Under the Bill, the Singapore courts will have the power to order the sale of seized properties without the consent of involved parties. - Photo: ST
SINGAPORE: If law enforcement agencies want to sell a seized property linked to suspected criminal activities, they are currently required to obtain the consent of all parties involved, including the suspect.
Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill that was passed in Parliament on Tuesday (Aug 6), the Singapore courts will have the power to order the sale of seized properties without the consent of involved parties.
During the Bill’s second reading on the same day, Minister for Digital Development and Information Josephine Teo said the current law is “highly impractical” as the authorities need to continue maintaining seized property if no consensus is reached among parties.
Teo, who is also Second Minister for Home Affairs, said: “These properties can include vehicles, liquor, luxury watches and livestock. Not only are they costly to maintain, they also tend to depreciate in value.”
Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said in May that the police have spent nearly S$650,000 to maintain the assets seized or frozen in relation to the S$3 billion money laundering case.
With the new amendment, Teo said, law enforcement agencies will be able to lower the cost of maintaining seized properties and preserve their value.
If the Bill becomes law, the court will be able to order the sale of seized properties if two criteria are met.
First, the value of the property is likely to depreciate, or undue costs are involved in maintaining it.
Second, the sale would have to be in the interests of justice.
In cases where the suspect has absconded, the Bill stipulates that the court must not dispose of seized property if there is any pending investigation into him.
Currently, the court may order the property’s release or disposal if law enforcement agencies fail to satisfy grounds for continued seizure.
Teo said if an abscondee refuses to return to Singapore, the police cannot interview him or her.
This could stall investigations and make it difficult to justify continued seizure of the property.
“By staying out of Singapore and stymieing investigations, they have hope that the seized property would eventually be released back to them,” Teo added.
Under current law, if the person entitled to a seized property is unknown or cannot be found, the property will be vested in the Government if no one claims it within six months of a public notice.
Teo noted that currently, someone who has absconded can lay claim to a property through a lawyer, while refusing to return to Singapore.
Under the Bill, this will be changed as an abscondee suspected of committing a crime here must personally present himself before a law enforcement officer to assist in investigations, before he can make a claim to the property seized in respect of the offence.
The Bill also addresses the possibility of abscondees who find creative means to insulate their properties from forfeiture, such as by vesting the legal title to the properties in other people.
The proposed law states that an individual cannot prove his entitlement to the property simply because it was a gift from one who has absconded.
The court may, however, consider whether the property was obtained through legitimate sources, such as income or investments, before releasing it to a third party.
Separately, the Bill will make it easier for Singapore to prosecute money laundering offences as the prosecution will no longer need to prove that the money laundered constituted benefits from criminal conduct, or show the complete trail of funds.
Teo said it will be sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the money launderer knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that the property he was dealing with was criminal gains.
She added that this will significantly alleviate the challenges faced by the prosecution in cases where the money laundered had passed through many bank accounts and jurisdictions before entering Singapore.
To enable the Government to better detect money laundering offences, the Bill will allow the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) and Singapore Customs to share tax and trade data with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO).
The STRO is Singapore’s financial intelligence unit and is under the Singapore Police Force.
The Bill also proposes allowing regulators to have wider access to information collected by the STRO.
This means that when property agents and corporate service providers file suspicious transaction reports, the Council for Estate Agencies and Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority can access these reports.
Another amendment is allowing the authorities to investigate foreign environmental crimes like illegal mining, waste trafficking and logging.
Teo said law enforcement agencies face limitations in investigating such crimes as they are not applicable in our domestic context and are hence not considered serious offences in Singapore.
However, as these crimes are some of the largest contributors to transnational organised criminal activities in the East Asia and Pacific region, there is a high propensity of funds from such crimes flowing into Singapore.
The amendment will allow the authorities to investigate if the money found in Singapore is suspected of coming from such crimes overseas.
Several MPs, including Derrick Goh (Nee Soon GRC) and Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang GRC) asked about the elements of proof required by the prosecution when handling cases of money laundering.
Teo said the prosecution would still have to prove the physical element of the offence, namely that there was transferring, converting, receiving or acquiring of the property by the accused.
“Other jurisdictions like Hong Kong and Australia already have similar laws, where there is no need to prove a direct link between the property and criminal conduct,” she added.
Other MPs, such as Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang), asked if there were safeguards to prevent unauthorised access to data received by the STRO.
Teo said only selected STRO personnel are authorised to request relevant tax or trade data from Iras or Singapore Customs, and they are strictly prohibited from onward sharing of data.
“Where law enforcement agencies need tax or trade data for investigation or prosecution, they have to separately request it from the data owner,” Teo added.
In response to questions on the processes involved in the early sale of seized assets, Teo said these properties will be put up for sale when they have no evidential value needed for investigations or court proceedings.
She added that before making an application to the court for the sale, law enforcement agencies will notify all known parties by delivering the notice personally through registered post, or other modes of delivery, under the Criminal Procedure Code. - The Straits Times/ANN
