Debated in Parliament on 17 Aug 2015.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Madam, globalisation has increased the transnational reach of organised criminal groups (OCGs). Advances in technology enable OCGs to operate with greater ease across national borders and reap substantial benefits. For example, in February 2015, Australian Police seized illegal drugs worth AUD$12 million from an international drug syndicate and arrested Hong Kong and Canadian nationals. In 2013, Hong Kong Police arrested more than 1,800 people in a major crackdown on triads covering Hong Kong, Macau and parts of mainland China. They have been charged with offences, such as illegal gambling and money laundering.
Madam, Singapore is one of the safest cities in the world, but we are not immune to the threat of organised crime. Our law enforcement agencies have detected the work of organised syndicates behind some serious criminal offences, such as drug-trafficking and unlicensed moneylending. A serious offence is a threat in its own right. But it poses an even greater threat to our safety and security when perpetrated by an organised crime syndicate. Such OCG are well-resourced and able to mount and sustain large-scale illegal activities over prolonged periods.
OCG often operate across jurisdictions. Their leaders mastermind and finance criminal activities from overseas to deliberately distance themselves from their henchmen who execute the actual crimes. Therefore, the highest echelons of OCG are often able to evade detection and arrest. Even when apprehended, it is more difficult to secure a conviction against them because of the structure of their organisations and their indirect link to the criminal acts.
So, we need laws that target the pernicious activities of these OCG and those in their higher echelons. They are the ones who instruct and intimidate others into criminal acts, yet are most shielded from enforcement. That is why we need an Organised Crime Bill to enhance our ability to disrupt the activities of OCGs at various levels of their hierarchy so as to prevent them from establishing a foothold to perpetrate serious crimes.
In developing the Bill, my Ministry has drawn reference from similar legislation in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, as well as the United
Page: 46
Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC). My Ministry has also consulted the legal fraternity in Singapore and incorporated several of their suggestions.
Madam, let me now take Members through the key provisions of the Bill.
Clause 2 of the Bill defines an OCG as a group that comprises at least three persons, however organised, which has as one of its objectives the obtaining of material or financial benefits from the facilitation or commission of any serious offence.
There are three key elements to this definition. First, the OCG must comprise at least three persons. The focus is on groups that pose an organised crime threat to Singapore. This approach is similar to UNTOC and laws in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The Bill does not target ad hoc groups that commit isolated crimes.
Second, the purpose of forming the group must be to obtain a financial or other material benefit from the commission of serious offences. These serious offences comprise the third element and are listed in the First Schedule to the Bill. These are offences like murder, drug-trafficking and unlicensed moneylending under existing laws, such as the Penal Code, the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Moneylenders Act.
Part 2 of the Bill sets out the general offences relating to the activities of an OCG. The provisions under Part 2 allow our law enforcement agencies to tackle organised crime activities which threaten our safety and security, even if these acts are committed outside Singapore. I will now elaborate on the key clauses and will refer to them collectively as Part 2 offences.
Clause 5 makes it an offence to be a member of an OCG.
Clause 6 criminalises the recruitment of members for an OCG. The penalties for this offence are enhanced if the person recruited is a vulnerable person or a person who is below 21 years of age.
Clause 7 makes it an offence to instruct a person to commit a Part 2 offence or any other offence for an OCG. This targets the masterminds and leaders, who wield significant influence, control the finances, make key decisions and instruct others to execute the criminal activities. Our intent is to punish the person who instructs the commission of an offence for the OCG, that is, the "brains" of the operation, more severely than the person who carries it out.
Page: 47
Clauses 8 and 9 make it an offence to provide or procure aid to commit a Part 2 offence or any other offence for an OCG. Clauses 10 and 11 respectively make it an offence to allow OCG to use one's premises to conduct illegal activities and for any person to deal with the illicit property of OCGs. The aim is to deprive these groups of resources. The penalties for these offences in relation to an individual are imprisonment for up to five years, or a fine of up to $250,000, or both.
Clause 12 makes it an offence to facilitate the commission of Part 2 offences or serious offences for OCGs and the penalties in relation to an individual are imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to $100,000, or both.
Clause 13 empowers a Court to impose enhanced penalties for the commission of any offence if the offence is committed at the direction of or for an OCG. The Bill doubles the maximum fines associated with the offence; and the maximum imprisonment term will be increased by two or five years.
Madam, let me now turn to the Powers and Orders that can be issued on a conviction or non-conviction basis.
Mdm Speaker, our enforcement agencies always seek to prosecute criminals in Court and secure a conviction. Where appropriate, upon such criminal conviction, the sentencing Court can also order the confiscation of benefits of crime under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA).
However, criminals in the upper echelons of OCGs often create many layers and elaborate structures to distance themselves from the criminal acts. Hence, it is not always possible to prosecute such criminals and secure a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To effectively disrupt the activities of an OCG and deny such criminals their ill-gotten gains, we need other levers.
This Bill will, therefore, provide for the issuance of Preventive Orders and a civil confiscation regime. Applications for some of these Orders and for civil confiscation will be heard in civil proceedings, which are separate and independent of any criminal proceedings. This means that the application can still proceed even if the person has not been charged or has been acquitted. These Orders can also be made against a person who has committed a serious offence associated with an OCG before this Bill comes into force.
Mdm Speaker, the Bill provides for the Courts to issue three Preventive Orders: the Organised Crime Prevention Order (OCPO), the Financial Reporting Order (FRO) and the Disqualification Order. These Orders aim to safeguard law and order and protect the public
Page: 48
by preventing, restricting or disrupting the involvement of persons in organised crime.
Clause 15 provides for an OCPO which can be made to restrict a person's activities whether or not he is convicted, that is, on a conviction or non-conviction basis. These include restrictions on the premises to which a person may have access and how he may associate with others. Before an Order is issued, the Court must first be satisfied that the person has been involved in a Part 2 offence or a serious offence associated with an OCG; and second, have reasonable grounds to believe that the Order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting any involvement of the person in such offences.
Clause 17 specifies that an OCPO can be in effect for up to five years. Clause 19 provides for such persons to be monitored by means of an electronic device.
Clause 21 provides for the Court to issue an FRO requiring a person to furnish financial reports as required. This Order can be issued on a conviction or non-conviction basis.
Clause 22 specifies that this Order can be in effect for up to five years, when issued on a non-conviction basis. When issued upon conviction, the FRO can be in effect for up to the period of imprisonment imposed, plus a further five years.
The OCPO and the FRO are subject to a number of important safeguards. All applications have to be made by the Public Prosecutor (PP). Applications that are made on a non-conviction basis must be heard by the High Court. The subject will have the opportunity to be heard before an Order is made. In addition, third parties can make representations or appeals against the making, varying or discharging of an Order.
Finally, the Disqualification Order, which can be issued only on a conviction basis, serves to prevent the person from acting as a company director or taking part in the management of a company. The maximum duration of the Order is aligned to the Disqualification Order provided under the Companies Act.
Let me now turn to Part 9 of the Bill, which provides for the civil confiscation of benefits from organised crime activities on a non-conviction basis.
Mdm Speaker, it is widely acknowledged that the primary motive for organised crime is financial gain. Organised crime is big business involving large sums of money. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates transnational organised crime to be a global business worth US$870 billion.
Page: 49
To effectively deal with organised crime, we must be able to deprive these criminals of their ill-gotten gains. This would also diminish the incentive and the resources for persons to carry out organised crime activities. This is the ultimate objective of the civil confiscation regime.
This civil confiscation regime is similar to the conviction-based regime for the confiscation of criminal benefits under CDSA. The main difference is that a confiscation order may be obtained under the Bill by proving, on a civil standard of proof, that is, on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, that a person has carried out organised crime activities.
The proposed civil confiscation regime is not unique to Singapore. New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom have similar regimes, which typically extend beyond organised crime to include benefits and proceeds derived from serious offences committed by individuals. This Bill confines our civil confiscation regime to organised crime.
The main provisions of the civil confiscation regime are largely similar to those in CDSA, with changes made for a non-conviction-based model of confiscation, and the introduction of additional safeguards.
Clause 61 provides for the PP to apply to the High Court for a confiscation order. The High Court will issue a confiscation order, if it is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the subject has: (a) carried out organised crime activity within the statutory period of seven years; and (b) derived benefits from the organised crime activity.
Similar to the CDSA, the subject is presumed to have benefited from the organised crime activity if he holds property that is disproportionate to his known income sources and is unable to explain those holdings to the High Court's satisfaction.
Under a confiscation order, the subject is required to pay an amount equivalent to the value of his benefits from the organised crime activity. This amount is recoverable as a judgment debt due to the Government.
Clauses 56 to 60 provide for the High Court, on application by the PP, to issue orders which restrain the property of the subject from being disposed of or dealt with. The High Court can also impose charges on the property of the subject for the purpose of securing payment of money to the Government.
Mdm Speaker, substantial safeguards have been incorporated into the civil confiscation regime. First, all applications have to be made by the PP and heard in the High Court. There
Page: 50
is also a provision for appeals to be made to the Court of Appeal. Second, there is a statutory limitation period to the civil confiscation regime. The PP must commence civil confiscation proceedings within seven years of the subject carrying out the organised crime activity. Third, the Bill protects the rights of innocent third parties. In addition, the High Court has the power to provide relief from confiscation, if it is assessed that the confiscation would result in undue hardship to the subject or third parties.
Mdm Speaker, the Organised Crime Bill targets OCG because they pose a significant threat to our safety and security with their capacity and resources to commit crime on a larger scale and on a sustained basis. This Bill will criminalise and punish persons who carry out acts in support of OCG. It will allow our law enforcement agencies to tackle organised crime threats decisively by strengthening their powers to detect, investigate, disrupt and curb their activities, dismantle their organisation and deprive them of their ill-gotten gains.
The OCPO, FRO and the civil confiscation regime will allow us to take pre-emptive measures, not only on a conviction basis but also on a non-conviction basis with appropriate safeguards. Such powers have precedents in other reputable jurisdictions and are vital to prevent organised crime and to deprive OCG of resources.
Taken together, the Organised Crime Bill will allow our law enforcement agencies to tackle the scourge of organised crime decisively. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Hri Kumar.
Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. The Bill boosts our abilities to clamp down on and sanction individuals involved in OCG. It introduces a wide range of organised crime offences under Part 2. In particular, the Bill significantly enhances punishments under section 7 and section 13 and creates new offences.
Under section 7, a person who instructs another person to commit an offence for an OCG will face the punishment prescribed for that offence and more. Where the offence is committed in consequence of his instruction, the instructor can be fined up to four times the maximum fine prescribed for that offence and have an additional 10 years tacked onto the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for that offence.
Page: 51
And under section 13, a person who commits an offence will be subject to an enhanced punishment regime where it can be proved that the offence was committed for an OCG. Such a person can be fined up to twice the maximum fine prescribed for that offence and have a further five years added to his prison sentence. These enhancements are significant and will help the Police to clamp down on OCG.
When I first mentioned this Bill with some friends last week, their immediate reaction was: is the mafia or are the triads operating in Singapore? I hope the Minister will share the relevant statistics/facts and elaborate on the particular types of OCG that the Ministry is concerned with and intends to target. He mentioned moneylending in his speech. Could he give us other examples? This would give us a better understanding and appreciation of the Bill and its purpose.
My next point is one for clarification. The Bill defines a "locally-linked organised criminal group" as "a group that has its only purpose, or one of its purposes, the obtaining of a financial or other material benefit from the commission by or the facilitation of the commission by, any person of any serious offence". The purpose of the group is, therefore, key to its characterisation as an OCG and is an important element in establishing the offence. But how does one establish a "purpose" in relation to the serious offence? Let us take, for example, a group of youth who, out of folly, perhaps may steal a motor vehicle. This is a serious offence under the Bill's Schedule. How will it be ascertained whether the requisite purpose is present such that the gang constitutes an OCG?
I would like to ask the Minister: what evidence will be looked at to determine what the purpose of a group is, especially if the group is based overseas? This is important because all the sanctions in the Bill – Part 2 offences, OCPOs, FRO, Confiscation Orders, all of them – are predicated upon a person belonging to, acting for or being involved with an OCG. And while the issue of whether a group is an OCG may sometimes be clear, some cases will fall in a grey area. This has implications on whether the enhanced penalties under section 13 and attendant sanctions on the group's members will apply.
My next point has to do with OCPOs and FROs. These orders may be issued under a conviction regime or by the High Court under a non-conviction regime, in other words, no criminal offence has been found or found by the Court. The Court is given a very wide mandate to impose restrictions under an OCPO. An OCPO may contain "such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements" and "such other terms" as the Court considers appropriate for the purpose of protecting the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting any involvement by the person in any Part 2 offence or any serious offence associated with an OCG. Indeed, section 16 gives an open-ended list of restrictions that may be imposed and these include restrictions on an individual's travel within and out of Singapore, means of communication as well as his access to and use of any premises or items. Section 19 even provides for
Page: 52
electronic monitoring of an individual subject to an OCPO.
The same threshold of "protecting the public" applies for FROs, which require individuals to make financial reports setting out particulars of their financial affairs. Significantly, while both OCPOs and FROs must not be in force for longer than five years, it appears that both orders can be renewed indefinitely by the Court.
It is indisputable that OCPOs and FROs must have a broad scope if they are to be effective in crippling the activities of OCG. The trade-off is that the power to order OCPOs and FROs may be exercised in an oppressive or abusive manner. In this regard, I have two questions for the Minister.
First, there is a higher chance that a mistake may be made under a non-conviction regime because of the lower standard of proof: proof on a balance of probabilities as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What safeguards are in place to minimise the chances of OCPOs and FROs being unduly issued?
Second, how will the threshold of "protecting the public" be satisfied? What must be shown apart from the fact that the individual has been involved in Part 2 offence or an offence associated with an OCG? This has a direct bearing on how liberally orders for OCPOs and FROs will be made.
To conclude, the Bill gives us more tools to attack and dismantle OCG and ensure that they and their sympathisers do not benefit from the proceeds of crime. We will be able to intervene and disrupt all stages of the group's operations, from the initial stages of recruitment and the instruction of others, to the later stages where offences are committed and the group profits from their criminal acts. And where individuals pose a particular risk, we can restrict and monitor them via OCPOs and FROs.
But it is precisely because the Bill contains such formidable provisions that we have to be careful that powers under it are exercised prudently and only when the circumstances warrant it. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Alvin Yeo.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. It is aimed at combating organised crime by equipping our law enforcement agencies with the weapons to pre-empt organised crime activities, pursue their leadership who may be based overseas
Page: 53
and deprive them of their ill-gotten gains.
There is increasing evidence that OCG here are expanding their links with overseas syndicate. Not only are their networks expanding, their range of criminal activities is also diversifying, resulting in a larger, more complex mix of threats at our very doorsteps. Currently, we may feel that organised crime here is under control, albeit still extant. This may lead to some questioning why we should pass this Bill. But it is precisely because we need to disrupt and stultify the spread of organised crime before it becomes entrenched, before it grows to a point where organised crime threatens public safety and economic stability, that we need this Bill now.
I have, however, two queries on this Bill. The first concerns the criteria our Home Team will apply to determine the extra territorial coverage to tackle transnational organised crime.
Under the Bill, this requires a tight nexus between the offence in question and the resultant harm to Singapore. The rationale for this nexus requirement is not to overtax our Home Team's resources in requiring them to assist the international community to tackle cases with little or no impact in Singapore.
I do not question the logic of this. However, I worry that we draw the line too tightly around what offences have an effect in Singapore. This may affect the cooperation that we need of foreign law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate and apprehend the leaders and key members of syndicates who may be located overseas. This is, indeed, the challenge of combating international criminal networks.
Most foreign law enforcement agencies work on the principle of mutuality where they will render assistance to another country's police force, which would do likewise for them. Thus, if out of concern for husbanding our Home Team resources, we define offences which have an effect in Singapore too narrowly, we risk losing the very cooperation internationally that is essential to combat transnational crime syndicates.
Could the Minister address this concern and clarify how he will balance with competing aims of not over-exerting our Home Team's resources on one hand with the ready provision of assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies necessary to secure their mutual cooperation?
The second concern I have relates to the civil confiscation process which reverses the burden of proof on a subject to prove the legitimacy of his property. In other words, any property which is disproportionate to the subject's known sources of income and which he cannot explain to the Court's satisfaction is presumed to be the benefits of organised crime.
Page: 54
This reversal of the burden of proof is similar to that under CDSA.
However, CDSA is directed at those convicted of corruption, drug trafficking or other serious offences. In other words, a conviction is necessary before the civil confiscation process, with its reversal of the burden of proof, is triggered.
Under this Bill, the subject of this confiscation process need not have been convicted of a criminal offence under the Bill. Indeed, he may have been tried for an offence under the Bill and even acquitted. To then subject him to the reversal of the burden of proof, where the subject has to justify and explain all his property or otherwise have it presumed that they represent the proceeds of organised crime, can work a severe injustice if he is truly innocent.
After all, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is still a fundamental tenet of criminal justice. To presume the subject's property to be the proceeds of organised crime where he has not been convicted or even charged and then acquitted would, in my view, undermine that fundamental principle.
Let me make clear that I entirely support that our agencies should have the ability to take civil confiscation proceedings against any subject, even if he has not been convicted of any offence. And I take full note of what the Minister has said that with the upper echelons of organised crime syndicates, they may be at several removes to the actual members who commit the crimes. But it is the reversal of the burden of proof in a situation where no conviction is obtained that I feel gives rise to the potential for injustice.
Could the Minister clarify how the risk of such injustice could be reduced, if not eliminated? Could the reversal of the burden of proof only apply when the subject has been convicted of an offence under this Bill or, at least, of a similar offence overseas? Or could the risk be addressed by prosecutorial guidelines which should be publicised, which set out clearly when civil confiscation proceedings could be initiated against subjects who have not been convicted, or even acquitted, of offences under the Bill?
This is important as, while we all want to make Singapore free of organised crime, we do need to respect the rights of individuals who may be accused or suspected but not yet convicted of organised crime offences. Overall, I agree that we need to enhance the measures to combat organised crime and I do support the Bill.
Minister, your reply.
Page: 55
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to ask the Clerk to distribute a handout to Members?
Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Madam, as the Clerk distributes the handout, I want to thank Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Alvin Yeo for supporting the Bill and also for the queries that they have raised. The issues they have raised fall into three broad areas. First, of the need for the Organised Crime Bill; second, how the Bill will be used to tackle organised crime more effectively; and, finally, the safeguards, especially for some of the provisions pertaining to civil confiscation. I will address each in turn.
Madam, both Members have agreed with the need for the Bill and I welcome their support. OCG are a menace and pose a serious threat to our safety and security. And they have the resources to commit serious crimes on a large scale and for prolonged periods. They structure themselves to evade law enforcement, especially at the higher echelons, by having layers and elaborate structures, each with discrete and separate functions.
While overall crime, and organised crime in particular, in Singapore is generally under control, we must ensure that we have the necessary powers to effectively address the threat of organised crime should the need arise. This is especially important as OCGs will evolve with globalisation and advances in technology. They will find new ways to perpetrate crime and evade the law. This Bill will strengthen significantly our ability to prevent organised crime from taking root in Singapore.
Mr Hri Kumar asked about the types of OCGs and organised crime activities that we are concerned about. Our law enforcement agencies' greatest concerns today lie with the involvement of OCGs in crimes, such as drug trafficking and unlicensed money lending (UML).
I would like to explain this further using the illustration in the handout. The handout describes the typical structure of a drug trafficking group, and it is based on actual cases that the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) has dealt with. The graphic shows the complex and layered nature of the OCG. The OCG's activities are initiated and coordinated by the mastermind, OCG Leader X, who is located overseas − the large big circle, you cannot miss him and he looks fairly sinister. He takes orders for drugs from his partners in Singapore and instructs drug supply syndicates and courier coordinators to deliver drugs to these partners. Once brought into Singapore by couriers, the drugs pass through multiple hands, channels and layers before being sold to drug abusers. The illicit proceeds from the drug trafficking activities flow back to OCG Leader X and further finance the illegal activities of the OCG. The
Page: 56
arrows in green give you the flow of funds.
Currently, CNB can take action under the Misuse of Drugs Act against persons in the lower rungs of the OCG, such as the runners and street-level traffickers. These are the persons in the bottom two layers of the OCG. With the Organised Crime Bill, such persons can be subject to enhanced penalties for committing these offences for an OCG.
However, the OCG will be able to easily regroup by replacing these lower-level operatives by recruiting more persons to perform such roles and continue their operations. To be effective, we need to take action against persons higher up in the hierarchy.
The persons in the middle tiers of the OCG – A, B and C – are OCG Leader X's partners in Singapore. In most cases, CNB is able to arrest and charge such persons under current laws.
Under the Bill, the local partners will also be liable for new offences, such as instructing the commission of an offence for an OCG and recruiting members for an OCG, that is, Part 2 offences. And if convicted, they will face higher penalties under the Bill.
To tackle such OCG, this Bill provides additional levers beyond criminal sentences. The PP can apply for an OCPO to restrict the activities of persons A to C, for example, by placing restrictions on the premises to which they have access to, and the manner in which they may associate with other persons. This will curtail their involvement in the OCG's activities.
The PP can also apply for an FRO to require them to furnish financial reports to CNB. This will allow CNB to trace and track their finances.
Finally, the Bill will allow us to deal more effectively with the mastermind, the OCG Leader X. These leaders, like X, usually operate from overseas and they would create many layers and structures to distance themselves from the actual drug trafficking activities and ensure that they do not personally handle the drugs. This makes it difficult to secure a drug trafficking conviction against them.
With the new offences created under this Bill, OCG Leader X will be liable for criminal offences, such as instructing the commission of an offence for an OCG and recruiting members for the same group.
In addition, the benefits he derives from his criminal activities can be subject to the civil confiscation regime. This will deprive him of his gains, disrupt the activities of his OCG and
Page: 57
curtail its further growth.
I hope this example illustrates to Members, somewhat more vividly, how an OCG can pose a greater threat to Singapore's safety and security, even if they are not similar to the traditional notions of mafia or triads that Mr Hri Kumar referred to.
Mr Hri Kumar has also asked for relevant statistics regarding organised crime. As I have mentioned earlier, and Members have acknowledged, our overall organised crime situation is generally under control. Nevertheless, in the area of drugs, between 2012 and 2014, CNB seized almost $47 million worth of drugs and broke up over 60 drug syndicates. Many of these syndicates are small-scale operations in Singapore without elaborate structures, similar to the local networks of Persons A, B and C in the illustration.
However, in some of these cases, there are suspected links between these syndicates and transnational organised criminal elements, in other words, the activities go beyond our borders and are part of a larger structure.
We must also be prepared for the emergence of new types of organised crimes and modalities that can threaten Singapore's safety and security.
Mr Hri Kumar asked about the evidence that will be used to determine whether the purpose of a group is to obtain a financial or other material benefit from the commission or facilitation of the commission by any person of any serious offence.
Madam, the purpose of the group can be established through its activities, for example, whether the plans and preparations of the OCG are focused on financial gain, how the serious crime is executed and how the group deals with the proceeds of the crime. In doing so, our law enforcement agencies will rely on evidence, such as the communications between the members of the OCG, statements recorded from witnesses and OCG members, any instruments of crime seized, and the conduct of the members of the OCG in relation to the offence.
So, in Mr Hri Kumar's example of a gang of foolish youths stealing a motor vehicle, if, in fact, the gang steals the vehicle and discards the vehicle thereafter and, it is an isolated case, the Penal Code would be the most appropriate lever with which to deal with this sort of criminal act. Let me also emphasise that the focus of this Bill is on OCG that commit serious offences on a sustained basis. The Bill does not target ad hoc groups that commit isolated crimes.
Page: 58
Let me also take this opportunity to address Mr Alvin Yeo's question on the extraterritorial nature of offences created under the Bill. I acknowledge Mr Yeo's point that it is important for Singapore to be able to provide assistance to other countries in the area of organised crime as part of the international collaboration and cooperation that we have with overseas law enforcement agencies. However, the most important consideration, in deciding on the scope and coverage of new offences in the context of Singapore, is to criminalise the activities that are of greatest concern to Singapore. And this is the principle which has guided the manner in which we have drafted this Bill.
I want to assure the Member that this Bill, and the way it is drafted, will not impinge on our ability to render assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies when warranted by the situation. For example, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) allows for mutual legal assistance to be provided for a wide range of offences and that is the basis on which our law enforcement agencies have been cooperating with their international counterparts.
Madam, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Alvin Yeo have asked about the safeguards to ensure that the OCPO, FRO and civil confiscation orders, which can be sought through civil proceedings, requiring a lower standard of proof as compared to a criminal conviction, are used only in appropriate cases. I think these are valid points. I explained earlier some of the safeguards and I wish to reiterate them.
Madam, let me first say that the overall safeguards that the Bill provides for before an OCPO, FRO or civil confiscation order can be issued in civil proceedings. First, law enforcement agencies will investigate and build the case against suspected organised criminals. Their priority is to prosecute the criminals in Court as far as possible, in other words, to secure a criminal conviction. The decision to apply for one of the orders or for a civil confiscation order, in the absence of a conviction, is made separately by the PP. So, there is a separation between the law enforcement agency that does the investigation and gathers the evidence and the PP who makes the final assessment on whether such orders are to be applied for.
Second, these proceedings must be heard in the High Court, where the PP has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant has been involved in a Part 2 offence, or a serious offence associated with an OCG. The defendant will have the opportunity to defend himself and he can avail himself of the same defences available if he had been subject to a criminal prosecution. The OCPO/FRO or confiscation order will be issued only if the High Court is satisfied with the merits of the case. There is also provision for appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Page: 59
Let me now also address specific queries raised by Members. Mr Hri Kumar asked about the threshold of "protecting" the public: how the threshold of "protecting" the public will be satisfied before an OCPO/FRO is issued. This would involve the assessment of risk, that the person is still likely to be involved in organised crime activities without the Order.
Mdm Speaker, in deciding on the issuance of the Orders, the Court would have to balance the public benefit that the Orders would bring, in terms of greater security and safety, against the restriction and requirements that would be imposed on the person. In other words, the application for or issuing of the order must be commensurate with the risk of the subject getting involved in organised crime activity without the Orders. So, the law enforcement agencies and the PP would have to make an assessment of that risk and persuade the Court of that assessment before the Orders can be issued.
Let me also respond to Mr Hri Kumar's query on whether both Orders can be renewed indefinitely. This is not the case because if the law enforcement agencies see the need for a new order upon the expiry of the previous order, they would have to approach the PP to make a fresh application to the High Court, and it would be subject to the same risk assessment and test before the Court.
Mr Alvin Yeo also asked about the civil confiscation provisions which reverse the burden of proof, onto a subject to prove the legitimacy of his property. As Mr Yeo has pointed out, this approach is similar to that we have used in CDSA. And the civil confiscation regimes in New Zealand and Australia similarly put the onus on the subject of a civil confiscation proceeding to establish that his property is derived from lawful activity.
Let me also reassure the Member that the civil confiscation regime will be used judiciously against organised group criminals. The PP is required to first prove to the High Court, on a balance of probabilities, that the subject has carried out organised crime activity within the statutory period of seven years. A confiscation order is, therefore, not made simply on the grounds that the defendant cannot explain the origins of his wealth. We first, have to establish the predicate offence on the balance of probabilities.
It is fair to place the burden of proof, we believe, on the subject to prove the legitimacy of his property thereafter. After all, he is in the best position to explain how he derived those assets and these are also matters which are specifically within the subject's knowledge and which will be difficult for anyone else to prove. The subject will have the opportunity to show that his assets, which are disproportionate to his known sources of income, are not ill-gotten.
Madam, I want to emphasise that such provisions are not unique to Singapore. The preventive orders are closely modelled after the UK's Serious Crime Prevention Order and
Page: 60
Financial Reporting Order. Countries like New Zealand, Australia and the UK also have civil confiscation regimes. In fact, these countries allow the use of such powers even against persons who commit serious offences without any organised crime influence. The experiences of these countries have shown that such tools are effective and necessary to prevent and disrupt organised crime. Having said that, I want to assure Members that the powers embedded in this Bill will be exercised judiciously with the strong set of safeguards that I have elaborated on.
Madam, let me conclude by emphasising the considerable harm that organised crime activities can cause to Singapore's safety and security. We, therefore, need law enforcement levers that can aid the fight against organised crime. And this is why we have studied the laws in other jurisdictions to develop the Bill, which is scoped to target the threats posed to Singapore by OCG. I urge Members to give your full support to the Bill, so that our law enforcement agencies will have the necessary powers and tools to tackle the scourge of OCG and continue keeping Singapore safe and secure. Madam, I beg to move.
*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. – [Mr S Iswaran.]*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Page: 61
PAPERCUTS