繼2024年8月頒布廣泛的反洗錢法案後，新加坡政府部際委員會（IMC）發布了進一步加強該司法管轄區反洗錢（AML）框架的建議。
IMC的審查借鑒了警方2022年初透過審查可疑活動報告（SAR）發現的一起重大反洗錢案件的經驗教訓。它涉及使用可疑的偽造文件來證實金融機構（FI）和其他公司提交的銀行帳戶資金來源。2023年8月，在新加坡多個地點同時進行的一系列突擊行動中，十名嫌疑犯被捕。他們被發現註冊公司並設立銀行帳戶，使用30億美元的犯罪資金。截至 2024年7月，所有10名對象均因洗錢和其他罪行被定罪，並因在新加坡犯下的罪行被判處13至17個月監禁。此外，針對不在新加坡的17名人員的調查仍在進行中，涉及約20億美元的被扣押資產。
這些事件和其他事件在過去兩年中在該司法管轄區推出了大量新的反洗錢措施，最終於2024年8月6日通過了《反洗錢及其他事項法》。增強資料的修正案政府機構之間共享，簡化處理扣押財產的流程，並使賭場營運商法規與金融行動特別工作組（FATF）標準保持一致。它還消除了檢察官證明潛在犯罪行為與涉嫌在新加坡洗錢之間的直接聯繫的需要。
然而，IMC的報告設想了進一步的控制。它強調了防止犯罪者濫用公司結構的重要性，加強金融機構，加強對企業服務提供者等中介機構的監管，並沒收犯罪所得。
報告特別強調了提供客戶服務的把關人的角色。報告稱，儘管現有反洗錢控制措施，但各部門之間和部門內部的實施做法不平衡。因此，我們必須加強這些控制措施的執行，行業監管者必須為看門人提供更全面的指導。
新立法將明確房地產銷售人員、房地產中介、開發商、律師和法律執業實體進行客戶盡職調查和持續監控客戶的要求。除了現有的《房地產經紀人（防止洗錢和恐怖主義融資）條例》、《2023 年住房開發商（反洗錢和恐怖主義融資）規則》、《2023 年商業房地產銷售（反洗錢和恐怖主義融資）規則》以及根據法律職業（防止洗錢和資助恐怖主義）規則，這些看門人將被要求識別並採取合理措施來驗證其客戶可能代表的個人的身份。他們目前已經被要求識別和驗證企業最終受益所有人的身份。
在與高風險或可疑客戶打交道時，看門人還必須採取適當的緩解措施，例如加強盡職調查。如果有較高的反洗錢風險，他們將必須確定客戶打算用於交易或存入銀行帳戶的財富來源。如果他們有合理理由懷疑非法活動或來源，他們還必須及時提交特別報告員，並取得確鑿證據或進行獨立檢查，以對客戶財富來源的合理性進行合理評估，並提供適當的文件證明評估。報告稱，「檢查和證實的程度應以基於風險的方法為指導，而不是過度阻礙合法企業和個人」。
另一個優先事項是對企業服務提供者的監督。公司監管機構將在潛在公司申請註冊時繼續採用基於風險的方法進行篩選。它還將加強打擊那些可能成為空殼公司指標的不活躍公司。此類公司將在公司註冊處進行標記，以提醒看門人與他們打交道的潛在風險。最近頒布的《2024 年企業服務提供者法》已經為此提供了註冊框架以及對提名董事職位的監管。然而，IMC報告指出，該公司「除非屢次不合規，否則通常不會被除名」，而且如果他們糾正違規行為，將不再被標記。
Singapore announces further AML reforms
The Singapore government's Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) has published recommendations to further strengthen the jurisdiction's anti-money laundering (AML) framework, following the enactment of a wide-ranging AML Bill in August 2024.
The IMC review draws lessons from a major AML case discovered by police in early 2022 from examination of suspicious activity reports (SARs). It concerned the use of suspected forged documents to substantiate sources of funds in bank accounts, filed by financial institutions (FIs) and other companies. In August 2023, ten suspects were arrested in a series of simultaneous raids at multiple locations across Singapore. They were found to have registered companies and set up bank accounts for them to use USD3 billion of criminal funds. As of July 2024, all ten subjects have been convicted of money laundering and other offences, and sentenced to imprisonment of between 13 and 17 months for the offences that they had committed in Singapore. In addition, investigations are ongoing against 17 persons who are not in Singapore, involving approximately USD2 billion of seized assets.
These and other events have released a flood of new AML measures in the jurisdiction in the past two years, culminating in the passage of the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Act on 6 August 2024. Among other things, it introduces amendments to enhance data sharing among government agencies, simplify processes for handling seized properties and align casino operator regulations with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards. It also removes the need for prosecutors to prove a direct link between the underlying criminal conduct and the monies allegedly laundered in Singapore.
However, the report by the IMC envisages further controls. It emphasises the importance of preventing criminals from misusing corporate structures; tighter controls by FIs; strengthening the regulation of intermediaries such as corporate service providers; and confiscating proceeds of crime.
The role of gatekeepers who provide client services is particularly stressed in the report. The report says that uneven implementation practices have been observed across and within sectors, despite the existing AML controls. 'We must thus strengthen the execution of these controls, and sector supervisors must provide more comprehensive guidance to gatekeepers', says the report.
New legislation will clarify the requirements for real estate salespersons, estate agencies, developers, lawyers and law practice entities to conduct customer due-diligence and ongoing monitoring of their clients. In addition to the existing Estate Agents (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, Housing Developers (Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Rules 2023, Sale of Commercial Properties (Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Rules 2023, and Legal Profession (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Rules, these gatekeepers will be required to identify and take reasonable measures to verify the identities of the individuals that their clients may be acting on behalf of. It is already required for them to identify and verify the identities of the ultimate beneficial owners of businesses.
Gatekeepers must also take appropriate mitigating measures, such as enhanced due-diligence, when dealing with higher-risk or suspicious clients. In cases where there are higher AML risks, they will have to identify the source of wealth that the client intends to use for transactions or deposit into a bank account. They will also have to file timely SARs if they have reasonable grounds to suspect illicit activity or origins, as well as obtaining corroborative evidence or conducting independent checks to make a reasonable assessment on the plausibility of clients' sources of wealth, with proper documentation of the assessments. 'The extent of checks and corroboration should be guided by a risk-based approach, and not unduly hinder legitimate businesses and individuals', says the report.
Another priority will be oversight of corporate service providers. The companies regulator will continue screening prospective companies on a risk-based approach when they apply for incorporation. It will also step up efforts to strike off inactive companies that could be an indicator of shell companies. Such companies will be flagged on the companies registry to alert gatekeepers to potential risks of dealing with them. The recently enacted Corporate Services Providers Act 2024 already provides the registration framework for this, as well policing of nominee directorships. However, the IMC report notes that companies will ‘generally not be struck off unless they are repeatedly non-compliant’ and they will no longer be flagged if they rectify their non-compliance.
Sources:
• Singapore Ministry of Finance
• Monetary Authority of Singapore (Inter-Ministerial Committee report, PDF)
• Baker McKenzie