Proceeds from Sale of Drugs or Related Activities

Mr Speaker, Singapore takes a firm stance against money laundering. We recently strengthened our ability to take action against money launderers through the amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, passed in Parliament on 19 November 2018.

However, in order to prosecute a person who launders proceeds from the sale of drugs or other related activities in an overseas jurisdiction, those acts must be offences in that jurisdiction. This is in line with the international legal principle of dual-criminality.

Nevertheless, when we are aware of individuals who are involved in such dealings, we pay special attention to them when they come to Singapore.

Sir, may I confirm that those persons who actually conduct such activities, which are deemed illegal here but are legal there, for them to launder their money over here, we cannot do anything against them?

Mr Speaker, what the Member said is not quite the case. Perhaps, I will take the opportunity to remind Members of the House on the set of legislative amendments that we made in November last year and how that has strengthened our position.

As I have explained in my earlier reply, Singapore needs to observe the principle of dual-criminality when dealing with money laundering offences linked to overseas crime. But this has never been the only challenge that prosecutors face. Previously, even after satisfying dual-criminality, prosecutors needed to obtain a certificate from the foreign government or a testimony from an expert in that foreign law to fulfil the burden of proof. This can be a very time-consuming process.

What we did with the recent legislative amendments is to reduce the burden on the prosecutors by allowing our Courts to decide on the basis of evidence presented by the prosecution that an offence has, indeed, been committed in the overseas jurisdiction. So, that requirement of dual-criminality must still be satisfied without having to rely on the foreign governments or experts.

Sir, this has helped to address the delays that we have encountered in obtaining the certificate in cases in which the foreign government may not act on our request expeditiously or, in some cases, may not be willing to issue it. With the amendments, we are, therefore, able to prosecute the moneylending offences more effectively.

But to the very specific question on what if you cannot establish dual criminality, as I had said in my earlier reply, if they have the intention to do money laundering and if they set foot in Singapore, we will pay special attention to these individuals and do what is necessary to bring them within the law.

What I want to clarify is that lately, there are many countries that have legalised the sale of certain drugs which are considered illegal in Singapore. But in those countries, they have legalised these drugs. In other words, they allow retail of those drugs. But in Singapore, these are definitely prohibited; we will not allow them. So, for persons dealing in those drugs, I know they are not welcomed to Singapore, but they are okay in their country. In regard to that, the proceeds that are derived from sale in those countries, if they were brought to Singapore, how should we treat them?

Mr Speaker, to the Member's question, as I had explained earlier, the conditions of dual-criminality must be met in order for the money laundering offence to be established. But they may have other activities, and it is not for us to speculate on what other activities they may be engaged in. We pay attention to them and, if they have done something that is against the law in Singapore, then, we will take the necessary actions.