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.
Ministry of Home Affairs
2 July 2024
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-3601
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 