Speech by Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang, MP for Nee Soon GRC, at the Second Reading of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 12/2023) and the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 13/2023)
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, the Bills will strengthen our ability to tackle scams through misuse of bank and Singpass accounts. The Bills will also introduce new offences of rash and negligent money laundering, expand the scope of money laundering offences and introduce new offences to prevent Singpass abuse. The proposed amendments will allow us to more effectively investigate and prosecute money mules who allow their Singpass or bank accounts to be used for scams. I have three points to make.
My first point is on the new offences of rash and negligent money laundering. A person may commit an offence if they enter into an arrangement acting rashly as to the fact that it relates to benefits from criminal conduct. MHA has said that a person acts rashly if they had suspicions but did not make further enquiries to address those suspicions.
Does the offence require that the person must be suspicious that the arrangement is linked to criminal conduct? Is it sufficient that the person is suspicious that the facts they were given, for example, people’s identities or reasons for the transaction may not be true? Can the Minister elaborate on the extent of verification that a person should make to address any suspicions?
A person may also commit an offence if they negligently enter into such an arrangement. MHA explained that a person is negligent if they continue with a transaction despite the presence of red flags that are noticeable by an ordinary, reasonable person. Can the Minister elaborate further on what these red flags are?
Money mules who are implicated in money laundering may not have a clear understanding of money laundering arrangements. For instance, they may be elderly persons or less financially sophisticated persons. Can the Minister explain if the standards of the “ordinary, reasonable person” will be calibrated to factor in the individual characteristics of the accused?
My second point is on the new offences under both Bills which involve a failure to verify details. Under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) (CDSC) Bill, a person can be deemed liable for money laundering if they allow certain transactions to take place through their accounts without verifying the purpose of the arrangement, the source or destination of the country, or the person’s identity and physical location.
Under the Computer Misuse Bill, a person is presumed to believe that the disclosure of his Singpass credentials was for the commission of an offence if the person fails to take steps to find out the identity and physical location of the recipient. Again, can the Minister elaborate on the extent of verification that is expected?
It is possible that an individual may provide another with access to their account or to their Singpass credentials for a legitimate purpose but the access is later abused for criminal purposes. Can the Minister share what is expected of the individual in this situation to avoid committing an offence? Is there an ongoing requirement that the individual periodically verifies the transactions going through their account?
For example, an elderly parent may give their children access to their account to help manage their finances. They may also give their children their Singpass details to help with a transaction.
While MHA has stated that owners of payment accounts must be responsible for how their accounts are being used, the reality is that a financially illiterate elderly person may trust their children and be content to leave control of their accounts to their children. It is also possible that they may not be in a position to regain control of their accounts after allowing their children initial access even if they are aware that the accounts are being used for illegitimate purposes. Can the Minister share how the Police will view such cases?
My third point is on the responsibility of network access facility operators and service providers. The Computer Misuse Bill clarifies that network access facility operators and service providers are not guilty of making available any Singpass information that comes across their platforms. However, platforms, too, have a role to play in addressing illegal or harmful content transmitted on their platforms.
Can the Minister elaborate on what it views as the responsibility of network access facility operators and service providers in addressing the illegal use of accounts and Singpass credentials? What are the regulatory frameworks in place to ensure that network access facility operators and service providers are not complicit in the use of their platforms for illegal purposes?
Notwithstanding these clarifications, Madam, I stand in support of the Bills.
Watch the speech here.