Mdm Deputy Speaker,
Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as the founder and CEO of a fund management firm. With my past experience as the Head of a leading local stockbroking company, I am aware of the challenges and temptations faced by financial institutions with regard to money laundering.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the move by the Government to enhance the legal framework for preventing, investigating and prosecuting money laundering offences through this Bill.
Over the past year, many Singaporeans have been shocked by the scale of the $3 billion money laundering scandal. Our nation’s reputation as a rule-based financial centre has taken a great hit.
As one of the premier financial hubs in Asia, we are structurally exposed to money laundering. People from all over the world want to park their money here because they know that their money will be safe. This has created huge economic benefits for our financial industry and PSP recognises this.
But we want the money to be legitimate. Integrity is the most enduring competitive advantage for a global financial centre. We believe that even if the trade-off for taking a tougher stance against money laundering is slower growth of our financial services industry in the short term, it is a worthy trade-off in the long term.
It is vital that we take steps to protect our reputation by tightening our legal and sentencing framework to deter money laundering. We support the Government’s decision to reduce the standard of proof for money laundering offences.
Under clause 11 of the Bill, the prosecution will no longer need to show, under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act, or CDSA, the direct link between the criminal conduct and the monies allegedly laundered in Singapore. It will be sufficient for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money launderer knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that he was dealing with criminal proceeds. This is a step in the right direction, which will enhance the prosecution’s ability to pursue and prosecute money launderers.
However, I am also concerned whether this will also lead to banks adopting an overly cautious approach towards restricting or closing bank accounts out of concern for potential legal consequences, thus hindering legitimate transactions. Does the Ministry envision any safeguards to protect legitimate customers who may be inevitably caught in such a scenario?
We also support the move to reduce the threshold for casino operators to perform customer due diligence when they enter into cash transactions with patrons or receive deposits. However, at the same time, I would like to know whether there is a maximum cap on the amount of cash that a casino can accept in one transaction. For example, are our casinos allowed to take in cash exceeding $1 million in one go?
Madam, most importantly, even though the Bill has strengthened the legal framework for money laundering offences, we are concerned that the sentences that have been meted out to the recent $3 billion money laundering case do not provide sufficient deterrence against Singapore being used as a base to launder the proceeds of illicit activities.
We maintain the mandatory death penalty for serious drug trafficking offences because of the immense harm caused to drug abusers, their families and the community. But are we doing enough to punish money launderers who may be trying to conceal money which originated from drug trafficking or other serious illegal activities?
In his written reply to my Parliamentary Question on 8 May 2024, the Minister for Home Affairs told me that the risk of imprisonment is an important deterrent against money laundering. I agree to that.
However, to an ordinary Singaporean, the jail terms of 13 to 17 months meted out to the nine men and one woman involved in the $3 billion money laundering case appear to be relatively short, especially given that the CDSA provides for jail terms of up to three to 10 years, depending on the nature of the money laundering offences.
In recent years, there have been an increasing number of Singaporeans being caught for being money mules. In many cases, they handed over their bank accounts and private information in exchange for small amounts of money, usually in the range of hundreds of dollars each time.
Some of these offenders have been sentenced to imprisonment for periods of two to three months for their offences. In comparison, the offenders of the $3 billion money laundering case got to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle worth millions of dollars in Singapore for several years before they were caught. Are the jail terms of 13 to 17 months proportional to the crimes they have committed, when compared to those of the money mules?
It would be appropriate for me to ask at this juncture this question. With money laundering in the billion-dollar scale only attracting up to 17 months of imprisonment, what sort of money laundering crimes did the Government envision would potentially attract the maximum imprisonment sentences under Part VI of the CDSA?
The Inter-Ministerial Committee Reviewing Singapore’s Anti-Money Laundering Regime will publish its full findings and recommendations in the fourth quarter. PSP hopes that one of its recommendations will be to strengthen the sentencing regime and increase the deterrent effect against money laundering by way of imprisonment.
We understand that MHA most recently reviewed the adequacy of the prescribed penalties against money laundering only in 2023. However, we believe that the sentencing regime should be reconsidered, given the relatively short jail terms that were handed down to those who had been caught in one of the largest anti-money laundering operations worldwide.
Can I also ask the Minister if the Sentencing Advisory Panel will consider issuing an advisory on the sentencing framework for offences under the CDSA based on the lessons learnt from the $3 billion money laundering case?
Finally, for any anti-money laundering regime to be effective, besides the perpetrators, strong actions against the gatekeepers like the banks and other financial institutions who contravene the rules are necessary. Can the Minister tell us for each of the banks and corporates involved in this case, the actions that have been taken against them and the internal actions these institutions have taken so far to strengthen their AML Regime?
Following the review of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, we hope we will further strengthen the penalties against banks, other financial institutions and their senior management who contravened anti-money laundering rules.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
新加坡同胞们，30亿新元的洗钱案，严重的损害了我国作为国际金融中心的声誉，也给我们的社会带来极为不良的影响。
前进党支持政府在洗钱案之后，修正若干相关法案，包括今天审议的法案，以加强对洗钱犯罪的执法。
但是，前进党认为反洗钱执法的最重要一环是合理量刑。很多新加坡人认为，涉及30亿洗钱案的十个罪犯仅被判处十三到十七个月的监禁，并不足以震慑和阻止洗钱犯罪在新加坡发生。
我们想请问的是，在现行《贪污，贩毒和其他严重罪行》法案下，我们可以判处洗钱罪犯高达三年到十年的刑期，为什么30亿洗钱案的罪犯仅被判处十三到十七个月刑期。并且，我们希望部长明确回答，在什么情况下，洗钱罪犯可能根据该法案判处最高监禁刑期。
前进党认为，为了阻止洗钱犯罪，维持我国的声誉和社会道德观念，我们应该加强对洗钱罪犯的量刑，以及对涉案金融机构采取强有力的措施。
PSP supports the Bill.
For Country, For People.
