Prevention of Proliferation Financing and Other Matters Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker : Minister for Law.

7.56 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

Sir, Singapore is a leading financial centre and a global trading hub. Our economic openness makes us attractive for investments and businesses, but also makes us an attractive target for money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. I shall refer to these as "financial crimes" for convenience, throughout my speech.

As a trusted international financial and trading hub, Singapore takes a firm stance against these activities. We therefore take a robust approach to supervision, (a) both in the financial sector and non-financial sectors, (b) in order to prevent financial crimes.

In 1992, Singapore joined the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF. The FATF is the recognised international standards setter for the prevention of financial crimes. Over 200 jurisdictions subscribe to the international FATF Standards.

Aside from the financial sector, the FATF has highlighted that other non-financial sectors also have an important role. This would include the following sectors which come under the Ministry of Law, or MinLaw’s purview: precious stones and precious metals dealers, or PSMDs; moneylending; pawnbroking; and legal services.

As the regulator of these sectors, MinLaw regularly reviews our laws to ensure that they remain relevant, effective, and fully in line with the latest international standards set by the FATF.

In recent years, the FATF has updated its standards, in particular, to set out clearly the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks associated with the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or “proliferation financing” in short. This is in addition to existing FATF requirements on money laundering and terrorism financing risks.

This Bill, therefore, seeks to clearly align the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with the updated FATF standards on countering proliferation financing.

This will be achieved through proposed amendments to four Acts, namely: the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act, or the PSPM Act; the Moneylenders Act; the Pawnbrokers Act; and the Legal Profession Act.

In addition, this Bill proposes amendments to the PSPM Act to strengthen the regulatory regime and enhance operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs.

As a brief background, the PSPM Act was enacted in 2019 to provide a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory regime to prevent dealings in precious stones and precious metals from being used to facilitate money laundering or terrorism financing.

Since its enactment, MinLaw has continued to engage the PSMD sector for feedback and to review our measures and practices, emerging risks, global trends and developments and international standards. The proposed amendments today are the culmination of these engagements and reviews.

Let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill.

First, the Bill updates the PSPM Act, Moneylenders Act, Pawnbrokers Act and Legal Profession Act to clearly align the regulatory regime for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with the updated FATF standards; and require businesses or persons covered by these Acts to implement adequate measures to counter proliferation financing.

Examples of required measures include: performing risk assessment; and developing and implementing internal policies, procedures, and controls to counter proliferation financing.

Such measures are not new to these businesses or persons. For many entities, such measures are already part of their existing anti-money laundering controls as the underlying proliferation financing offences are also money laundering predicate offences.

In addition, the controls in the Moneylenders Act and Pawnbrokers Act against criminals owning or managing moneylending and pawnbroking businesses will be strengthened, in line with the FATF Recommendations.

In particular, the Bill includes amendments to prevent persons convicted of offences relating to the prevention of financial crimes from obtaining relevant licences, or holding management functions in moneylending and pawnbroking businesses.

Second, the Bill strengthens the regulatory regime for PSMDs through amendments to the PSPM Act.

The Bill seeks to update the definition of "precious product". The PSPM Act covers precious stones and precious metals, or PSPM in short, and precious products.

Under the current definition, "precious product" means any jewellery, watch, apparel, accessory, ornament, or other finished product – made up of, containing, or having attached to it, any PSPM; and where at least 50% of the value of the product is attributable to the PSPM.

Based on the current definition, products with majority of value attributed to other factors, such as branding or workmanship, are not captured. However, we have observed that such products can also pose risks of financial crimes.

To close this gap, clause 4 of the Bill amends the definition of "precious product" to also cover any "precious product" priced above a prescribed value, which will be set at S$20,000, regardless of the value attributable to the PSPM.

To illustrate, following the amendment, a platinum watch retailed by a luxury brand, with a net sales price of S$100,000, will be covered under the Act, even if the value of the platinum in the watch is less than 50% of the net sales price.

The prescribed threshold value of S$20,000 is aligned with FATF standards and international best practices.

Clause 4 of the Bill also amends the existing definition of "asset-backed token" to exclude digital payment tokens from the PSPM Act. This will avoid double regulation of PSMDs, as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) already regulates digital payment token service providers under the Payment Services Act.

Clause 12 of the Bill introduces a new offence in the PSPM Act for regulated dealers that submit incomplete or inaccurate cash transaction reports without reasonable excuse.

Compliance officers are instrumental in the implementation of controls to prevent financial crimes.

Therefore, the Bill makes it clear that compliance officers appointed by PSMDs must be assessed by the Registrar to be "fit and proper" persons.

To prevent errant dealers from disposing of records to thwart investigations after they cease being regulated dealers, the Bill introduces a record-keeping requirement for regulated dealers to keep records, for a prescribed period after ceasing to be a regulated dealer. Failure to comply would be an offence.

In addition, the Bill will empower the Registrar to continue regulatory action against former registered PSMDs. For instance, the Registrar may order them to pay financial penalties if they had failed to comply with the registration conditions, or if their registration was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.

Finally, the Bill amends the PSPM Act to improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 10 to allow the Registrar to cancel or suspend the registration of PSMDs that are not conducting regulated dealing and/or fall under prescribed circumstances.

This will mitigate the risk of PSMDs misusing their registration status to gain access to the financial system to conduct illicit transactions, or to create an erroneous impression that their businesses are regulated by MinLaw, for any purpose other than the prevention of financial crimes.

Clause 7 of the Bill introduces a new section 9A to provide that the registration of a registered PSMD lapses if the PSMD, as an entity, is wound up or otherwise dissolved, or if the PSMD, as a sole proprietor, dies. This will enable the Registrar to update the register more expeditiously.

Clause 19 of the Bill introduces new sections 36A and 36B in the PSPM Act to prescribe methods of service of documents required or authorised by the Act to be served on any person. In particular, service through digital means will be prescribed to reduce the need for physical mail, better leverage technology and improve efficiency.

Sir, in conclusion, the Bill will allow clear alignment of the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with updated FATF requirements, strengthen the regulatory regime for PSMDs, and improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. It will also reaffirm our strong commitment to be a responsible member of the international community. With that Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

8.05 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will help Singapore comply with FATF requirements on assessing the risk of proliferation financing and taking measures to mitigate these risks.

I have two short clarifications to raise.

My first clarification is on the Government’s approach on prevention of proliferation financing, anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing. Each of these areas represent risks which threaten the integrity of Singapore’s financial institutions. Each of these areas also have their own sets of safeguards and requirements.

Singapore has a national strategy for countering terrorism financing related activities. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if proliferation financing will be incorporated into this strategy?

Can the Minister share how the Government is incorporating these safeguards as a coherent approach to prevent fragmentation in the implementation of the financial safeguards for proliferation financing, money laundering and terrorism financing?

My second clarification is on ensuring effective implementation of these safeguards on the ground. Robust safeguards are important due to the seriousness of the threat posed by proliferation financing. However, overly strict safeguards can be counter-productive if entities do not have the capacity to ensure meaningful compliance with these safeguards. What steps will be taken at the industry level to avoid these safeguards from becoming a box-checking exercise?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

8.06 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I declare my interest as a practising advocate and solicitor in the Supreme Court of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, we are told that this Bill seeks to amend the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act 2019, the Legal Profession Act 1966, the Moneylenders Act 2008 and the Pawnbrokers Act 2015 to provide for the prevention of the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

This arises from new requirements introduced by the FATF in October 2020 for member states and reporting entities to assess the risk of proliferation financing in relation to their business and to take measures to mitigate the assessed risk. The proposed amendments to the said Acts add to the existing provisions in respect of prevention of money laundering and prevention of terrorism financing.

In August last year, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) arrested 10 foreigners holding multiple citizenships for alleged money laundering offences involving cash, luxury properties, cars, gold bars, handbags, jewellery, branded watches and cryptocurrency, including more than 68 gold bars, 294 luxury bags, 164 branded watches and 546 pieces of jewellery we are told. The assets seized in what is Singapore's biggest money laundering case have risen to more than S$3 billion by January. In October 2023, we were told that 152 properties and 62 vehicles were involved, and we were told last month that 55 new properties and 15 vehicles were given prohibition of disposal orders by the police. Minister Josephine Teo had said that the proceeds "most likely came from criminal activities abroad, including illegal online gambling and unlicensed moneylending".

Mr Speaker, this is very disconcerting, not least because of the value of the funds and assets involved but that they had taken place despite existing money laundering laws and regulations having been introduced over the years.

The inability of our existing laws and regulations to prevent the current money laundering case is worrying. If banks, law firms, property companies or other businesses or professionals who assisted in property purchase or transfer of funds could have failed to detect or prevent transfer or use of money laundering proceeds, it can also happen to money lenders, dealers of precious stones and precious metals, not to mention, our neighbourhood pawnbrokers.

I am mindful that investigation is pending but I would like to ask the Government whether it is able to share what are, to date, the lessons which we have learned from the case so far as far as anti-money laundering (AML) compliance is concerned? Has any lesson been applied to today’s amendments?

How have our existing laws or regulations failed to stop the accused persons from bringing into Singapore, funds which have been the subject of money laundering and/or from proceeds of organised crime activities and to be allowed to invest such funds in different ways in Singapore such as buying properties? Has the Government started reviewing the existing laws and if not, whether and when it will do so? These are highly relevant to today’s Bill as we are seeking to apply the current suite of laws and regulations against the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and we need to be assured that the current laws or the proposed amendments can provide adequate gatekeeping to prevent entry to Singapore of funds for financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I also hope that the authorities will review the adequacy of the due diligence efforts of banks, law firms and other professionals or stakeholders who were involved in respect of the funds brought in by the said foreign nationals in the ongoing money laundering case or in respect of funds used for the purchases of different properties and to consider what laws, regulations and measures need to be enhanced to strengthen the current due diligence process required of all professionals and stakeholders and hopefully minimise the risks of such cases recurring, which is embarrassing for our country and tarnishes Singapore’s reputation as a financial centre.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill.

Resumption of Debate on Question [5 February 2024], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Law].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng

1.50 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the arrival of this Bill coincides with the revelation of the largest money laundering case in Singapore's history. The illicit funds of approximately $3 billion in seized or frozen assets, exposes the potential vulnerabilities within our financial system. It also underscores the critical need to fortify our defences. This Bill aligns Singapore's laws with international standards set out by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), to effectively combat illicit financial flows and safeguard our reputation as a trusted financial hub. However, amidst these positive strides, I have some clarifications about the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must ensure that the expanded regulations are implemented effectively and fairly, balancing our needs to counter illicit finance with the well-being of small businesses, like small-and-medium sized enterprises (SMEs). How will the Registrar ensure that the new powers over former registered dealers and recordkeeping are not abused? Will the Registrar receive additional resources to handle the expanded scope and powers?

How will the obligations on legal professionals, pawnbrokers and moneylenders be implemented? In particular, small businesses like SMEs could be disproportionately affected by the compliance costs. What education or support will be provided to newly regulated businesses like jewellers? Furthermore, auditors, accountants and other professionals impacted by the proposed Act requires adequate training and time to digest the new regulations. I urge the Government to grant sufficient lead time for this critical adaptation.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek clarification on managing the emerging risks within our framework. Can the Minister clarify the current status of our engagement with the FATF, regarding the remaining gaps in the framework? What are the next milestones that we can look forward to?

Furthermore, the growing field of fintech presents novel challenges, particularly with virtual assets and crowdfunding platforms. What specific measures are being considered to manage the risks associated with these evolving technologies? Are additional regulations under consideration to prevent these avenues from becoming havens for illegal activity?

Does the Ministry conduct regular reviews of money laundering and terrorism financing risks within our borders? Sharing the current landscape of top threats will allow us to stay ahead of the curve and refine our defences accordingly.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have queries about the effectiveness of existing controls. Firstly, how effective have the casinos' anti-money laundering controls been, since 2006? What specific safeguards are currently in place to curb illicit activities?

Secondly, what is the current level of inter-agency coordination between regulators and law enforcement when it comes to suspicious transactions? How can we improve collaboration to further strengthen our defences?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a critical step forward in aligning Singapore's regulatory framework with evolving global standards. While we must remain thoughtful of potential regulatory overreach, the new powers conferred upon the Registrar are judiciously scoped and proportionate to the risks at hand. The transitional arrangements also demonstrate pragmatism in avoiding excessive disruption to businesses.

This Bill signifies our commitment to safeguarding the integrity of Singapore's financial system against illicit activities. We must persist in this journey of continuous improvement, while balancing commercial interests and staying ahead of sophisticated criminal networks. I am confident that the measures in this Bill will strengthen our defences against money laundering, terrorism and proliferation financing. The road ahead will not be easy, but we will walk it together. I stand in support of this Bill, confident it will safeguard Singapore's financial integrity, and solidify our position as a trusted financial hub. Let us act swiftly and collectively to ensure that illegal financing finds no refuge in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.

1.54 pm

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.

In recent years, Singapore has ramped up its efforts to counter financial crimes in various sectors including precious metals and precious stones. This Bill demonstrates Singapore's dynamic regulatory approach which fortifies the legal framework while emphasising regulatory compliance, international collaboration and the importance of transparent and ethical practices.

Though the Bill focuses on diverse professions from legal, moneylending and pawnbroking to sectors such as precious stones and precious metals, the benefits will be similar in nature for all.

Through this amended Bill, businesses operating within these sectors will be able to differentiate themselves in the market by demonstrating a strong commitment to preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism and, in turn, can enhance a company's reputation through building trust with its customers, partners and regulators. By adhering to the updated regulations and increasing internal controls, businesses within these sectors can mitigate the risk of being involved in illicit activities unknowingly. I also believe that the facilitation of information sharing with foreign authorities presents an opportunity for our businesses to engage in more robust international collaboration. This can lead to better global practices and potentially open new markets and partnerships that value such stringent compliance standards.

However, we have to recognise that the impacted sectors will also face some major challenges. There will be a significant increase in compliance costs including the establishment of a compliance officer role as well as an increase in operational costs related to the development of specific training programmes and investment in new monitoring systems.

This Bill also extends the regulatory burden to a broader range of professional services, not just financial institutions. For the legal profession, I expect legal practitioners and law firms will now be required to take active measures in monitoring transactions to prevent financial crimes. The pawnbroking industry will also need to establish more robust programmes to prevent financial crimes. The amended Bill requires the development of policies to identify, assess, and understand risks associated with such pawnbroking transactions. For the moneylending business, if a significant number of moneylenders face difficulties in renewing licenses due to these new regulations, there could be a reduction in available lending options in the market, limiting choices for borrowers.

I would like to take this opportunity to seek some clarifications on this Bill.

Since many business owners, especially SMEs, may face challenges when adopting the proposed changes and regulations, how long will such businesses be given for implementation of these new rules? Also, what additional resources or assistance programmes will the Government provide to help affected businesses understand as well as comply with the new regulations?

Could I please request the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to share with this House any instances thus far that Singapore’s security and policing authorities have faced in detecting efforts to use precious stones and metals in financing terrorism?

Finally, I would appreciate if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could share the key concerns raised by the various industry players, namely, the pawnbrokers, the dealers in precious metals in the Ministry’s consultation process in finalising this Bill.

Sir, I do believe that Singapore must uphold and strengthen the trust premium that we have built up over the years. In offering a stable and transparent business environment, we have attracted multinationals and investors from around the world. They have set up corporate headquarters and regional offices in Singapore, building up our talent and business ecosystem. We must continue to stay abreast of international developments to counter threats such as money laundering, terrorism financing, as well as other financial crimes. To do so, we need robust policies and coordination within sectors to build capabilities in businesses, especially local SMEs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my request for some clarifications, I believe this Bill is necessary in strengthening our fight against money laundering, financial terrorism and other financial crimes. I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

2.00 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. Members also made comments and suggestions on Singapore's national strategy for preventing money laundering, terrorism financing, and proliferation financing or "financial crimes", and the scope and implementation of the expanded regulations. Let me address each group of issues in turn.

First, on Singapore’s national strategy for preventing financial crimes. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Ng asked about our strategies in managing these risks and how agencies work together to ensure that our system effectively guards against these risks.

Singapore's openness and hub status leave us vulnerable to exploitation by criminals who employ sophisticated tactics to access our financial and trading system and launder their ill-gotten gains. We must constantly review and enhance our regime and defences to keep pace with new risks as they evolve. Singapore adopts a holistic approach across the Government, in partnership with the private sector, and through international collaboration to combat financial crimes. The whole-of-Government effort is led by an inter-agency Steering Committee, which oversees the formulation and implementation of Singapore's national strategy for preventing financial crimes. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) is a member of this committee.

Specific to the inter-agency coordination between regulators and law enforcement that Mr Yip asked about, an example is the Risk and Typologies Inter-Agency Group (RTIG), which is co-chaired by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). It oversees the identification, assessment, and mitigation of financial crime risks at the whole-of-Government level. The RTIG involves all relevant supervisory and law enforcement agencies, including the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. It also facilitates the sharing of information on surveillance outputs, such as networks and subjects of concern, for collective action across law enforcement and supervisory agencies.

Beyond coordinating within the Government, there is also close collaboration between Government agencies and the private sector to prevent, detect and deter activities in relation to financial crimes. An example is the AML/CFT Industry Partnership (ACIP). Co-chaired by MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), ACIP brings selected industry participants, regulators, law enforcement agencies and other Government entities to identify, assess and mitigate key and emerging financial crime risks that Singapore is facing. Another example of close public-private partnership is MinLaw's industry engagements with the precious stones and precious metals dealers (PSMD) industry. MinLaw has also taken steps through industry bodies to help PSMDs better understand and implement the relevant regulatory requirements.

We will continue to ensure strong coordination and collaboration across agencies, work closely with the private sector and our international partners and effectively guard against illicit activities related to financial crimes.

Mr Yip asked about the current status of our engagement with FATF, whether there are remaining gaps in the framework and the next milestones we can look forward to. Singapore was evaluated by the FATF in 2016 and was assessed to have a strong legal and institutional framework against money laundering and terrorism financing.

We have since taken substantial steps to address the few areas identified with scope for improvement and further strengthened our regime. For instance, Singapore passed the PSPM Act of 2019 and amended the Accountants Act to give the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) the powers to conduct inspections for compliance with requirements to combat money laundering and terrorism financing and impose sanctions on entities if they fail to comply with these requirements. These ongoing efforts were acknowledged by the FATF and had raised some of Singapore's ratings in the Third Follow Up Report of 2019.

The amendments to the Bill before us today seek to align our regulatory regimes with the recent updates to the FATF standards in relation to countering proliferation financing. Singapore also actively contributes to the FATF, having taken on a range of leadership roles over the years. More recently, Singapore nominated Mr T Raja Kumar from MHA to run for the position of FATF President. He was appointed by the FATF Plenary in March 2022 for a two-year term between 30 June 2022 and 1 July 2024. Through Singapore's ongoing FATF Presidency, we have, among other things, increased global effectiveness of measures against financial crimes, such as in beneficial ownership transparency and asset recovery, and raised international efforts on tackling emerging areas of financial crime risks such as cyber-enabled fraud, which further strengthen global resilience against financial crime.

Mr Dennis Tan asked whether this Bill factors in lessons from the recent money laundering case and whether the Government has started reviewing existing laws to better prevent money laundering in Singapore.

MinLaw's review of issues in the current Bill started prior to the arrest of the suspects involved in the recent money laundering case. This is part of MinLaw's regular reviews to ensure that our laws remain relevant, effective and fully in line with the latest international standards set by the FATF. On the recent money laundering case, investigations by the Police are still ongoing. There are also ongoing probes by various sectoral regulators, including Government agencies overseeing corporate service providers, real estate agents, PSMDs, lawyers, financial institutions and others.

An Inter-Ministerial Committee chaired by the Second Minister for Finance, Ms Indranee Rajah, has been formed to review Singapore's anti-money laundering regime and keep our regime up to date with increasingly sophisticated crimes. The Committee is currently reviewing the adequacies of the laws and controls in the entire anti-money laundering ecosystem to assess whether there are areas of enhancements to be made. The Committee will put forward its recommendations when ready.

Next, I turn to the questions relating to the scope and implementation of the expanded regulations. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the requirements for PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors to implement measures to counter proliferation financing might result in excessive compliance burden on these businesses or persons. As mentioned in my opening speech for this Bill, these requirements are not expected to result in significant compliance implications on the regulated entities. The measures to counter proliferation financing are similar to the measures that the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors already have in place to counter money laundering and terrorism financing.

Mr Louis Ng asked for the steps taken at the industry level to prevent the safeguards from becoming a box-checking exercise. MinLaw requires the entities it regulates to develop and implement measures to prevent financial crimes. We also carry out inspections, investigations and enforcement to ensure compliance.

Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Yip asked about the education or support that will be provided to the regulated entities to help them understand and comply with the new requirements. Mr Parekh also asked about key concerns raised by pawnbrokers and PSMDs in relation to this Bill and how much time the regulated entities will be given to implement these new requirements.

MinLaw will continue to engage the relevant sectors as the changes are rolled out. We will also provide guidance for the regulated entities to comply with the new requirements. While no major concerns have been raised during consultations, MinLaw will continue working with industry associations as the new requirements are implemented and, at the same time, having a view to the compliance costs. Should MinLaw come across regulated entities that are not complying with the requirements after the amendments are in force, we will assess and follow up with them to rectify the situation. We will take into consideration the time that regulated entities may reasonably need to implement these measures.

Mr Yip asked about the requirement for former regulated dealers to continue keeping records for a prescribed period. The intention of this requirement is to deter errant PSMDs from disposing of records after ceasing to be regulated dealers. The new provision will allow enforcement action to be taken against former regulated dealers, for example, if they dispose of records to thwart investigations into offences under the PSPM Act detected while they were regulated dealers. Investigations for complex cases may take longer and extend beyond the dealer's registration period. Hence, it is important to preserve these records as evidence to assist in investigations. The Registrar will exercise his powers of investigations provided under the PSPM Act judiciously.

MinLaw will also continually review the regulatory and enforcement resources to leverage technology where possible and work closely with stakeholders in the process.

Mr Speaker, I believe I have addressed the salient issues raised by Members relating to the provisions within the scope of this Bill. There were a number of other comments relating to matters outside the ambit of the Bill.

Mr Neil Parekh asked about instances where Singapore's security and policing authorities have detected efforts to use precious stones and metals in financing terrorism. To date, there has been no indication of the PSMD sector in Singapore being used to finance terrorism. Singapore closely monitors developments in the methods used by terrorists and remains vigilant in combating the threat of terrorism financing.

Mr Yip asked about the specific measures that are being considered to manage risks associated with evolving technologies in the field of fintech. Criminal typologies and methods will continue to change in line with developments and advances in technology and we must keep pace with these changes. We regularly review and update our framework to counter activities in relation to financial crimes as criminals innovate. For example, when virtual assets, or what we term as digital assets, took off years ago, MAS had assessed the risk of financial crimes as a key area of concern due to the potential of digital assets to facilitate rapid and anonymous transactions online and across borders. In 2020, Singapore was one of the first jurisdictions in the world to tighten our regime by requiring licensing and supervision for providers of digital payment token services and imposing requirements to counter money laundering and terrorism financing.

Mr Yip also asked about the effectiveness and safeguards in relation to casinos' anti-money laundering controls since 2006. From 2010, when the two casinos opened, to September 2023, 11 individuals were detected using criminal proceeds in the casinos and were prosecuted and convicted for money laundering offences. The Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) requires the casino operators to put in place safeguards to prevent money laundering, such as conducting customer due diligence checks and periodic monitoring of patrons' transactions. GRA also conducts regular inspections of the casino operators.

I would like to conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill, which will allow clear alignment of the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sector with updated FATF requirements. It will also strengthen the regulatory regime for PSMDs and improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Are there any Members who have clarifications to seek from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu? None.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.