Can the police freeze my bank account?

An account may be restricted in three different ways, each with its own procedure:

  • by the bank itself, on its own assessment;
  • by the police, under section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”), which allows the police to seize, or prohibit dealings with, property in respect of which an offence is suspected to have been committed, property suspected to have been used to commit an offence, or property suspected to be evidence of an offence; for money in a bank account, a police officer of the rank of inspector or above may order the bank to hand it over or not to allow dealings with it; or
  • under the separate regime of restraint orders (i.e., court orders preventing any dealing with the property) and confiscation orders in the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (“CDSA”) (see below).

What are the limits of a police seizure?

Police seizure is not unlimited. In a 2017 decision (Rajendar Prasad Rai v Public Prosecutor [2017] 4 SLR 333), the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had seized the money in ten bank accounts, and a Magistrate had extended the seizure of three of them on the basis of further investigations. The High Court held that:

  • where money is seized to prevent it from being dissipated (i.e., spent or moved out of reach), it must be money reasonably believed to be the proceeds, or traceable proceeds (i.e., property that can be traced back to the proceeds), of an identifiable offence;
  • police seizure is not a means of freezing wealth that is simply unexplained, which is a matter for the separate CDSA regime; and
  • seizures must be reported to a Magistrate, and when an extension is sought the Prosecution must identify the offence and justify the seizure.

Because the Prosecution had not shown how much of the money was the proceeds of the offences charged, and had not answered the account holders’ evidence of its source, the extension was set aside.

A person who is prevented from dealing with money frozen by the police may apply to court for its release (CPC section 35(7)). The court may order release only if it is satisfied that release is necessary for one of the following purposes (CPC section 35(8)):

  • basic expenses, including food, rent, mortgage payments, medicine and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and utility charges;
  • reasonable legal fees and expenses, or routine charges for holding or maintaining the property;
  • extraordinary expenses;
  • satisfying a lien (i.e., a legal right over property as security for a debt) or judgment that arose before the freezing order; or
  • for a Singapore company, its day-to-day operations.

In a 2023 decision (Carlos Manuel De São Vicente v Public Prosecutor [2023] 5 SLR 1397) concerning an account holding more than US$558 million, the High Court set out requirements that must all be shown for the release of money for legal fees:

  • the money is needed because no other funds are available;
  • it will be used only for the permitted purpose;
  • the fees are reasonable;
  • the expenses have already been incurred; and
  • all of this is proved to the court’s satisfaction.

The application failed because the applicant had not shown that other funds, including money transferred abroad and funds held by family members, were unavailable to him.

The position can change as a case progresses. In a 2025 case (Kam Boon Hee Kenneth v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGMC 29, under appeal at the time of writing), money had been released before trial to pay the accused’s tax and legal fees, together with a monthly sum for basic and medical expenses; after he was convicted, a further application for legal fees was refused because the interests of potential victims now outweighed his own, and the monthly payments were ordered to stop.

How do owners and victims get seized money back?

When seized money is no longer needed for investigations or proceedings, the court may order how it is to be dealt with. Where it is unclear who is entitled to it, the court may direct that it be held while a public notice invites claims. In a 2025 decision (Public Prosecutor v Marlene Wise [2025] 3 SLR 1603), a three-judge High Court held that it is the court, and not the Commissioner of Police, that decides such claims, and that a claimant must show a lawfully acquired interest in the money; evidence that the money came from the claimant’s own bank account will generally be enough. An overseas scam victim who had transferred US$41,900 into a Singapore account was held entitled to its return.

What is a confiscation order?

Separately from the sentence, after a person is convicted of a qualifying offence the Prosecution may apply under the CDSA for a confiscation order. If the court is satisfied that the offender derived benefits from crime, it must make an order requiring the offender to pay a sum representing the value of those benefits (CDSA section 7; section 6 for drug dealing).

The order is not limited to the money traced to the offence charged. The CDSA presumes that property held by the offender that is disproportionate to his or her known sources of income, and that cannot be explained to the court’s satisfaction, represents benefits from crime unless the contrary is proved. The order can be satisfied out of any property the offender holds, whether or not it was itself derived from crime, and out of certain gifts the offender has made.