermore, they claim no evidence was presented to support any theory of control. From the writ:

Plaintiffs did not introduce evidence to prove that Petitioners had control over the documents in India. Instead, the court’s decision relied on what it termed “the power of the pursestrings.” A00262, A00360. Because GFA made large donations to third parties in India, the court assumed that Petitioners could compel the third parties to produce the documents Plaintiffs wanted. The court’s assumptions are no evidence of control, regardless of which standard is applied.

The district court also assumed that control existed because Petitioner K.P. Yohannan held a prominent position in BEC, and his family members were allegedly involved in related entities. A00011. Of course, there is a significant difference between being an ecumenical leader in a church and having the legal right to compel production from over 12,700 churches all over India on demand. And involvement in transferring funds does not equate to the legal ability to compel production of documents (and bank records have already been produced). Plaintiffs offered no evidence to connect Yohannan’s family members with particular entities from whom documents were requested, nor do Plaintiffs show that Yohannan could compel these unnamed family members to use their alleged positions to obtain documents from any, much less, all of the 12,000 locations in India where documents are located. The district court’s reasoning is all based on assumptions of control, not evidence.7

Note here that GFA does not offer any evidence that Yohannan is without authority in India. Instead of asserting something, the attorneys simply cast doubt.

Why has GFA not produced documents describing Yohannan’s role in India?  The only Constitution which can be found designates him as the supreme authority over all matters temporal and spiritual. He doesn’t just hold a “prominent position;” Yohannan is the supreme leader.

Yohannan’s son-in-law Daniel Johnson is on the board of Believer’s Church as is Yohannan’s niece Siny Punnose. Yohannan sits on multiple boards of the hospitals, schools, Bridge of Hope, and other entities in India and around the world. Yohannan’s name is on all of the deeds of property owned by the church.

This notion of no control in India was doubted in 2015 by the ECFA as well due to the church Constitution of 2003 which is the copy given to ECFA by GFA. In that Constitution, Yohannan is referred to in this way:

By virtue of the ecclesiastical position, the Metropolitan Bishop is the legal authority on everything that belongs to the Church.

Based on their review of documents and GFA’s statements about Yohannan, ECFA came to the following conclusion:

Based on this level of oversight and control as well observed during our review, ECFA staff questions whether GFA has a sound basis to disclaim any control over the activities of field partners.

In some respects, the ECFA investigation was a preview of the Murphy case. If the RICO case turns out like the ECFA investigation, GFA might want to consider a new legal strategy.

The American Lawyer Reports Gospel for Asia’s Sanctions

Given the size of Gospel for Asia, I expected Christian media to report on the sanction imposed on GFA by federal Judge Timothy Brooks in the RICO lawsuit last week. Judge Brooks scolded GFA’s lawyers for abusing the process and for treating discovery as a “shell game.” He announced his plan to appoint a Special Master to oversee the discovery process in the case.

Outside of this blog, the only other coverage of Judge Brooks’ drastic action is in the American Lawyer. This publication focused on the fact that the legal team representing GFA is fronted by high profile attorney and former Bush administration Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

GFA issued a terse statement to the publication, saying that they strongly disagreed with the Court’s rulings.

The article neatly summarizes the case as well as GFA’s stall tactics up to now. Regular readers should be familiar with the details but give the American Lawyer some love and move on over to check it out.

Federal Judge Sanctions Gospel for Asia in Fraud Case

On June 4, federal Judge Timothy Brooks sanctioned mission giant Gospel for Asia in the ongoing fraud case of Murphy v. Gospel for Asia for failure to produce evidence as requested multiple times by the court. The court found that GFA “needlessly squandered the resources of the parties…and put an ‘extraordinary drain on the Court’s resources,” and that GFA’s “abusive conduct in this case since August constitutes a willful violation of its discovery orders.”

Judge Brook’s Order

In sanctioning GFA, Judge Brooks will require GFA to pay for a Special Master to oversee the gathering of evidence.  In the process, this attorney will have the ability to appoint a forensic accountant and will have access to all pertinent GFA records and communications.

Setback for Gospel for Asia

This is a major setback for GFA. For several years, GFA has been defending itself by saying that all funds are spent as donors intend. However, now after months of telling Judge Brooks that this can be proven, GFA is no closer to producing the evidence.

In his order, Judge Brooks accuses GFA of evasive tactics and warns them that discovery is not a shell game. Furthermore, he denied GFA’s claims that they have no control over entities in India. He pointed to documents demonstrating wire transfers between entities, the fact that Yohannan’s family members sit on many boards in common, Yohannan’s prominent status in Believers’ Church and prior ability to get financial documents from organizations they say don’t control.

Judge Brooks had strong words for GFA saying that they had failed to “obey clearly worded directives issued by this Court and to respond in good faith to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.” The federal judge has found GFA’s behavior in litigation to be far from what was promised by spokesman Johnnie Moore in 2016:

Gospel for Asia is 100% focused on continuing its work around the world while working very hard to put an end to the false accusations being continually made against the ministry. Gospel for Asia can document the legal and ethical use of funds donated and clearly answer every question…

As Judge Brooks pointed out in his order, GFA has had many chances to document their use of funds but has stalled all along the way. Now, they face sanctions in federal court and the appointment of a Special Master.

 

 

The Blog at Patheos is “410 Gone”

I hope to have more to say about it soon but for now, I can report that I am blogging here now at wthrockmorton.com.  Patheos leadership informed me yesterday that my blog no longer fit their “strategic objectives.” Since I don’t know what those are, I can’t say how I didn’t fit them.

In any case, thanks to friend J.D. Smith, the blog was quickly migrated with the content to this ad free site. The downside is that I have been unable as yet to find out from Patheos how to get my comments moved along with the posts.

What a strange turn of events. Patheos was at the center of the Mars Hill Church and Gospel for Asia stories and now they host Mark Driscoll and K.P. Yohannan. All of the those Patheos links about Mars Hill and GFA are now erased. The content is here and archived elsewhere but admittedly, it will be harder to find.