What must the Prosecution prove?
“Money laundering” means handling money or other property that came from a crime. Singapore’s Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (“CDSA”) does not have a single money laundering offence. It has a group of offences, which differ according to whose money it is and what the accused knew or should have known. See our page on money laundering offences and their punishment for a full breakdown and explanation of these offences.
Each offence has its own elements. For most offences, the Prosecution must also prove a particular mental state of the accused (also known as mens rea):
| Offence | What the Prosecution must prove | What this means in plain terms |
|---|---|---|
| Helping someone else keep or control criminal proceeds Section 51(1) | The accused (i) entered into, or was concerned in, an arrangement; (ii) by which another person’s keeping or control of criminal proceeds was made easier (or the proceeds were used to provide funds or acquire property for that person); and (iii) the accused knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that this was so. | You took part in a set-up that helped someone else hold on to, or benefit from, money that came from a crime, and you knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, this. (e.g., collecting cash from scam victims and handing it on to a syndicate, or knowingly letting your bank account be used to receive and pass on scam money) |
| Helping someone else keep or control criminal proceeds, rashly or negligently Section 51(1A) | The elements are those in (i) and (ii) for section 51(1) above, except that instead of knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe, the Prosecution must prove that the accused acted rashly (knowing there was a real risk that the arrangement related to criminal proceeds, when it was unreasonable to take that risk) or negligently (doing what a reasonable person would not have done, or failing to do what a reasonable person would have done). | The same conduct, but without necessarily knowing the money was criminal. You could have acted rashly (e.g., you suspected the payments into your account might be scam money, but went ahead anyway) or negligently (e.g., you did not suspect anything, but a reasonable person in your position would have asked questions or refused). |
| Dealing with one’s own criminal proceeds Section 54(1) | The property is, or represents, the accused’s own proceeds of crime, and the accused concealed or disguised it, converted or transferred it, removed it from Singapore, or acquired, possessed or used it. | You handled the proceeds of your own crime (e.g., misappropriating your employer’s money, and then spending it). The High Court has found that using the money is enough on its own. There is no need to show concealment, so spending misappropriated money on personal expenses can be charged as money laundering. |
| Dealing with someone else’s criminal proceeds Section 54(2), (3) and (3A) | The property is another person’s proceeds of crime, the accused concealed, converted, transferred, acquired, possessed or used it, and the accused had the required mental state: knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe (subsections (2) and (3)), or rashness or negligence (subsection (3A)). | You handled money that came from someone else’s crime, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe this, or (since 8 February 2024) acting rashly or negligently as to whether it did (e.g., holding or transferring money for an acquaintance in those circumstances). |
| Possessing property reasonably suspected to be criminal proceeds Section 55 | The accused possessed or used property that may reasonably be suspected of being criminal proceeds, and the accused failed to account satisfactorily for how he or she came by it. | You have money or property that may reasonably be suspected of coming from crime, and cannot give a satisfactory explanation of where it came from (e.g., a large sum of cash found in your possession that you cannot account for). |
In all of these offences, the crime that generated the money need not have been committed in Singapore.
What defences are available?
The following may provide a defence, or an answer to the charge:
- No knowledge and no reasonable grounds. For section 51 of the CDSA, it is a defence for the accused to prove that he or she did not know and had no reasonable ground to believe that the arrangement related to criminal proceeds, or that it would make it easier for another person to keep or control them.
- Reporting the suspicion. A person who reports a suspicion to an authorised officer (such as a police officer) does not commit the section 51 offence if the report is made before the act and the act is done with the officer’s consent, or, if made afterwards, the report is made on the person’s own initiative and as soon as reasonable. It is also a defence that the accused intended to report but had a reasonable excuse for not doing so, or (if the accused is an employee) that the suspicion was reported under the employer’s internal procedure.
- Accounting for the property (section 55). The section 55 offence is committed only if the person fails to account satisfactorily for how he or she came by the property. A satisfactory explanation should be supported by documents.
- Challenging the elements. The Prosecution must prove each element: that the money was in fact criminal proceeds, how much of it was, and whether the accused had the requisite mens rea (mental state) at the time. The mental state alleged in the charge (knowledge, reasonable grounds to believe, rashness or negligence) is itself significant, because the maximum punishment and the assessment of culpability both depend on it.