Tag: K.P. Yohannan

K.P. Yohannan’s Believers’ Church to Halt New Admissions to Caarmel Engineering College Amid Financial Crisis

According to the Indian newspaper The Hindu, Believers’ Church Caarmel Engineering College is closing amid a financial crisis. The news provoked a demonstration at the college on Monday. According to video posted on YouTube earlier this week (and embedded below), the college maintains the school is halting new admissions due to a financial crisis but that current students will be able to finish their programs. There were no promises made going forward. Thus, the future of the school is uncertain.

The Hindu report said students and parents were in a panic because the “college management said that they were unable to run the institution further due to financial crisis.”

Although I am not sure of the significance of this, the protest was triggered by the institution being excluded from the yearly allotment list published earlier this week.

Foreign Donations Helped Fund the Engineering School

Caarmel has been the recipient of Gospel for Asia -U.S. donations in the past. According to a filing in an Indian tax court, Gospel for Asia – India and Believers’ Church acknowledged that they used foreign donations for expenses at Believers’ Church Medical Center and Carmel Educational Trust (the trust which manages the engineering school). The quote below comes that court filing. Shri Venkitachalam represented GFA/BC:

On the contrary, Shri Venkitachalam, the ld.representative for the assessee submitted that both the assessees advanced funds to other registered trusts which have similar objects. According to the ld.representative, the assessee advanced funds to BCMET for construction of hospital building. BCMET is also a registered trust u/s 12AA of the Act. The ld.representative further submitted that Carmel Education Trust also a registered charitable trust u/s 12A of the Act was given funds by the assessee to carry out their charitable activities.

GFA/BC hoped to avoid paying taxes on the deflected income. The tax court had this to say about the income redirected to Caarmel and the medical college:

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record.It is not in dispute that substantial income of the assessee trust was not used by both the assessees for the purposes for which they were formed. (emphasis added)

This case in itself should help address issues in Murphy v. GFA. In that case, the Murphys assert that GFA didn’t use donations as donors intended. GFA acknowledged as much in their defense against the tax assessor. However, in all of the literature I have read about GFA, I have never read an appeal for donations to the Believers’ Church Medical College or the Caarmel Engineering College. These facilities charge medical fees and tuition. I suspect most GFA donors would be surprised to learn they exist.

In any case, it appears that Caarmel Engineering College is in some jeopardy. This video shows a vigorous protest and upset crowd over the situation.

UPDATE: If I am understanding the English of the speakers in this video, the closure may only be for one class year. The financial crisis may cause the school to fail to begin a class while they may be able to complete the work of classes underway. The situation does seem to be uncertain which has triggered a lack of trust in management.

At one point near the end of the video, a student asks why a financial crisis in Believers’ Church should effect the school since the school generates revenue through tuition.

With a little more digging, I found this video. At 53:53, a man who appears to represent Believers’ Church stands to read a statement which says essentially that Caarmel will not take new students during the 2018-2019 school year due to a “financial crisis” but the current students will be able to continue their studies.

Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.

K.P. Yohannan at Global Anglican Future Conference as a Delegate

Always the colorfully dressed Metropolitan, leader of Believers’ Eastern Church and CEO of Gospel for Asia K.P. Yohannan served as a delegate at the recent GAFCON 2018.

IMG_9465

GAFCON stands for Global Anglican Future Conference and was initiated after the U.S. Episcopal Church consecrated gay man Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003.

K.P. was featured in an article about the fashion on display at GAFCON.

The extravagantly-coiffured are not limited to the ladies – a couple of Anglican males would give the sisters a run for their shekels. It has been whispered that there will be a competition for the most outstanding beard – a tip that came three months late for me. Seemingly set for any time, any day, any place, the Indian Metropolitan, the Most Rev. K.P. Yohannan, from Believers Eastern Church in Kerala, on the Indian eastern seaboard, would be hard to beat, being imperial in both attire and beard. Yohannan’s bright red cassock, white mane, and genteel character make him an instant attraction for those seeking trip-defining photos to take home.

Apparently, Believers’ Eastern Church is considered to be an Anglican church. GFA has always portrayed their work as evangelical and Believers’ Church as evangelical.

GFA recently had a petition for writ of mandamus denied by the 8th District Court of Appeals in their fraud case Murphy v. GFA. The practical impact of the Court of Appeal’s action is that a special master will be appointed to open GFA’s records and oversee discovery in the case. GFA had been sanctioned by the federal judge in the case for abusing the discovery process and failing to provide documentation of how donations had been spent in keeping with donor intent.

For more on Gospel for Asia see this link: Gospel for Asia

Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.

Images: GAFCON logo – GAFCON.com; K.P. Yohannan – Embedded via Flickr

8th District Court of Appeals Denies Gospel for Asia’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Today, the 8th District Court of Appeals denied the petition from Gospel for Asia a writ of mandamus which would have vacated Judge Timothy Brooks order for sanctions and the appointment of a special master to oversee discovery in the fraud case against GFA.

The denial in full is as follows:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No: 18-2322
___________________
In re: Gospel for ASIA, Inc.; Gospel for Asia-International; K.P. Yohannan; Gisela Punnose; Daniel Punnose; David Carroll; Pat Emerick
Petitioners
___________________________________________
Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas – Fayetteville
(5:17-cv-05035-TLB)
___________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Before BENTON, KELLY and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition for writ of mandamus has been considered by the court and is denied. The petitioners’ motion to seal appendix is denied. Mandate shall issue forthwith.

June 26, 2018

This will allow the sanctions from Judge Brooks to go forward and is a victory for the Murphys. If Judge Brooks follows through, then a special master will be appointed with full access to the records of GFA thus allowing discovery to proceed.

Gospel for Asia will have to absorb the cost of the special master and should alert donors to this reality. A federal district judge and now a Court of Appeals (along with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) have taken the position that GFA is not being forthcoming with information.

We may be getting closer to learning if there is any evidence to validate GFA’s claims that they have spent money as donors intend. The plaintiffs contend GFA’s leaders conspired to divert donations from intended causes such mission work or helping the poor to for profit enterprises or other purposes which donors didn’t intend. Now that the Court of Appeals has cleared the way for discovery to proceed, the plaintiffs and eventually the donor public may get to see exactly what GFA has done with millions in donations.

 

ECFA Report: Gospel for Asia Made Inaccurate Statements and Withheld Information

In a 2015 Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability report to Gospel for Asia founder and CEO K.P. Yohannan, ECFA Vice President John C. Van Drunen delineated a devastating list of findings from a lengthy and in depth investigation of Gospel for Asia’s financial practices. The end result of the investigation was the eviction of GFA from the  ECFA. Due to the relevance of the investigation conducted by the ECFA to the current RICO and fraud lawsuit against GFA (Murphy v. GFA), I am highlighting pertinent parts of the report in a series of blog posts. Yesterday, I pointed out that GFA admitted that field partners didn’t track expenditures as precisely as they took donations. Today, I show that ECFA accused GFA of making false statements and withholding information.

Toward the end of the report, Van Drunen made an observation about the process of collecting information.

Certain information provided to ECFA by GFA that was crucial to our review was, at least initially, inaccurate.

Our review process has covered nearly four months. Certain pertinent information about the compliance issues was not revealed to ECFA by GFA until late in the review process.

We have learned significant information from sources unrelated to GFA that we should have learned directly from GFA.

Although I have been critical of the ECFA in the past, I must credit them in this case. Mr. Van Drunen and his staff deserve credit for persisting through initial deflection and distraction. Also, I am aware that information published here (“unrelated to GFA”) made it possible for the investigation to ask certain questions which might have come up otherwise.

I want to point out that GFA didn’t fully answer all of the questions nor was the ECFA able to verify all claims. Take this issue for instance:

16. Claims of inappropriate use of funds under an Indian tax assessment. ECFA received concerns that an Indian Tax Court case indicates that GFA India misused funds for purposes other than what they were intended. ECFA reviewed this matter for compliance with ECFA Standard 4. On July 27, GFA’s staff indicated that this matter was a false charge that was later remanded and that GFA India was absolved of any wrongdoing in this matter. GFA’s staff was not able to provide any documentation other than reports from field partners on this matter.

This concern was brought to light by my blog post from July 17, 2015. It appears from the court record that GFA was to pay a tax which they probably did. However, that doesn’t change the finding that GFA inappropriately used funds. GFA has never produced a court record absolving them of wrongdoing. They had a chance to do that to ECFA but did not do so.

GFA and Accountability: A Pattern

As Van Drunen’s reaction demonstrates, Judge Brooks is not the first observer to express frustration with GFA’s answers to questions about accountability. In one Court order, Brooks expressed his frustration with GFA’s response to discovery requests, writing at the time:

I feel like when I read the defendants’ answers and when I read their response that it is as if this Court had not already addressed and ruled on some of these same issues at least twice, if not more and, yet, here we are again.

Eventually, GFA’s delays led Brooks to sanction GFA and signal his intention to appoint an attorney (special master) to oversee discovery.  Given the history, going back before Murphy v. GFA, oversight seems like a good idea.

 

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.