Assessment of Deterrent Effect of Singapore's Anti-money Laundering Laws

34 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the public feedback on the proportionality of the sentences meted out to the perpetrators of Singapore's largest anti-money laundering case, what is the Ministry's assessment of the deterrent effect of the anti-money laundering laws.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, this question has been answered in Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) written reply to a similar question two months ago, asked by Mr Leong Mun Wai. [Please refer to "Deterrent Effect of Existing Anti-money Laundering Legislation", Official Report, 8 May 2024, Vol 95, Issue 136, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]

We will make some additional points.

The Government's role is to consider whether the existing range of sentences is adequate – that has been dealt with in the previous reply.

The actual sentences in individual cases are decided by the Courts, based on the facts of each case and based on the submissions by the Prosecution and the Defence. We should look carefully at the specific charges in considering the sentences imposed. Although the media often refers to the $3 billion money laundering case, the amounts and charges involved vary across the different cases.

For example, one of the convicted foreigners is Su Haijin. He was sentenced to 13 months' and six months' imprisonment respectively. This sentence was for two counts of money laundering involving about $1.4 million, which were ordered to run concurrently, and a further one month's imprisonment for one count of resisting arrest. This resulted in a total of 14 months' imprisonment for his offences in Singapore.

The sentences meted out by the Court for Su and the other Defendants are comparable to sentences imposed in other jurisdictions. The penalties provided for Su's specific offences in law are a fine not exceeding $150,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.

Additionally, $165 million, or about 95% of the assets linked to Su and his wife, were forfeited to the state. This voluntary forfeiture went beyond the amounts for which charges had been brought against Su. Such additional asset forfeiture, where the Defendants agree to the forfeiture, deprives criminals of their assets, beyond the amounts which are the subject of the money laundering charges.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): My apologies. Can I ask on the next one? I will ask on the next one, then.

Mr Speaker: I am assuming you are asking a supplementary question, right? Which is why I called you.

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Yes. So, can I just ask more broadly, and I know this may have bearing on the next Parliamentary Question (PQ) as well, because one of the questions that arises from the Minister of State's and MHA's answer is that these are not crimes of passion. Money laundering offences involve planning, deliberation and calculation.

So, can I ask, does the Minister of State agree, more broadly, without reference to any particular specific case, that a potential money laundering criminal will do their sums, including what is the chance of being caught, and if they are caught, what is the chance of being convicted and whether the penalties will outweigh the potential benefits?

And so, can the Minister of State also tell us, looking back at the existing cases and looking forwards, does MHA have a sense of how many potential cases of money laundering was strongly suspected, but could not be caught and convicted, and will the Inter-Ministerial Committee look at tightening the evidential searching process and strengthening the potential penalty regime, if appropriate?

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, your supplementary question covers a bit of your next question, actually. But anyway, I will leave it to the Minister of State.

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Ms Sun Xueling: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think the Member's question is more in relation to the next PQ in the Order Paper, but I will answer it nevertheless.

As the Member, Dr Tan Wu Meng, would know, the Inter-Ministerial Committee was set up in end-2023 to review our anti-money laundering regime. The work of the inter-agency committee is still ongoing and recommendations will be made available in a few months' time. But what I would say is that the inter-agency review will focus on four areas and they are related to what Dr Tan had shared in his supplementary question, which are, we are looking at what more can be done to prevent corporate structures from being abused by money launderers; how financial institutions can enhance their controls and collaborate more effectively to guard against and flag suspicious transactions; and how other gatekeepers in the ecosystem, which involve real estate agents, lawyers, precious stones and metals' dealers and corporate service providers, can better guard against money laundering; and, of course, how we can strengthen our monitoring and sense-making capabilities to better detect suspicious activities.

So, I think, potential money launderers, when they look at what Singapore's whole-of-Government approach and whole-of-society approach is towards money laundering, they will make their assessment as to whether or not they would like to continue with these activities at a high risk of being caught.