EFFECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST CORPORATE CRIME AND
CORPORATE LIABILITY IN SINGAPORE
Lawrence Ang*

I. INTRODUCTION
Singapore is renowned for having one of the most dynamic and vibrant financial and business sectors in
the world. We are home to one of the largest asset management communities in Asia, managing in excess of
S$720 billion in assets. Our capital markets have developed depth and sophistication, and we remain one of
the leading foreign exchange centres in the world. We continue to attract global talent to our shores,1 and amajority of the multi-national corporations (MNCs) in Singapore have set up their global and regional
headquarters here. In the latest IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2007, Singapore has been ranked
second in the World Competitiveness Scoreboard 2007. This is an improvement from our ranking for 2006
where we were ranked third behind the USA and Hong Kong.
Our achievement is largely attributable to strong fundamentals like a stable political environment, robust
legal and judicial frameworks, efficient infrastructure and a safe, conducive business environment. In an era
which has seen catastrophic corporate scandals and meltdowns like the saga surrounding companies like
Enron and Worldcom, trustworthiness has taken on an important significance in global business. Singapore’s
reputation as a trusted hub and jurisdiction has given us a competitive advantage in attracting global
investments, which in turn leads to our strong economic growth.
We are, nevertheless, acutely aware that this reputation of trustworthiness which we have painstakingly
built up over the years can evaporate overnight once fraud and corporate shenanigans are allowed to creep
in and take root. Singapore has had its share of corporate scandals like the incidents involving Barings Bank,and more recently China Aviation Oil. While these incidents have prompted some to question the strength of
our regulatory framework, the fact that these cases have unfolded is proof of the effectiveness of our system
as well. It is impossible to prevent corporate frauds absolutely. The crux lies in having a robust legal
framework and enforcement and regulatory systems in place to minimize the opportunities for suchoccurrences, and where incidents and failures do surface, to swiftly and effectively address them.
It is with this philosophy in mind that Singapore has placed a high premium on combating corporate andeconomic crime. In this respect, we have adopted a system consisting of several mutually reinforcing
components like a wide and comprehensive legal framework, a robust enforcement and supervision regime,
close collaboration with market players and stakeholders, engagement in the global co-operation network in
combating crime, and the commitment of our corporate leaders in maintaining integrity.

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEALING WITH CORPORATE CRIME
As a former British colony, Singapore inherited the English common law system.2 Our present legal
system is shaped largely by Singapore’s rapid political, social and economic development3 over the years.
* Principal Senior State Counsel (PSSC), Criminal Justice Division, Attorney General’s Chambers, Singapore.
1 The Economist’s “World in 2005” publication rated Singapore as the best Asian city to live in. The IMD World Competitiveness

Yearbook 2005 has also declared Singapore as the most attractive Asian economy to foreign-skilled professionals.
2 Singapore was founded by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company in 1819. In 1826, the British

Parliament passed the Second Charter of Justice which provided for the setting up of the Court of Judicature of Prince ofWales’ Island (Penang), Singapore and Malacca with civil and criminal jurisdictions similar to the courts in England, and thereception of English law in Singapore.
3 In 1993, all appeals to the Privy Council were abolished. A permanent Court of Appeal, presided by the Chief Justice and two
Justices of Appeal was designated Singapore’s highest court. In the same year, the Application of English Law Act (Chapter 71A),
which provided for a cut-off date (12 November 1993) for the continuing reception of the English common law was passed.

17

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

While retaining our common law roots, Singapore has also drawn on the civil law traditions. The common
law doctrine of stare decisis (judicial precedent) continues to be a key characteristic of our legal system.
Ratio decidendi found in the decisions the Singapore Court of Appeal are binding on the High Court, District
Court and Magistrate’s Court. The English common law also continues to have a strong influence intraditional common law areas like Contract, Tort and Restitution Law. In other areas like Criminal Law,
Company Law and Securities Law, however, Singapore has adopted the code-based civil law approach, withthe law in these areas set out in statutes passed by legislature.
We have a judiciary that has, over the years, achieved worldwide recognition for its efficiency andcompetence. The Singapore courts have built up significant judicial expertise and resources to handle a wide
range of cases, including complex commercial and economic crime cases. Many such cases have been tried
before the Singapore courts with the corresponding result that a corpus of judicial decisions and sentencing
principles has emerged which are increasingly shaping and influencing commercial and business practices in
Singapore and the region.
Singapore possesses a broad and comprehensive legal framework of substantive, procedural and evidentiarylaws which seeks to address the widest possible range of corporate and economic crime, and to adequately
empower law enforcement and prosecution agencies to combat such crimes, with the ultimate objective ofprotecting investors. We have enacted both laws which are focused on specific areas, as well as statutes
containing provisions which are worded with sufficient depth and width to cover a myriad of such crimes. We
have consistently benchmarked our laws against the laws of leading developed jurisdictions. Our parliament
has also been able to react swiftly by enacting new laws as well as amending existing ones to keep up with
developments in our social and economic realm,4 and to effectively deal with the emerging sophistication of
corporate and economic crimes brought about by such developments.

A. Criminal Laws and Sanctions
Corporate and economic crime in Singapore is predominantly dealt with by way of criminal sanctions oradministrative actions.5 The alternative of civil sanctions is at present available only for securities offencessuch as insider trading and market misconduct. Criminal sanctions consist largely of imprisonment and fines
or penalties. Individuals convicted of crimes involving fraud or dishonesty may also be disqualified fromholding directorships in companies for a specified period. Where an offence is committed by a company or
corporation’s directors, officers or employees, criminal liability may be imposed on the company or
corporation as well.6
1. General Corporate Fraud
The key offences involving fraud are found in the Penal Code (Cap 224) (‘Penal Code’). They include theoffences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, falsification of accounts, and offences involving
counterfeit currency.
A person7 commits Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) if he or she, being entrusted with property or withdominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his or her own use that property.8 There
are varying degrees of severity of CBT prescribed under the Penal Code, ranging from “simple” CBT which
is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of three years to the aggravated form of CBT as a public
servant, banker, attorney or agent which carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life. Cases of
embezzlement of funds by company directors or employees are prosecuted for the offence of CBT.
4 The World Economic Forum’s “Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006” ranked Singapore’s parliament first out of 117

countries for effectiveness as a law-making and oversight institution. In the World Bank’s “Doing Business in 2006” report,
which ranks 155 economies on key business regulations and reforms, Singapore ranked second after New Zealand as a country
where investors are most protected.
5 Administrative actions would include composition of offences or the issuance of administrative warnings or reprimands.
6 This is premised on the fact that companies function through their directors and officers who represent the companies’
directing mind and will. Their acts are therefore regarded as the companies’ acts. For example, where a director, officer or
employee acting on behalf of the company commits insider trading, both the company and director/officer/employee will be
guilty and liable.
7 The word “person” includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
8 Sections 405 to 409, Penal Code. See http://agclwb.agc.gov.sg

18

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The offence of cheating is committed when a person deceives another, and through that deception,
fraudulently induces the person so deceived to deliver any property or do something which causes damage orharm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.9 Like the offence of CBT, there are different
categories of the offence based on severity. Simple cheating is punishable with a maximum three years’
imprisonment while the most severe category of cheating, where the victim is induced to deliver property, or
to make, alter or destroy any valuable security10 is punishable with a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment.
Cases involving fraudulent investment scams like boiler room scams,11 high yield investment programmes,12
advance fee fraud,13 fraudulent transactions involving credit cards (genuine or counterfeit), fraudulent
applications for credit cards or loan facilities, trade financing fraud,14 etc., are prosecuted under theseprovisions of the Penal Code.
Forgery as a criminal offence is the making of a false document15 or part of a document with the intention tocommit fraud.16 Simple forgery carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment. The most severe
form of forgery, which is forgery of a valuable security, carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life.
It is also an offence to knowingly use a forged document, or possess a forged document with the intention ofusing it.17 Cases involving counterfeit or forged documents like the making, possession or use of counterfeit
credit cards, forged bank documents like cheques or bills of exchange, forged loan application forms, forged
trade documents like bills of lading and sales invoices, forged insurance certificates, etc., will be prosecuted
under these provisions.
An employee who fraudulently destroys or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or accountwhich belongs to his or her employer commits the offence of falsification of accounts.18 The offence carries amaximum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment. Cases involving manipulation of a company’s ledgers
and other accounting records are dealt with under this provision. The objective of falsification is often to
enable false and misleading financial reports and statements to be prepared and presented.19
Under the Penal Code, it is an offence to forge or counterfeit any currency or bank note, or to traffic in or
9 Sections 415 to 420 Penal Code.
10 Section 30 Penal Code. A “valuable security” denotes a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal
right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished, or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he or
she lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
11 These involve high-pressure phone sales operations by salesmen who may make repeated calls offering the sale of shareinvestments in third party businesses and promising extraordinary profit at little or no risk. Boiler-room operators may also
maintain websites and provide local contact details to give victims the impression that their operation is proper. Local bankaccounts are sometimes used to receive payments from victims but the monies will be quickly dissipated to overseas bankaccounts. In many cases, these salesmen would become uncontactable as well.
12 In such scams, victims are persuaded to invest in sophisticated or exotic-sounding schemes commonly known as high yield
investment programmes (HYIP). Such investment schemes are usually offered via the Internet with promises of high returns.
Usually, the investment and withdrawals are made via e-currency, such as e-gold, e-bullion and INTGold. Many HYIP haveturned out to be ponzi scams, where the invested funds from new entrants are used to pay existing investors. HYIP usually
discloses little or no details on their management and the underlying investment to generate the promised returns.
13 This is usually defined as any scam that tricks victims into paying money upfront on the false hope of receiving a large
windfall later. The advance payment is required by the fraudsters as a processing fee. Common examples are false offers tolease standby letters of credit which could be used for credit enhancement purposes.
14 Trade financing fraud involves the issuance of false shipping documents which represent the existence of certain goods,
their quality or value. The use of false shipping documents is usually either for the buyer to fraudulently obtain bank financing
or for the seller to fraudulently collect monies against a letter of credit.
15 Section 464 Penal Code: a person makes a false statement if he dishonestly or fraudulently:a) makes, signs, seals or executes (collectively, “creates”) a document or part of it with the intention of causing it to bebelieved that the document was created by, or by the authority of, a person by whom the maker knew it was not created;b) alters a document in a material part thereof, after it had been made or executed, without lawful authority; orc) causes a person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person could not or did not know the contentsof the document or the nature of the alteration, by reason of unsoundness of mind, intoxication or deception.
16 Sections 465 to 474 Penal Code.
17 Sections 471 and 474 Penal Code.
18 Section 477A Penal Code.
19 This would constitute separate offences under the Companies Act (Cap 50) and the Securities & Futures Act (Cap 276).

19

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

knowingly possess forged or counterfeit currency or bank notes. These offences apply to local as well as
foreign currency. Forgery or counterfeiting of currency notes, and trafficking in forged or counterfeit currency
notes carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life. The maximum punishment for possession ofcounterfeit currency notes is imprisonment for ten years.20 In Singapore, we have experienced a variety ofoffences involving counterfeit currency, from the relatively amateurish form of scanning and printing ofcurrency notes via colour printers, to the use of premium quality US dollar bills which fooled evenexperienced money-changers. We have, thankfully, not encountered any syndicated counterfeiting of our
local currency.21
2. Securities Fraud
The Securities & Futures Act (Cap 276) (SFA) contains the main body of rules governing securities fraud
and market misconduct as well as prohibited conduct in futures trading and leveraged foreign exchange
trading.22 These offences include insider trading, false trading and market rigging, market manipulation,affecting the price of securities by the dissemination of misleading information and fraudulently inducing
persons to deal in securities.
The SFA was enacted in 2001 to replace and consolidate the old Securities Industry Act (Cap 289) (SIA)
and other legislation23 dealing with market regulation. The new Act sets out the regulatory framework forthe capital markets in a single statute. One of the objectives for passing the new Act was to provide anenhanced market enforcement regime crucial for a disclosure based regime. Any transgressions must be
dealt with expeditiously and firmly in order to preserve investor confidence.

(i) Insider Trading
The SFA redefined the offence of insider trading in Singapore. Under the old SIA,24 the offence was basedon the defendant’s connection with the company and made only the insider and the tippee (a person acting
on information furnished by an insider) liable for insider trading. There was difficulty in extending liability toothers who are further down the information chain and who had knowingly traded on inside information.
Under the SFA, the focus is now on the essence of the offence, that is, trading while in possession ofundisclosed price-sensitive information by the defendant, whether he or she is connected to the company ornot. A person,25 whether connected to a corporation26 or not, and who possesses price sensitive information
which he or she knows is not generally available is prohibited from dealing in, or procuring another person todeal in, the shares of the said corporation. He or she is also prohibited from communicating the information,
whether directly or indirectly, to anyone whom he or she knows or ought reasonably to know, will likely deal
in the shares of the corporation.27 There is a rebuttable presumption against the defendant that he or she knewthat the information he or she possessed was undisclosed and price sensitive upon proof by the prosecution thathe or she was in possession of the information, and that the information was not generally available.28 It is also
not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused person intended to use the information for the
purpose of insider trading.29 The offence of insider trading is punishable with a maximum fine of S$250,000
or imprisonment for up to seven years.30
20 Sections 489A, 489B and 489C Penal Code.
21 We attribute this to the resources and effort directed by our government towards making it immensely difficult and hence

not cost effective to counterfeit the Singapore dollar bill.
22 Part XII of the Securities & Futures Act (Cap 289).
23 The Futures Trading Act (Cap 160), the capital-raising provisions in the Companies Act (Cap 50) and certain provisions in

the Exchanges (Demutualization & Merger) Act (Cap 99B).
24 Section 103 SIA.
25 A “person” includes any company or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporated. See Section 2 of theInterpretation Act (Cap 1).
26 Section 214 SFA, read with section 4(1) Companies Act (Cap 50), includes both a locally incorporated company or a foreigncompany.
27 Sections 218 and 219 SFA. Section 218 SFA also sets out who “a person connected to a corporation” is; what constitutes“information”; when information is considered to be generally available; and when the information is considered price sensitive.
28 Section 218(4) SFA.
29 Section 220 SFA.
30 Section 221 SFA.

20

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The provisions in the SFA pertaining to insider trading apply to acts occurring outside Singapore in
relation to securities of a local corporation or securities listed or traded in Singapore, as well as conduct
within Singapore in relation to securities of an overseas corporation or securities listed or traded overseas.

(ii) Market Misconduct(a) False Trading and Market Rigging
1. The offence of false trading and market rigging involving securities under the SFA include thefollowing activities:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

the creation of a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any securities on asecurities exchange in Singapore, also known as ‘churning’; 31
the creation of a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for, or price of,any securities on a securities exchange in Singapore; 32
affecting the price of securities by way of purchases or sales which do not involve a change
in the beneficial ownership of those securities, also known as ‘wash sales’; 33
affecting the price of securities by means of any fictitious transactions or devices, also
known as ‘sham transactions’.34

Section 197(3) of the SFA sets out the circumstances under which a person is deemed to havecreated a false or misleading appearance of active trading in securities. It is a defence if the
defendant is able to establish that the acts or transactions were not carried out with the purpose ofcreating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or false or misleading appearance withrespect to the market for or price of securities.35
False trading involving futures contracts or leveraged foreign exchange trading is set out in section
206 of the SFA. Section 207 of the SFA also prohibits the act of bucketing: executing, or holding out
as having executed, an order for the purchase or sale of a futures contract on a futures market or
foreign exchange in connection with leveraged foreign exchange trading without having effected abona fide purchase or sale.
(b) Market Manipulation
Under the SFA, a person is prohibited from carrying out two or more transactions in the securities ofa corporation which will have the effect of affecting or maintaining the price of securities, with theobject of inducing other persons to deal in the securities of the corporation or of a related
corporation.36 Transactions under the provision include the making of offers to buy or sell securities,
and invitations to treat.37 Acts covered under this section include increasing a share price to induce
others to buy, decreasing a share price to induce others to sell, and maintaining a stock price toinduce other to buy or sell.
(c) Dissemination of Misleading Information
A person is also prohibited from disseminating false or misleading information and statements which
31 Section 197(1) (a) SFA. ‘Churning’ involves a series of fictitious transactions designed to create a false impression of activity

in a particular counter. The aim of all such activities would be to lure gullible investors into buying the security. Once enoughbuying pressure has been created to push the price up, the manipulator will sell and take his or her profit.
32 Section 197(1) (b) SFA. The prices quoted on the stock exchange are theoretically a reflection of supply and demand for
securities. Activities intended to give a false or misleading appearance in respect of the market for, or price of, the securities
are prohibited to ensure that the market reflects genuine forces of demand and supply.
33 Section 197(2) SFA. A ‘wash sale’ occurs when there is a series of transactions at the end of which there is no change inbeneficial ownership of securities. Section 197(5) SFA also provides that a transaction does not involve a change in beneficial
ownership if a person who had an interest in the securities prior to the transaction has an interest in the securities after thetransaction, e.g. buying and selling the same block of shares through nominees. The aim similarly is to create the impressionof activity to lure the gullible investor.
34 Section 197(2) SFA. A ‘sham transaction’ is done with the intention of giving the appearance of creating rights andobligations different from the actual rights or obligations actually intended to be created. For example, a company transferring
securities to brokers who then re-sell the securities to a subsidiary of the company may amount to a sham transaction.
35 Section 197(4) and Section 197(6) SFA.
36 Section 198 SFA.
37 Section 198(2) SFA.

21

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

are likely to induce the dealing of securities, or which are likely to affect the market price of
securities.38 The prices of securities are largely dependent on investor confidence, which can be
influenced by positive or negative information. The provision targets people who attempt to ‘talk up’or ‘talk down’ the market by spreading false rumours.
(d) Fraudulently Inducing Persons to Deal in Securities
Under the SFA, it is an offence to induce another person to deal in securities by (a) the intentional or
reckless making of a misleading or false statement, promise or forecast; (b) the dishonest
concealment of materials facts; or (c) by way of recorded information which is false or misleading in amaterial particular.39(e) Employing Manipulative and Deceptive Devices
The SFA also contains a catch-all provision designed to cover any other form of securities fraud not
specifically dealt with in the other sections.40 The provision prohibits (a) employing any device,scheme or artifice to defraud; (b) engaging in any fraudulent or deceptive act, practice or course ofbusiness; or (c) making an untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material factnecessary to make statements made not misleading, in connection with the purchase or sale of any
securities. The provision would be useful in dealing with instances of ‘cornering’ 41 of securities. The
section has also been invoked against dealers’ representatives (remisiers, meaning ‘intermediaries’)
who engage in unauthorized securities trading using their clients’ accounts.
Market misconduct offences are punishable with a maximum fine of S$250,000 or imprisonment for
up to seven years. The provision applies to both conduct outside Singapore in relation to securities
listed or traded in Singapore, as well as conduct within Singapore in relation to securities listed ortraded overseas. An act done partly in and partly outside Singapore which, if done wholly in
Singapore, would constitute an offence under the SFA would be dealt with as if the offence wascommitted in Singapore.42 This is to deter perpetrators of market misconduct from using Singapore
as a haven for their illegal activities. An act done outside Singapore which has a substantial andreasonable effect in Singapore, and which would constitute an offence under the SFA would be dealt
with as if the offence was committed in Singapore as well.43 This confers on our courts extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign acts that affect the integrity of Singapore’s markets.
3. Fraud Offences under the Companies Act (Cap 50)
The Companies Act (Cap 50) (hereinafter ‘Companies Act’) sets out various types of offences in relation to
the conduct of the company and its directors and officers. In this segment, only those offences with theelement of fraud will be covered. The offences in relation to a breach of directors’ duties and other regulatory
breaches will be discussed in a later segment.44(i) False and Misleading Statements
Section 401(2) of the Companies Act provides that every person who willfully makes a false or misleadingstatement in any return, report, certificate, balance sheet or other documents required to be submitted
under the Companies Act commits an offence punishable with a fine not exceeding S$50,000 or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
It is also an offence, punishable with the same penalty, to knowingly lodge, file or submit any document to
the Registrar of Companies which is false or misleading.45
38 Sections 199 and 211 SFA.
39 Sections 200 and 209 SFA.
40 Sections 201 and 210 SFA.
41 ‘Cornering’ arises when a group of buyers attempts to monopolize a security with a view to controlling the price. The scamworks best for counters with a limited number of shares in the free float. When investors, especially speculators, sell short(i.e. sell shares they do not already have in expectation of a drop in the share price) and they are unable to deliver
subsequently, the persons who cornered the market would then be in a position to dictate the price.
42 Section 339(1) SFA.
43 Section 339(2) SFA.
44 See Part VI “Preventing Corporate Crime” below.
45 Section 401(2A) Companies Act.

22

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

An officer of a corporation who, with intent to deceive, makes or furnishes (or knowingly and willfully
authorizes or permits the making or furnishing) of any false or misleading statement or report to a director,
auditor, member, debenture holder or his or her trustee of the corporation, and in the case of a subsidiarycorporation, to an auditor of the holding company, commits an offence punishable with a maximum fine of$10,000 and/or two years’ imprisonment.46(ii) Frauds by Officers
An officer of a corporation who fraudulently procures any money, chattel or marketable security whether
for him or herself or the corporation commits an offence punishable with a maximum fine of S$15,000 and/or
imprisonment for a maximum of three years.47
An officer of a company who induces any person by fraudulent means to give credit to the company,48 orconceals or dissipates property of the company in order to defraud creditors49 commits an offence punishable
with the same penalty.
4. Corruption
The Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (PCA) is the principal legislation dealing with corruption. It
criminalizes the acts of giving and taking of bribes, and covers situations of agreeing or attempting to give or
receive gratification. Corruption involving public servants is covered under Chapter IX of the Penal Code(Chapter 224) as well.50
A person is guilty of an offence under the PCA if he or she corruptly solicits, receives or gives any
gratification as an inducement to do or forbear from doing anything in respect of any matter or transaction.51
Where the gratification is corruptly given to or accepted by an agent as an inducement to do or forbear fromdoing any act in relation to his or her principal’s affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show
favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal’s affairs or business, both the agent and thegiver shall be guilty of an offence.52 A person who corruptly gives or receives any gratification would be
guilty even if the recipient did not have the intention, power, right or opportunity to do or forbear to do theact for which the gratification was received.53
The transaction involved must have a ‘corrupt element’ and the giver must know that he or she is doing acorrupt act.54 ‘Gratification’ is given a wide definition under the PCA and is not limited to pecuniary
benefits.55 Proof of a receipt by or payment to a Government employee or employee of a public body of a
gratification from a person who has or seeks dealings with the Government or public body raises a rebuttablepresumption that the gratification was corruptly given.56 For citizens of Singapore, they are caught by the Act
if they commit any offence under the PCA. In this regard, the PCA has extra-territorial jurisdiction.57
An offence under the PCA is punishable with a maximum fine of S$100,000 and/or imprisonment up to five
years. Where the transaction relates to a contract with the Government of Singapore or any public body, themaximum term of imprisonment is increased to seven years.58 This enhanced punishment is applicable to thecorrupt procuring of withdrawals of tenders for Government contracts, bribery of Members of Parliament or
members of a public body.59 A person convicted of an offence under the PCA can also be ordered by the court
46 Section 402 Companies Act.
47 Section 404(3) Companies Act.
48 Section 406(a) Companies Act.
49 Sections 406(b) and 406(c) Companies Act.
50 Sections 161 to 165 Penal Code.
51 Section 5 PCA.
52 Section 6 PCA.
53 Section 9 PCA.
54 See Chan Wing Seng v Public Prosecutor [1997] 2 SLR 426.
55 Section 2 PCA. See Explanations to Section 161 Penal Code as well.
56 Section 8 PCA.
57 Section 37 PCA.
58 Section 7 PCA.
59 Sections 10 to 12 PCA.

23

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

to pay as a penalty a sum which is equal to the amount of the gratification.60 A principal may recover as a civil
debt any illegal gratification received by the agent in money value from the agent or any person who has givensuch gratification.61 The court can also make a confiscation order under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking andOther Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) (CDSA) in respect of the benefits derived by
the defendant.62
5. Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing
There are two separate legal regimes63 governing money laundering and terrorism financing offences in
Singapore. They are found in the CDSA and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Cap 325)
(TSOFA).

(i) Money Laundering
The CDSA is the key anti-money laundering legislation in Singapore. It was passed on 6 July 1999 toexpand the scope of money laundering offences to include non-drug related offences. Under the CDSA, thelaundering of proceeds from all drug trafficking and serious offences64 constitutes a money laundering
offence. These offences are set out in Part VI of the CDSA. They can be divided into two broad categories.
The first category relates to the concealment or transfer of benefits of crime while the second category
relates to assisting another person to retain benefits of crime.
(a) Concealing or Transferring Benefits of Crime
There are three types of offences under this category. The first is committed when a person:
(i)
(ii)

conceals or disguises any property which (in whole or in part, directly or indirectly) represents
his or her benefits from drug trafficking or from criminal conduct; orconverts or transfers that property or removes it from Singapore.65

An example of this offence would be when a criminal launders his or her own proceeds of crime by,for e.g., transferring them to an offshore bank account or converting them into movable (jewellery)or immovable property (a house).
The second type of offence is committed when a person knowingly (in both subjective and objective
senses) assists a person to commit the first offence so as to avoid the prosecution of a money
laundering offence or to avoid the enforcement of a confiscation order under the CDSA. 66 An
example of such an offence would be when lawyers or bankers knowingly assist their clients toreceive or transfer proceeds of crime.
The third type of offence is committed when a person who, knowing or having reasonable grounds tobelieve that any property (in whole or in part, directly or indirectly) represents another person’s
benefits from drug trafficking or criminal conduct, acquires that property for no or inadequate
consideration.67 An example would be when a person knowingly purchases a jewellery item from acriminal at a fraction of the market value for the item.
(b) Assisting Another to Retain Benefits of Crime
The offence under this category is committed when a person enters into an arrangement, knowing
or having reasonable grounds to believe that by the arrangement:
60 Section 13 PCA.
61 Section 14 PCA.
62 Section 5 CDSA. Confiscation of benefits derived from criminal conduct is discussed at Part V of this paper.
63 This is a rather unique feature of Singapore’s anti-money laundering regime as in most other jurisdictions terrorist financing

is criminalized as a money laundering offence under their anti-money laundering regimes.
64 Section 2 CDSA. The First Schedule to the CDSA contains a list of five drug trafficking offences and the Second Schedule

contains a list of 182 serious offences. Offences under the PCA as well as offences involving corruption and fraud under the
Penal Code are included in the list. The list does not include offences under the SFA, Companies Act or Income Tax Act (taxevasion).
65 Section 46(1) & 47(1) CDSA.
66 Section 46(2) & 47(2) CDSA.
67 Section 46(3) & 47(3) CDSA.

24

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

(i)
(ii)

the retention or control by or on behalf of a criminal’s benefits of drug trafficking or criminal
conduct is facilitated (whether by concealment, removal from Singapore, transfer to nominees orotherwise); or
the criminal’s benefits from drug trafficking or criminal conduct are(1.) used to secure funds that are placed at the criminal’s disposal, directly or indirectly; or(2.) are used for the criminal’s benefit to acquire property by way of investment orotherwise AND knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the criminal iscarrying/has carried on drug trafficking or is engaging/has engaged in criminal conduct
and has benefited from these criminal activities.68

A person charged with this offence has a good defence69 if he or she can prove that:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

he or she did not know and had no reasonable ground to believe that the arrangement was
related to any person’s proceeds of drug trafficking or criminal conduct; or
he or she did not know and had no reasonable ground to believe that, by the arrangement, theretention or control by the criminal of the proceeds from drug trafficking or criminal conduct
would be facilitated or used; or
he or she intended to disclose to an authorized officer his or her suspicion or belief that thebenefits were derived from drug trafficking or criminal conduct and he or she has a reasonableexcuse for failing to do so; or
he or she, being an employee, had disclosed his or her suspicion or belief that the benefits were
derived from drug trafficking or criminal conduct to the appropriate person in accordance withprocedures established by his or her employer for the making of such disclosures.

The penalty for the commission of any of the offences in the two categories above is a maximum fineof S$200,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years.70(c) Tipping-off Offence
The CDSA also provides for the offence of ‘tipping off’.71 The offence is committed when a person
who
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

knows or has reasonable grounds to suspect that an authorized officer72 is acting or proposing
to act, in connection with an investigation conducted for the purposes of the CDSA; or
knows or has reasonable grounds to suspect that a disclosure has been made to an authorized
officer under the CDSA; anddiscloses to any other person information which is likely to prejudice the investigation.

An example would be a banker calling up a client to inform him or her of the CAD’s investigation into
his or her bank account or to inform the customer that the bank’s compliance officer has lodged a
STR (suspicious transaction report) against him or her.
An exception is provided for information disclosed by lawyers to their clients ‘in connection with thegiving of advice to the client in the course of and for the purpose of the professional employment, of the
advocate and solicitor.’73 The exception does not apply, however, if the disclosure was made for an
illegal purpose.74
It is a defence for a tipping-off offence if the ‘tipper’ can prove that he did not know and had noreasonable ground to suspect that the disclosure was likely to be prejudicial to the investigation.75
The punishment for a tipping-off offence is a maximum fine of S$30,000 and/or imprisonment not
68 Section 43(1) & 44(1) CDSA.
69 Section 43(4) & 44(4) CDSA.
70 Sections 43(5), 44(5), 46(6) & 47(6) CDSA.
71 Sections 48(1) & 48(2) CDSA.
72 Section 2 CDSA includes the CNB, CPIB, CAD and police officers and any other person authorized by the Minister.
73 Section 48(3) CDSA.
74 Section 48(4) CDSA.
75 Section 48(5) CDSA.

25

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

exceeding three years.76(ii) Terrorism/Terrorist Financing
Singapore has, in the wake of the September 11 incident and our near escape with an aborted terrorist
attack,77 passed a series of anti-terrorism laws. A key focus of these laws was in the area of anti-terrorism
financing. The relevant provisions are found in the following statutes and regulations:
a)
b)
c)

The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Cap 325) (TSOFA);
Regulations 5 to 7 and 9 and 10 of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations 2001
(UN Regulations);
Monetary Authority of Singapore (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations 2002 (MAS Regulations).

The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325) (TSOFA) was passed on 8 July 2002 by
Parliament to give effect to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
which Singapore signed on 18 December 2001 and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.
The UN Regulations were passed to give effect to Resolution 1373, (2001) (Imposing Measures Against
Terrorism) and Resolution 1390 (2002) of the UN Security Council. The MAS Regulations were enacted,
pursuant to section 27A of the Monetary of Singapore Authority Act (Cap 186), to apply the relevant
provisions in the UN Regulations to financial institutions in Singapore.78
The terrorism/terrorist financing offences contained in the TSOFA, UN Regulations and MAS Regulations
can be summarized as follows:i)

intentionally or knowingly providing or collecting funds or property to use them to commit a terrorist
act;79ii) knowingly dealing with any property owned or controlled by or on behalf of any terrorist or terrorist
entity; 80iii) knowingly entering into or facilitating a financial transaction related to a dealing in property owned
or controlled by or on behalf of any terrorist or terrorist entity; 81iv) knowingly providing any financial services or other related services relating to any terrorist property
or for the benefit of any terrorist or terrorist entity; 82v) knowingly providing funds, economic resources or financial or other related services for the benefitof any Prohibited Person (defined as a terrorist, a terrorist entity and a person acting on behalf or at
the direction of the terrorist or terrorist entity); 83vi) intentionally or knowingly using or possessing a property for the purpose of facilitating or carryingout a terrorist act.84
The punishment prescribed for any of the above offences is a maximum fine of S$100,00085 and/or
76 Section 48(1) & 48(2) CDSA.
77 In 2002, the Singapore authorities uncovered a plot by a terrorist group to carry out terrorist acts in Singapore. They had

formulated plans to hijack an aircraft from a neighbouring country and then crash it into the control tower of ChangiInternational Airport. There was also a plan to drive two trucks laden with explosives into the United States Embassy anddetonate them there. Our authorities also discovered they had conducted surveillance on our naval base, a Mass Rapid Transit
station, and government ministry buildings. Fortunately our security services were able to uncover these plots in time andplace the criminals under arrest.
78 The provisions in both Regulations are identical. The MAS Regulations were necessary as Regulation 3 of the UN
Regulations specifically states that the regulations do not apply to financial institutions.
79 Section 3 TSOFA, Regulation 5 UN Regulations, Regulation 5 MAS Regulations.
80 Section 6(1)(a) TSOFA, Regulation 6(a) UN Regulations, Regulation 6(a) MAS Regulations.
81 Section 6(1)(b) TSOFA, Regulation 6(b) UN Regulations, Regulation 6(b) MAS Regulations.
82 Section 6(1)(c) TSOFA, Regulation 6(c) UN Regulations, Regulation 6(c) MAS Regulations.
83 Section 4 TSOFA, Regulation 7(1) UN Regulations, Regulation 7(1) MAS Regulations.
84 Section 5 TSOFA.
85 The penalties under the TSOFA are set out in each of the offence-creating provisions. For the UN Regulations, thepunishment is found in Section 5 of the UN Act (Chapter 339). Punishment for the offence under the MAS Regulations isfound in Section 27A(5) MAS Act.

26

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

imprisonment not exceeding five or ten years.
6. Other Offences
Besides the offences discussed so far, there are other offences set out in other statutes that would fit
within the genre of corporate and economic crime. These offences will be discussed briefly in this segment.

(i) Tax Evasion
The offence of tax evasion is set out in the Income Tax Act (Cap 134). Any person who, willfully withintent to evade tax or assist another person to evade tax, omits any income or makes any false statement in
an income tax return, or gives any false answer to any question or request for information made under the
Act is guilty of an offence punishable with a maximum fine of S$10,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding
three years. The offender will also have to pay a penalty of treble the amount of tax evaded in addition to thefine or imprisonment meted out against him or her.86
If the person intending to evade tax prepares or maintains any false books of account or other records or
falsifies any book of account or records, or makes use of any fraud, art or contrivance, he or she will be liable
to a stiffer punishment of a maximum fine of S$50,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years. The offender will have to pay, in addition, a penalty four times the amount of tax evaded.87
Repeat offenders are liable to a minimum imprisonment term of six months.88 The Comptroller ofIncome Tax may, however, compound these offences.
In any prosecutions under these two sections, the offender is presumed to have willfully intended to evade
tax until he or she is able to rebut the presumption.89(ii) Computer Related Crime
The advent of computers and the Internet has brought about a proliferation of fraud committed throughthe use of computers or the Internet. The problem of electronically perpetrated fraud, particularly throughtheft of virtual identity and security information, is on the rise. Scams like the Nigerian advance fee fraud
have also been perpetrated through the use of various forms of information technology. Identity thieves havemanaged to steal personal banking information through bogus websites simulating those of banks andfinancial institutions, and thereafter utilizing the information to illegally transfer funds from the victim’sbank accounts. In this respect, cyber-criminals have also targeted databases of banks and financial
institutions.
The Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A) (CMA) contains a set of offences to deal with computer related
offences. Under the CMA, any person who knowingly causes a computer to perform any function for the
purpose of securing unauthorized access to any computer programme or data is guilty of an offence
punishable with a maximum fine of S$5,000 and/or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.90
A person who secures access to a computer programme or data held in a computer to commit an offence
involving property, fraud, dishonesty or which causes bodily harm is liable to be punished with a maximum
fine of S$50,000 and/or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.91 Perpetrators of online scams
and identity theft will be caught under this provision, although in such cases, they will be charged for the
principal offences under the Penal Code, SFA or other statutory provisions dealing with the offences.
Any acts of unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer constitutes an offence punishable
with a maximum fine of S$10,000 and/or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.92
86 Section 96(1) Income Tax Act.
87 Section 96A(1) Income Tax Act.
88 Sections 96(2) and 96A(2) Income Tax Act.
89 Sections 96(3) and 96A(3) Income Tax Act.
90 Section 3(1) CMA.
91 Section 4 CMA.
92 Section 5 CMA.

27

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

Other acts criminalized under the CMA include the unauthorized use or interception of computer
service, unauthorized obstruction of use of a computer and unauthorized disclosure of any password oraccess code for any wrongful gain or purpose, or with the knowledge that it would cause wrongful loss to any
person.93
The CMA has extra-territorial effect as well and applies to any person, whatever his or her nationality or
citizenship, and whether he or she is outside or within Singapore, as well as whether the act was committed
outside or within Singapore, so long as the offender was in Singapore at the material time or the computer,programme or data was in Singapore at the material time.94

B. Civil Sanctions
Besides being liable to criminal sanctions and penalties, offenders are subject to civil liabilities under thecommon law as well. Victims of fraud may file civil suits against the perpetrators. Directors who embezzle ormismanage company funds may be sued by the company and/or its shareholders for failing to discharge theirfiduciary duties as directors of the company.
Under the SFA, civil sanctions are specifically prescribed for insider trading and market misconduct.
These sanctions are either by way of a civil penalty ordered by the court on the application of the MAS, orcompensation to victims of the offence.
1. Civil Penalty
Under Section 232 of the SFA, MAS may, with the consent of the public prosecutor, bring an action incourt against a person who has committed any securities offence under Part XII of the SFA for an order ofcivil penalty of a sum:(i) not exceeding three times the amount of profit gained or loss avoided by the offender; or(ii) equal to S$50,000 for a natural person or S$100,000 for a corporation,
whichever amount is greater.95
Where the offence did not result in profit gained or loss avoided, the court may order the offender to pay
a civil penalty of a sum between S$50,000 and S$2 million.96
Civil penalty actions cannot be commenced against offenders who have been charged and convicted or
acquitted for the offence.97 A civil penalty action shall be stayed after criminal proceedings are commenced
against the offender, and may be continued only if the charge was subsequently withdrawn or the offender isgranted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.98 A civil penalty is subject to a six year limitation period.99
The MAS may allow an offender to consent to an order of civil penalty being made against him or her by
the court on such terms as may be agreed between MAS and the offender.100 Alternatively, MAS may also
enter into an out-of-court settlement with or without admission of liability with an offender to pay the civil
penalty.101
2. Civil Liability
Under Section 234 of the SFA, persons who have suffered loss when trading contemporaneously102 with
93 Sections 6, 7 and 8 CMA.
94 Section 11 CMA.
95 Section 232(2) SFA.
96 Section 232(3) SFA.
97 Section 233(2) SFA.
98 Section 233(3) SFA.
99 Section 233(1) SFA.
100 Section 232(4) SFA.
101 Section 232(5) SFA.
102 The factors to be considered in determining whether a transaction took place contemporaneously are set out in Section

234(5) SFA.

28

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

the offender may seek an order against the offender for payment of compensation for the loss suffered,103
regardless of whether the offender has been convicted, or has had a civil penalty imposed on him or her,subject to a maximum recoverable amount, which is the amount of profit made or loss avoided by theoffender.104

III. INVESTIGATING CORPORATE CRIME
There are several characteristics of corporate and economic crimes which differentiate them from othergeneral crimes. They are likely to be committed by people with high intellect, such as lawyers, accountants
and bank officials. There is often a high degree of planning and preparation involved, both in the commissionof the offences as well as in covering up the tracks. Many of these offences involve syndicates. Rapid
technological advancements have also significantly increased the capabilities of these criminal elements.
With the proliferation of the Internet, fraudsters now have a global reach and very often, it is impossible toeven identify the perpetrator.
Given these tremendous challenges in dealing with modern corporate and commercial crime, it isimperative that enforcement agencies are well equipped, both in terms of hardware and ‘heart-ware’.
Besides harnessing the latest technology and recruiting bright and talented investigators, enforcement
agencies also need to constantly upgrade their institutional knowledge and capabilities in order to keep up
with the challenges of investigating and solving modern corporate and commercial crimes.
In this respect, Singapore has devoted significant resources to developing premier investigating agencies
like the Commercial Affairs Department and Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau which rank amongst
the best in the world in terms of their professionalism, knowledge and integrity. These agencies aresupported by a strong and robust legal framework which provides them with wide ranging investigative
powers to enable them to carry out swift and effective investigations. As a result, Singapore has earned thedistinction of having one of the most efficient enforcement regimes in the world.105
Besides the CAD and CPIB, the MAS, which administers the civil penalty regime under the SFA, has an
enforcement section which investigates the relevant offences under the SFA. Our Accounting and Corporate
Regulatory Authority (‘ACRA’), which regulates companies, businesses and public accountants, also carries
out investigation in the areas under its purview. Investigators from MAS and ACRA are highly qualified andare given wide investigative powers under the respective statutes as well.

A. Our Enforcement and Investigation Agencies
1. Commercial Affairs Department (CAD)The CAD is the principal investigation agency for economic crime in Singapore. Established in 1984
under the Ministry of Finance, the CAD has evolved into a premier white-collar criminal investigation
agency handling a wide spectrum of commercial and financial crimes. It was reconstituted as a department of
the Singapore Police Force in 2000. Since its inception in 1984, the CAD has achieved remarkable acclaim bysolving numerous high-profile commercial crime cases, some of which have attracted international media
coverage.
The CAD has its own dedicated investigative and intelligence resources. Specialist divisions are set up
within the department, each focusing on specialized areas of commercial and financial fraud and other related
crimes. There is also a dedicated unit for the investigation of money-laundering related crimes and recovery
of proceeds of criminal activities.

(i) Commercial Crime Division
The Commercial Crime Division handles general fraud cases. It is made up of two branches:
103 Section 234(1)(b) SFA: the loss is calculated by measuring the difference between the price of the securities at which thesecurities were dealt with in that transaction and their likely price if the offence had not been committed.
104 Section 234(6) SFA.
105 The World Economic Forum’s “Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) 2005-2006” ranked Singapore’s police service firstout of 117 countries for her reliability in protecting businesses from crime.

29

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76(a) Financial Fraud Branch
The Financial Fraud Branch investigates all types of credit card fraud, including fraudulent onlinetransactions, merchant collusion and counterfeiting. It also investigates other major cases involving
counterfeit currency syndicates and factoring fraud;(b) General Fraud Branch
The General Fraud Branch investigates organized fraud with a focus on syndicated scams. These include
syndicated false insurance claims, syndicated forgery of travel documents, fly-by-night business
operations and syndicated get-rich-quick scams.

(ii) Corporate Fraud DivisionCorporate and commercial frauds committed by directors or officers of companies and business entities areinvestigated by the Corporate Fraud Division. These include offences like criminal breach of trust, falsificationof accounts and cheating offences under the Penal Code (Chapter 224), as well as contraventions of theCompanies Act (Chapter 50), Business Registration Act and Bankruptcy Act. The division also investigates
offences committed by lawyers and accountants. These would include breaches of the Legal Profession Act(Chapter 161) and Accountants Act (Chapter 2).
Officers from the Corporate Fraud Division are equipped with advanced forensic accounting skills andlegal knowledge to deal with the highly complex nature of the cases they investigate. Many of the officers in
the Division possess professional qualifications in accounting and law as well.

(iii) Securities & Maritime Fraud Division
The Securities & Maritime Fraud Division comprises two branches:(a) Securities Fraud Branch
The Securities Fraud Branch investigates all criminal offences under the Securities & Futures Act(Chapter 289), which includes market misconduct offences such as insider trading and market rigging
as well as other regulatory offences under the Act. The branch also investigates contraventions of the
Financial Advisers Act (Chapter 110) and the Commodity Trading Act (Chapter 48A);(b) Maritime and Investment Fraud Branch
The Maritime & Investment Fraud Branch investigates maritime, investment and financing-related
frauds. This broad portfolio covers fraud involving trade financing instruments like letters of credit,prohibited pyramid-selling schemes, fraudulent obtaining of financing and investment scams.

(iv) Financial Investigation Division
The Financial Investigation Division handles money-laundering cases and offences related to moneylaundering. The Division consists of three branches:(a) Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO)The STRO receives and analyses Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs). It provides financial
intelligence information for the detection of money-laundering, terrorism financing and other criminal
offences. It is also Singapore’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). As the central agency in Singapore
for receiving, analysing and disseminating reports of suspicious transactions, STRO turns raw datacontained in STRs into financial intelligence that could be used to detect money-laundering, terrorism
financing and other criminal offences. It also disseminates financial intelligence to relevant
enforcement and regulatory agencies.
(b) Financial Investigation Branch
The Financial Investigation Branch investigates money-laundering and other offences under the
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Chapter
65A), as well as offences under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325). The
branch has been successful in investigating several major money-laundering cases, some of which I
will be discussing in a later part of this paper.
(c) Proceeds of Crime Unit
The Proceeds of Crime Unit is responsible for the identification and seizure of proceeds of crime,30

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

and thereafter managing such assets until they are returned to the rightful beneficiaries or
confiscated under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation ofBenefits) Act (Chapter 65A). Enforcement agencies who encounter incidences of money laundering
while investigating into any offence may refer the matter to the unit for a joint investigation andsubsequent prosecution. This process has the effect of improving the time taken to recover criminal
assets. The unit also investigates offences committed by or through non-bank value transfer systems
like remittance agents and money changers under the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses
Act (Chapter 187).
Besides recruiting talented and professionally qualified candidates, the CAD also regularly embarks onhighly specialized training programmes for its investigators. These include joint training programmes withworld-renowned economic crime enforcement agencies and industry leaders as well as training via videoconferencing with specialist agencies around the world.
2. Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB)
The CPIB is an independent body which investigates and aims to prevent corruption in the public andprivate sectors in Singapore. Established in 1952, it derives its powers of investigation106 from the Preventionof Corruption Act (Cap 241) (PCA). The Bureau is headed by a director who is appointed by the President ofSingapore. He is assisted by a Deputy Director, assistant directors and special investigators.107
The Bureau is responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the public service and encouraging corruptionfree transactions in the private sector. It is charged with the responsibility of checking on malpractices by
public officers and reporting such cases to the appropriate government departments and public bodies fordisciplinary action. For the private sector, the focus is on promoting good governance and ethical practices toensure a level playing field.
Investigation is conducted by the Operations Division which has within it an elite Special Investigation
Team which handles complex and major cases. During the investigation process, the CPIB officers frequently
work with various Government agencies and private organizations in gathering evidence and obtaining
necessary information. Completed investigation papers are submitted to the public prosecutor for legal
assessment and prosecution.108
The successful prosecution against many corrupt offenders has reduced corruption in Singapore to a near
non-existent level. This has contributed to Singapore’s reputation for having zero tolerance for corruption.
Singapore has also consistently received high ratings in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions
Index.109 Amongst an average of 130 countries featured in the last five years, Singapore has been ranked as
the fifth least corrupt country in the world, with an average score of 9.3 on a scale of 1.0 (highly corrupt) to
10.0 (highly clean).
The Bureau also carries out corruption prevention by reviewing the work methods and procedures ofdepartments and public bodies which are more susceptible to corruption, and recommending remedial andpreventive measures to these departments and public bodies. Officers from the Bureau regularly conduct
lectures and seminars to educate public officers on issues concerning corruption. Such lectures andseminars are conducted for private organizations as well.
3. Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)The MAS is the de facto central bank of Singapore. Established under the Monetary Authority ofSingapore Act (Chapter 186) (MAS Act), the MAS acts as chief supervisor and regulator of Singapore’s
financial services sector. It has prudential oversight over the securities and futures market and the banking
and insurance industries. The MAS also enforces the civil penalty regime for insider trading and market
misconduct.
106 Sections 17 to 22 PCA.
107 Section 3 PCA.
108 Under the PCA, no prosecution can be instituted except by or with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor.
109 Transparency International is a leading international non-governmental organization formed with the mission to promoteanti-corruption on a worldwide scale. Its Corruption Perceptions Index is one of the most commonly-used measures forcorruption in research due to its reputation for accuracy.

31

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

The MAS conducts investigations and audits in exercise of its powers or performance of its functions, toensure compliance, as well as over any alleged or suspected contraventions of any provisions or regulations
under the SFA, Banking Act (Chapter 19), Business Trusts Act (Chapter 31A), Financial Companies Act(Chapter 108), Financial Advisers Act (Chapter 110), Insurance Act (Chapter 142), Money Changing andRemittance Businesses Act (Chapter 187) and Trust Companies Act (Chapter 336).
Investigative powers in relation to contraventions of provisions in the SFA are conferred on MAS
investigators under Part IX Division 3 of the SFA. These include requiring a person to give “all reasonableassistance” in an investigation,110 examining a witness under oath and recording of statements from thewitness,111 and requiring a person to provide information or produce documents or books relating to any
matter under investigation.112
Powers of inspection and investigation are also conferred on the MAS under the other Acts mentioned
above. In cases involving financial and insurance companies or advisers/intermediaries, such inspections andinvestigations would be carried out by MAS under conditions of secrecy.
4. Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA)
The ACRA was formed on 1 April 2004 from the merger between the then Registry of Companies andBusinesses (RCB) and the Public Accountants Board (PAB). The main role of ACRA is the regulation ofcompanies, businesses and public accountants113 in Singapore.
The formation of ACRA was part of a move by the government of Singapore to move away from theindustry self regulation in the wake of big accounting scandals such as Enron in the United States. ACRA
performs a pivotal role in the monitoring of corporate compliance with disclosure requirements andaccounting standards, and the regulation of public accountants performing statutory audits.
ACRA has its own in-house legal advisers and investigators who carry out its enforcement functions.
These include investigations into regulatory breaches of provisions under the Companies Act (Cap 50),
Business Registration Act (Cap 32), Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Cap 163A) and audit inspections on
public accountants pursuant to the Accountants Act (Cap 2).

B. Co-operation amongst These Agencies
Though separate in terms of their constitution and specific areas of enforcement, the CAD, CPIB, MAS
and ACRA work together as part of a multi-agency enforcement framework. For example, the CAD and
CPIB often engage in joint investigations in cases where both fraud and corruption offences are committed
by the same accused person(s). In such cases, investigators from both agencies will co-ordinate theirinvestigations and share information with one another.
Another instance is where upon preliminary evaluation, it is determined that a civil penalty action would
be more appropriate than criminal sanctions, the CAD may hand over a case to the MAS for theirinvestigation and follow-up action. Similarly, where MAS encounters a case which warrants criminal
sanctions, it will refer the matter to the CAD.
This co-operation and co-ordination between our enforcement agencies has allowed us to take swift,
efficient and appropriate action against individuals and entities involved in the commission of corporate andcommercial crimes.

C. The Investigation Process
1. Commencement of Investigations
Investigations by our enforcement agencies are usually triggered by one or more of the following:(i) a complaint lodged by a person(s) who may or may not be the victim of the alleged crime. In some
110 Section 154(1)(a) SFA.
111 Section 154(1)(b) SFA. The manner of examination and recording is set out in Sections 156 to 158 SFA.
112 Section 163 SFA.
113 Its functions are specifically set out in Section 6 of the ACRA Act (Cap 2A).

32

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

instances, the person lodging the report can be the offender or contravening person him or herself;(ii) information gathered from the media. For example, published articles or reports on questionable
activities or conduct taking place in a particular corporation may be sufficient to cause the enforcement
agency to suspect that an offence(s) has been committed by or within the corporation and decide tocommence investigation into its affairs.
The enforcement agency will evaluate every complaint or case arising from information from the media
before deciding on whether to start the investigation process. Crucial factors like whether any offence has
been disclosed, the availability of the potential defendants, witnesses and documentary records, as well as
the prospect of making out a case sufficient to support a court prosecution, will be considered. Thisevaluation process does not usually involve the prosecuting agency, although for complex or sensitive cases,
the enforcement officer may seek legal advice from a DPP or State Counsel from the Attorney-General’sChambers.
2. Powers of Investigations
Once a decision is made to initiate investigations, an investigator or team of investigators will be assigned
to the case. CAD investigators are conferred similar powers of investigation as police officers. These powers
are set out in Part V of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (‘CPC’). An investigator may, by order inwriting, require the attendance of any person in Singapore to assist in investigations. If such a person fails toattend, the investigator may apply to the court for a warrant to secure his or her attendance.114 The
investigator is empowered to examine and record statements from witnesses, and require these witnesses
to execute bonds to secure their attendance to testify in subsequent court proceedings.115 The investigatoris also empowered to issue orders to persons (individuals or companies) to produce any document or exhibit
relevant to the investigation116 and to seize them if necessary.117 If such orders are not complied with, theinvestigator may conduct a search at any place or premises (or apply to the court for a search warrant where
the offence investigated is non-seizable118 ) to retrieve the documents or exhibits.119 In the context of bankdocuments and information such as deposit statements and account information, an investigator (not below
the rank of inspector) may conduct an inspection at the bank’s premises.
Investigators from the CPIB are conferred, subject to authorization by the public prosecutor, even wider
powers of investigations under the PCA. These include the investigation of any bank account, share account,purchase account, expense account or any other account or any safe deposit box in any bank, the inspectionof banker’s books in relation to any public servant suspected to have committed a corruption offence, or hisor her spouse, child or trustee/agent. The public prosecutor is also empowered to require the accused
person to make a sworn statement in writing listing out all properties owned by him or her, his or her
spouse and children, as well as to obtain from the Comptroller of Income Tax, all information available torelating to the accused person’s affairs.
3. Leveraging on Professional Expertise and Technology
Our enforcement agencies are also equipped with professional expertise and state-of-the art modern
equipment to handle the often highly complex nature of white-collar crime investigations. Both the CAD and
CPIB have computer forensics teams who are able to retrieve incriminating computer data and information
like emails and soft copies of documents which have been previously deleted. The CAD has its in-houseteam of auditors who are adept at conducting forensic auditing. It also has a panel of experts consisting ofleading industry experts whom the investigators can seek advice from concerning issues like acceptedindustry practices or whether a particular piece of information is price sensitive. The Police and CPIB also
have a well established polygraph testing framework to aid in their investigations.120 Our Health Sciences
114 Section 120 CPC.
115 Sections 121 and 126 CPC.
116 Section 58 CPC.
117 Section 68 CPC.
118 A police officer may arrest any person suspected of having committed a seizable offence without having been issued awarrant of arrest by the court. The CPC specifically sets out which offences are seizable and which are not under its Schedule
A. Generally, non-seizable offences are less serious than seizable ones.
119 Sections 61 and 125 CPC.
120 Although polygraph test results are inadmissible as evidence in our courts, polygraph tests have continued to play a role as
highly important and valuable investigation tools.

33

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

Authority (HSA) also provides support to criminal investigations by conducting forensic examinations likehandwriting analysis and analysis to ascertain the authenticity of documents.
Once an investigation is complete, the investigator will put up a report on his or her findings and make a
recommendation on the course of action to adopt against the offender(s). The investigation papers will thenbe forwarded to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for legal assessment.

IV. PROSECUTING CORPORATE CRIME
Article 35(1) of the Constitution of Singapore creates the office of the Attorney-General. The AttorneyGeneral of Singapore is a non-political appointee and performs two primary roles:a)b)principal legal adviser to the Government; andpublic prosecutor.

The Attorney-General as public prosecutor has powers to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings
for any offence.121 The CPC further provides that the Attorney-General shall be the public prosecutor, with
control and direction of all criminal prosecutions and proceedings.122 This confers on the public prosecutor
sole discretion over the prosecution of offences in Singapore.

A. Attorney-General’s Chambers - Criminal Justice Division
The Criminal Justice Division (CJD) is the organizational extension of the Attorney-General’s role as the
public prosecutor and is the chief prosecuting agency in Singapore.
Officers of the CJD act as Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) and Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs)
under the authority of the Attorney-General. DPPs conduct criminal prosecutions in the Subordinate Courts
and High Court. They also conduct Magistrate’s Appeals and Criminal Appeals, and appear in Coroner’s,
Disposal and Preliminary Inquiries. APPs conduct only criminal prosecutions in the Subordinate Courts.
Besides criminal litigation, DPPs also exercise the Attorney-General’s control and direction of criminal
prosecutions by advising law enforcement agencies in their investigations. Investigation papers from various
enforcement agencies are submitted to CJD for DPPs to evaluate whether any offences have been disclosed
and, if so, what charges should be preferred against the accused persons.
In view of the transnational nature of crime in our increasingly globalized world, CJD’s work also has aninternational dimension. Officers process all requests from foreign states for assistance in criminal matters,
including extradition requests. In addition, CJD officers are also actively involved in negotiations for treaties
and agreements involving criminal matters, as well as participating in international conferences on issues
concerning criminal justice.
The CJD is divided into eight Directorates, each handling different areas of work. There are six Trial
Litigation Directorates, one Appellate Litigation Directorate and one Advisory Directorate. Of the six Trial
Litigation Directorates, there are specialized Directorates each for Financial & Securities Offences andCorruption and Specialist Offences.
The Financial & Securities Offences Directorate consists of DPPs who specialize in the prosecution ofcomplex commercial and economic crimes like corporate fraud and insider trading. Offences committed byprofessionals like lawyers and accountants are prosecuted by DPPs from the directorate as well. DPPs fromthe directorate undergo regular training programmes and also attend conferences and seminars to keep
themselves abreast of developments in the area of corporate and finance laws as well as the latest trends ineconomic and commercial crimes.
The DPPs in the directorate work closely with the officers from the CAD, providing advice on legal
issues arising during the investigation stage, as well as legal evaluation and assessment upon completion of
121 Article 35(8) of the Constitution of Singapore. See http://agclwb.agc.gov.sg
122 Section 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68).

34

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

investigations. Some of the DPPs from this Directorate are also physically based at the CAD’s premises toprovide legal support at close proximity to the investigation teams at the CAD.
The Corruption & Specialist Crimes Directorate deals with cases investigated by the CPIB. This includes
providing legal advice to the CPIB investigators, legal assessment and prosecution of these cases. The
Directorate also handles cases investigated by specialized branches of the Singapore Police Force such asorganized crime, vice offences, gambling offences, intellectual property offences and computer crimes.
The CJD conducts training courses for departmental prosecutors and law enforcement officers to updatethem on legal developments which may be relevant for their operations. These courses improve the quality ofinvestigation, which in turn assist in prosecution. The CJD also has a task force to enforce timeliness insubmission of investigation papers by law enforcement agencies to ensure efficient administration of criminal
justice.
This close working relationship between the DPPs and investigators is one of the key attributes in
Singapore’s remarkable capabilities at solving and successfully prosecuting complex commercial and economic
crimes. We do our best to work as a team.

B. The Criminal Prosecution Process
1. Deciding Whether to Prosecute
Upon completion of investigations, the investigating agency will submit the investigation papers to the
Attorney-General’s Chambers for legal assessment on the sufficiency of evidence to support the offences
investigated. The process of legal assessment would involve the DPP going through the statements recorded
from the witnesses and documents and exhibits seized. Where necessary, DPPs may carry out interviews
with witnesses as well to clarify certain aspects of their statements as well as to assess their veracity.
In the context of corporate and commercial offences, this process will often involve going throughvoluminous statements and documents. DPPs often have to seek the views and opinions of experts (forexample, in insider trading cases, whether a particular piece of information is price sensitive) in determining
whether a particular offence is made out.
Depending on the nature of the offences committed, the factual matrix of the case and the sufficiency ofevidence, a decision would then be made on the course of action to adopt against an accused person. The
public prosecutor in exercising his or her prosecutorial discretion may decide to prosecute the accused person
in court, or to direct the enforcement agency to take alternative action like composition123 or the issuance of awarning to an accused person in lieu of prosecution. In the case of corporate or commercial cases, factors likethe prevailing market realities and industry practices and the need to balance the often conflicting objectivesof law enforcement and business efficiency will often have to be taken into consideration in this decisionmaking process.
2. Charging an Accused Person
Once the decision is made to proceed with prosecution, an accused person will be produced in court andcharged formally. The accused person may elect to plead guilty to the charge or to claim trial. In most cases,
however, an accused person’s plea is seldom taken on the first occasion he or she is charged. Adjournments
are usually sought by the accused person to seek legal advice or representation, or if they are alreadyrepresented by a lawyer, to make representations124 to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The matter would
then be fixed for a pre-trial conference (PTC).
3. Pre-trial
The PTC is conducted by a District Judge and attended by the prosecutor and the accused or his or her
defence counsel. The purpose of a PTC is to expedite criminal proceedings through proper case management.
123 An offence is compounded if the criminal charge is withdrawn following a settlement between an accused person and theperson who has the power to compound the offence under the law (usually a victim or a government body).
124 These are letters written by an accused person’s counsel to the Attorney-General’s Chambers requesting either awithdrawal or reduction of the charges, or other forms of plea bargaining.

35

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

Where an accused person claims trial, a PTC will encourage disclosure and the narrowing down of issues to
expedite the trial. In the Subordinate Courts, a District Judge will preside over the PTC which is held in thechambers of the District Judge. The prosecutor and the accused or his or her defence counsel would disclose
their respective positions at the PTC and narrow down the issues that may be of contention at trial. The court
also takes the opportunity to tie down administrative matters with both parties i.e. the number of witnesses
to be examined by the prosecutor and the accused or his or her defence counsel, the manner of adducing
evidence from the witnesses, the number of days required for trial, etc.
In the High Court, the Registrar of the Supreme Court or any of his or her deputies and assistants will
preside over the pre-trial conferences. These pre-trial conferences are held in chambers. Pre-trial conferences
for criminal cases pending before the High Court are conducted very much like those in the Subordinate
Courts.
4. Trial
Where an accused pleads not guilty to a charge, the trial is the forum where evidence is adduced by theprosecution and the defence in order for the court to determine whether the accused is guilty of the charge
against him or her. The evidentiary and procedural laws governing trials are found in the Evidence Act (Cap97) and the CPC.
A trial begins with the prosecution’s case. The prosecutor will lead evidence from the prosecution
witnesses in court. Each witness will first be examined-in-chief by the prosecutor, followed by crossexamination by the defence and, if necessary, re-examination by the prosecutor.125 The prosecution closes
its case when all the prosecution witnesses have testified.
After the prosecution closes its case, the court will decide whether there is some evidence (notinherently incredible) which if the court were to accept as accurate, would establish each essential elementin the charge. If a prima facie case is not made out, the accused would be acquitted at this stage. On theother hand, if a prima facie case is proved, the court will call upon the accused to enter upon his or her
defence.
If the accused elects to give evidence on the stand, he or she will be the first witness for the defence. His
or her evidence-in-chief will first be given, followed by cross-examination by the prosecutor and, if
necessary, he or she will be re-examined. Even if the accused elects to remain silent, he or she can still callwitnesses to testify for the defence. Each of these witnesses will first be examined-in-chief by the accusedor his or her counsel, followed by cross-examination by the prosecutor and, if necessary, re-examination by
the accused or his or her counsel. The defence closes its case when all the defence witnesses have testified.
Thereafter, if the prosecution intends to call rebuttal evidence, an application will be made at this stage.
Both parties will then make their closing submissions with the defence presenting first followed by theprosecution. The prosecution has the right of reply on the whole case after the accused or his or her counsel
has summed up the whole case. The court will then give its verdict.
Trials in a Magistrate’s Court, District Court and the High Court are conducted in similar fashion. Thereis, however, an important distinction between trials in the High Court and trials in the Magistrate’s andDistrict Courts. Preliminary inquiries have to be conducted for all criminal cases sought to be tried before
the High Court but not for cases sought to be tried in a Magistrate’s or District Court. A preliminary inquiry
is essentially a committal proceeding, and is a procedural safeguard to ensure that no one is made to standtrial in the High Court unless a prima facie case for the offence is established.
In certain situations, a Magistrate’s Court or District Court hearing a criminal case may come to theopinion that the matter is one that ought properly to be tried before the High Court, or, the public prosecutor
may make an application126 to transfer the case to the High Court. The High Court may also order that a caseshall be transferred from a Magistrate’s Court or District Court and tried before the High Court.127
125 Section 140(1) Evidence Act.
126 Section 186(1) CPC.
127 Section 185(1) CPC.

36

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

5. Post Trial
On conclusion of the trial, the court will deliver its verdict. If an accused person is found guilty, he or she
will be convicted and sentenced accordingly. If he is found not guilty, he or she will be given an acquittal andreleased immediately.
The relevant orders will also be issued by the court for documents and exhibits tendered during the trial
to be disposed of or returned to the rightful owners.128 Where there are disputes or competing claims overthese exhibits or documents, a disposal inquiry will be convened.
6. Appeal
If either party is dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, they may file an appeal. There are generally
four types of appeals: prosecution’s appeal against acquittal, prosecution’s appeal against sentence, anaccused person’s appeal against conviction and an accused person’s appeal against sentence.
An appeal against a decision in a case originating in a Magistrate’s Court or a District Court will be heard
by the High Court. There is no further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High
Court.
The Court of Appeal hears criminal appeals against any decision made by the High Court in the exercise
of its original criminal jurisdiction.129
Where an accused person has pleaded guilty and been convicted, there shall be no appeal except as to theextent or legality of the sentence.130
7. Criminal Revision
Where a trial court’s decision is subsequently found to be palpably wrong such that an injustice wasoccasioned, e.g. when the trial court imposed a sentence which was wrong in law, a criminal revision may be
filed at the High Court.131

C. The Civil Penalty Process
For securities fraud cases like insider trading and market misconduct under the SFA which can either be
dealt with by way of criminal prosecution or the imposing of a civil penalty, the CAD and MAS have guidelines
and protocols in place to determine at a very early stage of investigation whether a particular case should
proceed on the ‘criminal track’ or ‘civil track’. Factors like the severity of the offence(s), the extent of market
impact, the need for effective deterrence and the evidential strength of the case132 would all be relevant
considerations.
Once a case is placed on the ‘civil track’, the investigation will be conducted by investigators from theMAS. Upon completion of investigations, the MAS will decide on the course of action to adopt against theoffender. This could include offering compensation or issuing a letter of warning to the offender, where theoffence is relatively minor or technical in nature, resulting in minimal loss or damage. MAS may also enter
into a settlement with the offender to pay a civil penalty with or without any admission of liability.
If the MAS decide to bring an action in court on the civil track, the case will be forwarded to the
Attorney-General’s Chambers with their recommendations with a view to obtaining the requisite consent
from the public prosecutor. Upon the public prosecutor’s consent, MAS will then proceed with the court
action via the normal civil process. A full civil trial may ensue following which the court will make an order
for a civil penalty against the offender if the court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that he or she has
contravened the relevant provisions. Alternatively, the offender may consent to the order being made against
128 Section 386 CPC.
129 Section 29A2 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap) (SCJA).
130 Section 244 CPC and Section 44(2) SCJA.
131 Section 268 CPC.
132 For criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof for the prosecution is the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt

whereas in a civil penalty action, the burden of proof is the civil standard of balance of probabilities.

37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

him or her (without going through a trial) on such terms as may be agreed between the MAS and theoffender.

V. RECOVERING PROCEEDS OF CORPORATE CRIME
The traditional process of prosecuting a criminal and having him or her convicted and sentenced accordingly
is often insufficient to deter most commercial and financial crimes, which often reap highly lucrative returns. A
person minded to commit such crimes has little hesitation in taking the risk of being caught, convicted andincarcerated as it would be worthwhile if he or she is able to enjoy the benefits after his or her release fromprison.
As such, robust action is needed to remove a criminal’s financial incentive to commit financial or
economic crime. This can be achieved through determined efforts to identify, seize, and confiscate proceedsof crime and/or return stolen property to the victims.
The process of asset recovery may even uncover more predicate offences than initially reported, fromthe funds tracing and concealed income analysis of the suspect(s).
The legislative framework for the confiscation of benefits of crime in Singapore is found in the CDSA.

A. Confiscation Orders
A confiscation order is an order by the court, upon the conviction of an accused person of a drug trafficking
or serious offence, to confiscate the benefits derived by him or her from these offences.133 The order is madeon the application of the public prosecutor.
The amount to be recovered under the order will be determined by the court based on guidelines provided
under the CDSA.134 Any property or interest disproportionate to the accused person’s known sources ofincome shall be deemed benefits derived from criminal conduct.135
The order has the same effect as a fine imposed on the accused person. An accused person is liable toimprisonment in default of payment for a term not exceeding two to ten years (depending on the amounts
involved) if he or she fails to pay the amount ordered. The term of imprisonment will commence only after
the accused has served the imprisonment for the predicate offence.136
If an accused person absconds before he or she is convicted for the predicate offence, the court can still
issue a confiscation order if there is evidence which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction against theaccused for the predicate offence.137 If an accused person is deceased, proceedings will continue against hisor her personal representatives or beneficiaries of his or her estate and the order will be made against theestate of the accused person.138

B. Restraint and Charging Orders
Where there is reasonable cause to believe that benefits of criminal conduct have been derived before an
accused person is convicted, the High Court may, on the application of the public prosecutor, make a
restraint order to prohibit any person from dealing with any realizable property,139 or an order imposing acharge (‘charging order’) on realizable property for securing payment to the Government pursuant to aconfiscation order.140 A charging order can, however, only be made with respect to interests in immovable
property in Singapore, local securities (including units in any unit trust), foreign securities registered in
Singapore, or interests under any trust.141
133 Sections 5(1) CDSA.
134 Sections 10, 11 and 12 CDSA.
135 Section 8 CDSA.
136 Section 14 CDSA.
137 Sections 26 and 27 CDSA .
138 Section 28 CDSA.
139 Sections 15 and 16 CDSA.
140 Sections 15 and 17 CDSA.
141 Section 17(4) and 17(5) CDSA.

38

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

C. Financial Investigation
Investigations to identify and seize benefits of criminal conduct are handled by CAD’s Proceeds of Crime
Unit. Investigators from the unit are empowered under the CDSA to:i)ii)

apply to the court to issue an order to produce materials (production orders); and142
apply to the court for a search warrant in relation to specified premises.143

Where the production order sought is again a financial institution,144 the application will have to be madein the High Court, by the Attorney-General.145 All financial institutions are required to retain all financialtransaction documents for a minimum retention period of six years.146 Failure to do so will render thefinancial institution liable to be fined an amount not exceeding S$10,000.
A person who fails to comply with a production order may be fined an amount not exceeding $10,000 or
imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Failure to comply with a production order includes
giving false or misleading materials or failing to give the correct information to the investigator.
Any person who hinders or obstructs an investigator in the execution of a search warrant is also liable tothe same punishment.

VI. INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Singapore recognizes that in order to effectively combat and deter corporate and economic crime in thepresent age of globalization, it is both necessary and vital to engage in and contribute pro-actively to regionaland global efforts to control such crimes. In this respect, Singapore is committed towards strengthening andenhancing cross border enforcement and regulatory co-operation as well as facilitating information exchange
and technical co-operation.

A. Extradition and Mutual Legal AssistanceSingapore has an Extradition Act (Cap 103) that allows for the extradition of fugitives who are in
Singapore to a state that requests for their extradition to face trial for offences committed in that state orvice versa. We have also enacted a Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A) (MACMA) whichcame into effect in April 2000. The MACMA enables Singapore to provide and obtain international
assistance in criminal matters between Singapore and places outside Singapore. Such assistance includes thetaking of evidence and production of things, effecting service of judicial documents, arranging for travel of
persons to a requesting place to assist in a criminal matter, identifying or tracing proceeds of crime, therecovery, forfeiture or confiscation of property derived by crime and the identification and location of
witnesses and suspects.147
In accordance with international norms, these laws that provide for extradition and mutual legal assistancein criminal matters are premised on reciprocity, which is achieved where states enter into a treaty to extradite
offenders or to provide mutual legal assistance in criminal matters to each other. Singapore has signed
extradition treaties with Hong Kong SAR and Indonesia. As a member of the British Commonwealth ofnations, however, Singapore is a party to the many Commonwealth “Schemes” on rendition of fugitives andmutual legal assistance in criminal matters. These “Schemes” are not treaties but rather arrangements
agreed upon between the Law Ministers of Commonwealth countries to enact similar laws in their respective
jurisdictions to provide for these matters. We also have similar arrangements with countries who haveentered into extradition treaties with the United Kingdom when Singapore was still a British Colony (e.g.
Germany).
Recently, Singapore has also signed the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters among
142 Section 30 CDSA.
143 Section 34 CDSA.
144 Section 2 CDSA includes a bank, merchant bank, finance company, capital market services licence holder under SFA,
financial adviser under FAA, and insurance company.
145 Section 31 CDSA.
146 Section 37 CDSA. “Financial transaction document” and “minimum retention period” are defined in Section 36 CDSA.
147 Sections 21, 22, 26, 29, 33, 37, and 38 MACMA.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

Like-minded States.148 This Treaty was signed in Kuala Lumpur on 29 November 2004, initially by eight
member states of ASEAN. The remaining two member states became signatories on 17 January 2006. The
Treaty has so far been ratified by Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Laos, and has come into force as
between these five countries. With the Treaty, the countries of ASEAN have put in place a legal system toenhance their respective investigation and prevention processes against transnational crimes.
In addition to the Treaty, there are other initiatives to further strengthen ASEAN’s legal infrastructure tofight transnational crime. In the 6th ASEAN Law Ministers Meeting held in Hanoi in September 2005, inprinciple approval was given to commence work on an ASEAN Model Extradition Treaty to guide member
states intending to enter into extradition arrangements with one another.

B. Membership in International Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing
Organizations
Singapore is also a member of several international anti-money laundering and counter financing ofterrorism (AML/CFT) organizations. Membership in these organizations underscores Singapore’s commitment
to the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing.
1. Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
The FATF (based in Paris) was set up in 1989 to examine the problem and trends of money laundering
activities. Singapore has been a member of the FATF since September 1991. FATF has issued a set of 40
Recommendations, currently used internationally to measure the effectiveness of a country’s anti-money
laundering regime. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the FATF expanded its mission
to include the development and promotion of policies to combat terrorist financing. To this end, in October
2001, the FATF further issued its Eight Special Recommendations (SR) i.e. SR I to SR VIII on terrorism
financing aimed at denying terrorists and their supporters, access to the international financial system. In
October 2004, the FATF issued a new SR i.e. SR IX which focuses on the use of cash couriers in terrorism
financing activities. As a member of FATF, Singapore must comply with both sets of recommendations.
2. Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG)
Singapore is also a founding member of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) and strongly
supports its objectives and activities. The APG was formed in 1997 to prevent and detect money launderingin the region. Singapore hosted the inaugural region-focused plenary meeting of the FATF in June 2005 andit was the first time the meeting featured a joint session between FATF and the APG. The hosting of theplenary meeting by Singapore offers an opportunity for the APG to showcase the contributions of APG
member countries in the global fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing.
3. Egmont Group Of FIUs
The Egmont Group of FIUs was established in June 1995 to provide an avenue for the timely sharing of
information and provision of assistance between different jurisdictions. An FIU is defined as a central,national agency responsible for receiving (and as permitted, requesting), analysing and disseminating to thecompetent authorities disclosures of financial information concerning suspected proceeds of crime, or
required by national legislation or regulation, in order to counter money laundering.
CAD’s STRO was admitted into the Egmont Group in June 2002. As Singapore’s FIU, STRO represents
Singapore at international forums and regional bodies in global anti-money laundering and counter terrorism
financing efforts and maintains close working relationships with FIUs in other countries through the EgmontGroup of FIUs.
Under the CDSA, STRO is also authorized to share information with its foreign counterparts on thecondition that there is an arrangement with the foreign agency for the sharing of information on the basis ofreciprocity and confidentiality.149
148 See www.aseansec.org
149 Section 41 CDSA. Any information shared is for intelligence or investigation purposes only and cannot be used as evidence

in court. The arrangement can be in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and for this purpose, STRO hassigned MOUs with ten foreign countries/jurisdictions and is actively involved in negotiations with a number of other countries.

40

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

VII. PREVENTION OF CORPORATE CRIMES
Corporate and economic crime carries with it drastic consequences and impact which frequently cannot
be adequately remedied. In many instances, victims are unable to recover their losses even if the culprits
have been apprehended and dealt with under the law. Companies and corporations have also been brought
irrecoverably to their knees as a result of fraud committed by their directors and employees. Prevention isthus a key pillar for any strategy to combat corporate and economic crime effectively.
Singapore’s focus in this aspect has been on:i)ii)

the regulation and supervision of our financial and business sector; andpromoting good governance and corporate accountability.

A. Regulation and Supervision
The MAS carries out its function as chief supervisor and regulator of the financial sector in Singapore
through measures like licensing or registration of business entities. Persons who wish to engage inregulated activities have to comply with rules and regulations prescribed by MAS, which frequently conducts
audits and inspections to ensure compliance by the licensees. MAS is also empowered to administer
enforcement measures like the issuance of administrative warnings and reprimands or imposing compositionfines for breaches of the respective regulations.
Under the SFA, any person who wishes to carry on a business in the regulated activities of dealing insecurities, trading in futures contracts, leveraged foreign exchange trading, fund management, advising on
corporate finance, securities financing and/or providing custodian services for securities must apply for a capital
markets services licence from MAS before commencing business. Licences are required as well for individual
representatives of holders of a capital markets services licence. Similar licensing/registration requirements exist
for banks, business trusts, finance companies, insurance companies/agents/brokers/intermediaries, financial
advisers and money-changing or remittance businesses.
Licences will only be granted upon applicants meeting stringent financial and other requirements likehaving officers, employees and substantial shareholders who are fit and proper persons (for example,
persons who are sufficiently qualified or experienced, and who have not been previously convicted of an
offence(s) involving fraud and dishonesty).
Any company or person who engages in these regulated activities without the requisite licence commits
an offence and is liable to be punished with fines ranging from S$20,000 to S$250,000 or imprisonment notexceeding three years.
The greatest challenge for MAS remains the need to maintain an often delicate balance between effective
regulation and supervision to promote a safe, sound, fair, efficient and transparent financial and businesssector on the one hand, and creating a business friendly environment for businesses to progress, innovateand develop. In this respect, MAS adopts a risk-focused supervisory framework which affords stronger andstable institutions more latitude for innovation and creativity, while maintaining stricter control on weaker
entities. A key objective of the MAS is the promotion of a disclosure based regulatory regime by establishinga framework that facilitates timely, accurate and adequate disclosure by institutions. An example would be
MAS’s pro-active approach in providing advice and guidance to institutions on measures to adopt or
modifications to existing operations to ensure compliance with regulations.

B. Corporate GovernanceSingapore has long recognized that in our development into a regional and global financial hub, the integrityof our government and institutions has been a major factor in our ability to draw investments and talent. We
have managed to maintain a competitive edge in the midst of intense competition brought about by
globalization and an increasingly borderless capital market by our uncompromising fidelity to integrity andaccountability.
Singapore has built up an international reputation for good corporate governance over the years. We havebeen ranked as having the best corporate governance in Asia in several surveys, including Corporate

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

Governance Watch 2005 published by the Asian Corporate Governance Association. In 2006, the Politicaland Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) reported that out of the 14 countries surveyed, Singapore ranked
second behind the USA for our quality of corporate governance. The World Economic Forum’s Global
Competitiveness Report for 2005-2006 ranked corporate ethics in Singapore firms to be among the top fiveof the 117 economies assessed in the study. In the face of these accolades and affirmation, however,Singapore acknowledges that there is still considerable improvement to be made. It is therefore crucial for
Singapore to continue to promote and enhance our corporate governance standard.
The corporate governance framework in Singapore can be found in our Companies Act and Code ofCorporate Governance.
1. Companies Act
The Companies Act prescribes specific eligibility criteria for persons intending to be directors of companies.
Hence in Singapore, directors who breach their fiduciary duties are exposed to both civil and criminal liability.
A director is required under the Companies Act to “act honestly and use reasonable diligence” in the
discharge of his or her duties.150 This means that a director must act in what he or she honestly considers tobe the interest of the company.151 He or she must not place him or herself in a position of conflict between
the company’s and his or her personal interests152 and he or she must not employ the powers and assets heor she is entrusted with for any improper purposes. He or she must also exercise a reasonable degree ofcare and diligence which will not bring any foreseeable risk of harm to the company.153 A director must
declare the nature of his or her interest if he or she is in any way interested in a transaction with thecompany.154 Directors in breach of these requirements are liable to fine of a maximum of S$5,000 or
imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.
Directors are also required to disclose their shareholdings, debentures or participatory interests, or any
rights, options or contracts in relation to the shares of the company or related corporation, or any changes inthese interests to both ACRA and the Stock Exchange. The penalty for a breach of this requirement carriesa maximum fine of S$15,000 or imprisonment up to three years.155
Directors are also required to furnish, at the company’s annual general meeting, true and fair financial
statements which comply with accounting standards. A failure to do so renders each director liable to a
maximum fine of S$50,000. If the failure was committed fraudulently, the punishment will be an enhanced
maximum fine of S$100,000 and imprisonment for up to three years.156
A director who knowingly disseminates any statement of the company’s capital which is misleading isliable to be fined up to S$50,000 or imprisonment for up to two years.157
Companies in Singapore are prohibited from giving loans to their directors or directors of relatedcompanies (including their spouses or children), or to companies for which these directors are interested in
20% or more of their equity share, or to provide guarantee or security for such loans save in certain
excepted circumstances. Any director who authorizes the making of such a loan is liable to a maximum fineof S$20,000 or imprisonment for up to two years.158
2. Code on Corporate Governance
The Code of Corporate Governance was introduced in 2001 by our Ministry of Finance. It was subsequently
reviewed and enhanced and the new Code of Corporate Governance 2005 was issued based on recommendations
150 Section 157 Companies Act.
151 Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd v Intraco Ltd [1994] 2 SLR 282.
152 Boardman & Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46.
153 National Companies and Securities Commission v Hurley (1995) 13 ACLC 1635 at 164.
154 Section 156 Companies Act.
155 Sections 165 & 166 Companies Act.
156 Sections 201 & 204 Companies Act.
157 Section 401 Companies Act.
158 Sections 162 & 163 Companies Act.

42

137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

by the Council on Corporate Disclosure and Governance (CCDG). Singapore launched the CCDG on 16 August
2002. The task of the CCDG includes prescribing accounting standards in Singapore, reviewing and enhancing
the existing corporate disclosure framework based on international best practices, as well as to promote good
corporate governance in Singapore. The Chairman and members of the CCDG are appointed by the Ministerfor Finance. The CCDG’s composition includes representatives from businesses, professional bodies,academic institutions and government. The CCDG’s functions were taken over by the MAS and Singapore
Exchange Limited (SGX) with effect from September 2007.
While it is not mandatory for companies to comply with the Code of Corporate Governance 2005, listedcompanies are required to disclose their corporate governance practices and give explanations for deviations
from the Code in their annual reports. The MAS and Singapore Exchange Limited (SGX) has recently
embarked on a comprehensive review of the state of corporate governance practices of listed companies basedon key areas in the Code, with a view to determining practical measures to enhance corporate governanceamongst listed companies. Some of these measures include collaborating with the Singapore Institute of
Directors (SID) to explore the enhancement of efforts in director training and professional development in
Singapore, as well as providing practical guidelines for audit committees on how they can better perform thecritical role they play in the performance and governance of listed companies.

C. Co-operation with the Private Sector
To fight corporate and economic crime, partnership with the corporate and financial community is essential.
One of the best defences against such crimes is for market players and stakeholders to be aware of and besensitized to the risk of corporate and economic crime. This is especially crucial given the complexities
involved in such crimes. There is also much to be gained by leveraging on industry expertise and resources
to complement the government’s efforts.
1. The Stock Exchange of Singapore
The stock market in Singapore is run by the Singapore Exchange Limited (SGX). It maintains both theMain Board as well as SESDAQ. Currently, there are more than 700 companies listed with SGX. The SGX is
the frontline regulator of the stock market and plays an important role in promoting a fair, orderly andtransparent marketplace. It works closely with MAS in developing and enforcing rules and regulations for
issuers and market participants.

(i) Enforcement
SGX is empowered to investigate159 alleged misconduct by members (stockbroking companies), theirdirectors, employees and trading representatives. Investigations may be initiated based on a referral fromthe surveillance department (or any other department), a complaint from external bodies, or on the SGX’s
own initiative.
Where the investigation reveals a possible breach of SGX rules or bye-laws, disciplinary action may betaken against the offender. This may result in a reprimand, fine, suspension or expulsion. If there is a directcontravention of the law, the matter would be referred to the relevant authorities like the CAD or MAS for
further action.

(ii) Market Surveillance
SGX conducts surveillance of trading activities of the securities and derivatives markets to detect
unusual trading activities and prohibited trading practices or conduct, including insider trading and market
manipulation. Two types of surveillance are carried out by the SGX-securities surveillance and derivatives
surveillance.
For securities surveillance, a real-time market surveillance system which automatically alerts any irregularmarket behaviour such as unusual price and volume movements is employed. Each alert is then analysed by asurveillance analyst who assesses whether the particular market activity can be explained by public
information such as company specific news, industry trends or economic factors. Where no explanation isapparent, the listed company may be required to indicate whether it knew why there might be unusual
trading in its shares. It may also be required by the SGX to disclose material information to the public where
159 Chapter 14 of the SGX Rules.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

such information might reasonably be expected to significantly affect the trading volume and price of the
securities.160
In derivatives surveillance, SGX officers are stationed on the trading floor during intense trading activities,
i.e. during the opening and closing of key designated contracts. At other times, surveillance cameras are used
to observe floor activities. Pit observers and other floor officials ensure that prices are accurately reported
and disseminated. Each trading pit also has its own committee that deals with price infractions and tradedisputes. All floor trading activities are under constant video-camera surveillance and are tape-recorded.
SGX also carries out important supervisory functions like supervision of listed companies and admissionof members and risk management for the clearing or securities and derivatives trade.
SGX reviews the admission and registration of members, their directors, and trading representatives toensure that they meet the admission or registration criteria before admitting or registering them. It
conducts annual inspections of their members to ensure that the trading rules and regulations are compliedwith and adequate internal controls are in place. SGX also monitors the financial health of its members, who
are required to file financial reports with SGX periodically. In addition, members are required to submit theirannual audited accounts to SGX.
2. Professional Organizations
Professional organizations play an important role in maintaining high standards of professionalism,
competence and integrity amongst their members.

(i) The Law Society of Singapore
The Law Society of Singapore was established in 1967 pursuant to the enactment of the Legal Profession
Act (Chapter 161). All practicing lawyers in Singapore are members of the Society. The Law Society’s keyrole is the maintenance and enhancement of the standards of legal practice and the conduct and learning of
the legal profession in Singapore. It performs this role by promulgating and enforcing rules on professional
etiquette, discipline, ethics and the keeping of proper accounts by lawyers. The Law Society is managed by aCouncil of the Society which has powers to investigate any misconduct by lawyers and take disciplinary
actions accordingly.
The Supreme Court of Singapore plays a major role in the maintenance of discipline within the legal
profession as well. It has powers to impose sanctions like striking a lawyer off the Rolls, suspension ofpractice or censure, depending on the severity of the misconduct.

(ii) Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore (ICPAS)
The ICPAS is the national organization of the accountancy profession in Singapore. It was established inJune 1963 as the Singapore Society of Accountants (SSA) under the Singapore Society of Accountants
Ordinance, then reconstituted and renamed the ICPAS on 11 February 1989, under the Accountants Act
1987. As of 1 April 2004, ICPAS is reconstituted as a society under the Societies Act.
The role of the ICPAS is to maintain a high standard of technical competence and integrity amongst membersof the accountancy profession in Singapore. Besides administering the Institute’s membership, the ICPAS caters
for the training and professional development of its members through regular courses conducted by its training
arm, the Singapore Accountancy Academy (SAA).

(iii) Singapore Institute of Directors (SID)
The SID is a national association of company directors for the local business community whose objective isto promote “high standards of corporate governance through education and training and upholding of thehighest standard of professional and ethical conduct of directors”. The SID works closely with its network ofmembers and professionals such as accountants and lawyers, and the authorities to identify ways to upholdand enhance standards of corporate governance and directorship in Singapore. The SID has a code of conduct
160 A list of events that require disclosure is contained in the SGX’s listing manual, and include amongst other events mergers

and acquisitions.

44137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

for directors in Singapore as minimum standards of compliance in discharging their fiduciary duties and is
responsible for the discipline of its members.
3. Suspicious Transaction Reporting
The process of laundering criminal proceeds requires extensive use of financial instruments and facilities.
The implication is that members of the financial community, such as banks, insurance companies, fundmanagers, and even moneychangers and remittance companies, will be targeted by money launderers as
possible conduits for laundering money. Other bona fide businesses and companies may be misled to assist
in the receipt and payment of tainted monies or property related to terrorism. Professionals such as lawyers
and accountants may also unwittingly assist in the criminals’ money laundering schemes. Given Singapore’s
status as a financial hub, money launderers will want to abuse our financial infrastructure to launder theircriminal proceeds.
It is therefore vital for Singapore to build and maintain a robust Suspicious Transaction Reporting framework.
Under the CDSA, reporting of a suspicious transaction is mandatory. Section 39(1) of the CDSA states:“Where a person knows or has reasonable grounds to suspect that any property, in whole or in part,
directly or indirectly represents the proceeds of drug trafficking or criminal conduct, or was used or intended
to be used in connection with drug trafficking or criminal conduct ... and the information or matter on which
the knowledge or suspicion is based came to his attention in the course of his trade, profession, business or
employment, he shall disclose the knowledge, suspicion or the information or other matter ... to an
authorised officer as soon as is reasonably practicable after it comes to his attention.”
A failure to report a suspicious transaction is an offence and is punishable with a fine not exceeding
S$10,000.
A similar disclosure obligation is imposed under the TSOFA. Section 8 of the TSOFA provides that every
person in Singapore and every citizen of Singapore outside Singapore who has possession, custody or control
of any property belonging to a terrorist, or information about any transaction in respect of such property,
must immediately inform the Commissioner of Police. Regulation 9 of the MAS (Anti-Terrorism Measures)
Regulations 2002 also imposes such an obligation on every financial institution in Singapore.
Persons making STRs are given protection under Section 39(6) of the CDSA which states that suchdisclosure to the authorized officer “shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction upon the disclosure
imposed by law, contract or rules of professional conduct” and shall not be liable for any loss arising out ofthe disclosure. Under the TSOFA a person or institution which has made such a disclosure in good faith isprotected from any criminal or civil proceedings.161 Hence, a banker is relieved of his or her banking secrecy
obligations162 when making such disclosures.
A person who has made an STR is also deemed not to have been in possession of the information disclosed
for the purposes of Sections 43, 44, 46 and 47 of the CDSA.163 This means he or she would not be liable forany money laundering offence(s) connected to the information disclosed.
Information between lawyers and their clients which are subjected to legal privilege are, however,
exempted from the reporting obligations under Section 39(1) of the CDSA.164 It is also a defence if a person
has a reasonable excuse for not disclosing the information.165
Suspicious Transactions Reports (STRs) have been very useful in combating crime. CAD has successfully
detected a wide variety of criminal activity, such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and securities
161 Section 8(5) TSOFA.
162 Section 47 Banking Act (Chapter 19). Bankers also have a duty of confidentiality to their clients under the common law(Tournier v National Provincial & Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461).
163 Section 40 CDSA.
164 Section 39(6) CDSA.
165 Section 39(4) CDSA.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.76

trading malpractices, as well as money laundering and terrorism financing. STR information has directly or
indirectly led to the seizure of S$110 million of proceeds of crime since 2000.
CAD’s STRO is also constantly seeking to forge strong partnerships with the private sector. STRO
serves as the point of contact between the law enforcers and the financial and business community. It also
conducts various outreach programmes like feedback and dialogue sessions to various industry sectors toraise anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) awareness, as well as toencourage the increase in both the quantity and quality of STRs. STRO also provide guidelines on themanner of reporting STRs (such as the design of reporting forms and procedures for reporting STRs), advice
on ML/TF typologies, as well as the types of suspicious transactions that the respective industries shouldlook out for.

VIII. CONCLUSION
The control of corporate and economic crime involves a delicate balancing act, straddling between theobjectives of robust and adequate regulation and enforcement on one hand, and the fostering of businessenterprise and innovation. In the effort to raise corporate governance standards and promoting good
regulatory practices, we must be mindful that this will not result in unnecessarily onerous and costly burden
on businesses.
While Singapore has achieved significant success in our efforts at controlling and combating corporate
and economic crime thus far, we recognize that we cannot rest on our laurels. We will need to constantly finetune our system by learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions and ensuring that we keep abreast of
the latest developments. We must remain nimble and agile in our ability to deal with emerging trends incorporate and economic crime as we continue to safeguard and preserve our reputation and integrity as atrusted international financial and business hub with tenacity and resolve.

46