Offence of prejudicing investigation
70.—(1) Where, in relation to an investigation into drug dealing or criminal conduct (as the case may be), an order under section 36 has been made or has been applied for and has not been refused or a warrant under section 40 has been issued, a person who, knowing or suspecting that the investigation is taking place, makes any disclosure which is likely to prejudice the investigation shall be guilty of an offence.[21/2014]
(2) In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, it is a defence to prove that —(a)
the person did not know or suspect that the disclosure was likely to prejudice the investigation; or
(b)
the person had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for making the disclosure.
(3) Any person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $30,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.[49
Compensation
71.—(1) If an investigation is begun against a person for a drug dealing offence or a serious offence (as the case may be) or offences and any of the following circumstances occur, namely:(a)
no proceedings are instituted against that person;
(b)
proceedings are instituted against that person but do not result in the person’s conviction for any drug dealing offence or serious offence, as the case may be;
(c)
proceedings are instituted against that person and the person is convicted of one or more drug dealing offences or serious offences (as the case may be), but —(i)
the conviction or convictions concerned are quashed; or
(ii)
the person is granted a pardon in respect of the conviction or convictions concerned,
the General Division of the High Court may, on application by a person who held property which was realisable property, order compensation to be paid by the Government to the applicant if, having regard to all the circumstances, the General Division of the High Court considers it appropriate to make such an order.
[21/2014; 40/2019]
(2) The General Division of the High Court is not to order compensation to be paid under subsection (1) unless it is satisfied that —(a)
there has been some serious default on the part of any person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence or offences concerned; and
(b)
the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done in relation to the property by, or pursuant to an order of, the General Division of the High Court under section 19, 20 or 22.[40/2019]
(3) The General Division of the High Court is not to order compensation to be paid under subsection (1) in any case where it appears to the General Division of the High Court that the investigation would have been continued, or the proceedings would have been instituted or continued (as the case may be) if the serious default had not occurred.[40/2019]
(4) Without affecting subsection (1), where —(a)
a disclosure is made by any person in accordance with section 50(3) in relation to any property;
(b)
in consequence of the disclosure and for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution in respect of a drug dealing offence or a serious offence or offences any act is done or omitted to be done in relation to that property; and
(c)
no proceedings are instituted against any person in respect of that offence or offences or no order is made by the General Division of the High Court under section 19 or 20 in relation to that property,
the General Division of the High Court may, on application by a person who held the property, order compensation to be paid by the Government to the applicant if, having regard to all the circumstances, the General Division of the High Court considers it appropriate to make such an order.
[21/2014; 40/2019]
(5) The General Division of the High Court is not to order compensation to be paid under subsection (4) unless it is satisfied that —(a)
there has been some serious default on the part of any person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence or offences concerned and that, but for that default, the act or omission referred to in subsection (4)(b) would not have occurred; and
(b)
the applicant has, in consequence of the act or omission referred to in subsection (4)(b), suffered loss in relation to the property.[40/2019]
(6) The amount of compensation to be paid under this section is such as the General Division of the High Court thinks just in all the circumstances of the case.[50
[40/2019]
Standard of proof
72.—(1) Any question of fact to be decided by a court in proceedings under this Act is to be decided on the balance of probabilities.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any question of fact that is for the prosecution to prove in any proceedings for an offence under this Act or any regulations made under this Act.[51
Conduct by directors, employees or agents
73.—(1) Where it is necessary, for the purposes of this Act, to establish the state of mind of a body corporate in respect of conduct engaged in, or deemed by subsection (2) to have been engaged in, by the body corporate, it is sufficient to show that a director, employee or agent of the body corporate, being a director, employee or agent by whom the conduct was engaged in within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, had that state of mind.
(2) Any conduct engaged in or on behalf of a body corporate —(a)
by a director, employee or agent of the body corporate within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority; or
(b)
by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) of a director, employee or agent of the body corporate, where the giving of the direction, consent or agreement is within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the director, employee or agent,
is deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been engaged in by the body corporate.
(3) Where it is necessary, for the purposes of this Act, to establish the state of mind of a person in relation to conduct deemed by subsection (4) to have been engaged in by the person, it is sufficient to show that an employee or agent of the person, being an employee or agent by whom the conduct was engaged in within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, had that state of mind.
(4) Conduct engaged in or on behalf of a person other than a body corporate —(a)
by an employee or agent of the person within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority; or
(b)
by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) of an employee or agent of the firstmentioned person, where the giving of the direction, consent or agreement is within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the employee or agent,
is deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been engaged in by the firstmentioned person.
(5) A reference in this section to the state of mind of a person includes a reference to the knowledge, intention, opinion, belief or purpose of the person and the person’s reasons for the person’s intention, opinion, belief or purpose.[52
Evidence of corresponding law or foreign law
74.—(1) A document purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the government of a foreign country or part thereof and purporting to state the terms of —(a)
a corresponding law in force in that country or part thereof; or
(b)
a law in relation to a foreign serious offence in force in that country or part thereof,
is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the matters referred to in subsection (2), in any proceedings under this Act or any subsidiary legislation made under this Act, on its production by the Public Prosecutor or by any person duly authorised by the Public Prosecutor in writing.
[15/2010; 21/2014]
(2) Such document is sufficient evidence —(a)
that it is issued by or on behalf of the government of the foreign country or part thereof stated in the document;
(b)
that the terms of the corresponding law or the law of the foreign country or part thereof are as stated in the document; and
(c)
that any fact stated in the document as constituting an offence under that law does constitute such offence.[53
[21/2014]
Proof of convictions and acquittals
75.—(1) For the purposes of any proceedings under this Act or any subsidiary legislation made under this Act, the fact that a person has been convicted or acquitted of an offence by or before any court in Singapore or by a foreign court, is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving, where relevant to any issue in the proceedings, that the person committed (or, as the case may be, did not commit) that offence, whether or not the person is a party to the proceedings; and where the person was convicted whether the person was so convicted upon a plea of guilt or otherwise.
(2) The court is to accept the conviction mentioned in subsection (1) as conclusive unless —(a)
it is subject to review or appeal that has not yet been determined;
(b)
it has been quashed or set aside; or
(c)
the court is of the view that it is contrary to the interests of justice or the public interest to accept the conviction as conclusive.
(3) A person proved to have been convicted of an offence under this section is to be taken to have committed the acts and to have possessed the state of mind (if any) which at law constitute that offence.
(4) Any conviction or acquittal admissible under this section may be proved —(a)
in the case of a conviction or acquittal before a court in Singapore — by a certificate of conviction or acquittal, signed by the Registrar; or
(b)
in the case of a conviction or acquittal before a foreign court — by a certificate or certified official record of proceedings issued by that foreign court and duly authenticated by the official seal of a Minister of the country of the foreign court,
giving the substance and effect of the charge and of the conviction or acquittal.
[54
Powers of arrest and investigations
76.—(1) An authorised officer or an officer of customs may arrest without warrant any person whom he or she reasonably believes has committed an offence under this Act or the regulations made under this Act.[4/2003]
(2) An immigration officer within the meaning of section 59 may arrest without warrant any person whom he or she reasonably believes has committed an offence under section 60.[44/2007]
(3) An authorised officer who is not a police officer may exercise all or any of the powers in relation to investigations into an arrestable offence conferred on a police officer by the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 in any case relating to the commission of an offence under this Act or the regulations made under this Act or in any case where an arrestable offence is disclosed under any written law in the course of an investigation under this Act.[21/2014]
(4) An authorised officer who is not a police officer may be authorised by the Public Prosecutor in writing to exercise all or any of the powers in relation to investigations conferred on a police officer by the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 in any case where a non‑arrestable offence is disclosed under any written law in the course of investigations under this Act.[21/2014]
(5) In this section, “arrestable offence” and “non‑arrestable offence” have the meanings given by section 2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.[55
[21/2014]
Preservation of secrecy
77.—(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), or for the purpose of the performance of his or her duties or the exercise of his or her functions or when lawfully required to do so by any court or under the provisions of any written law, an authorised officer, Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officer or immigration officer within the meaning of section 59 must not disclose any information or matter which has been obtained by him or her in the performance of his or her duties or the exercise of his or her functions under this Act.[44/2007; 9/2013]
(2) A Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officer who is an officer or employee of the Monetary Authority of Singapore may disclose to the Monetary Authority of Singapore any information or matter which he or she has obtained in the performance of his or her duties or the exercise of his or her functions under this Act.[9/2013]
(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.[56
Obstructing authorised officers, Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officers and immigration officers
78. Any person who obstructs or hinders any authorised officer, Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officer or immigration officer within the meaning of section 59 acting in the discharge of his or her duty under this Act or any regulations made under this Act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.[57
[44/2007]
Consent of Public Prosecutor
79. No court is to try any offence under this Act or any regulations made under this Act except with the consent of the Public Prosecutor.[58
[15/2010]
Offences by bodies corporate, etc.
80.—(1) Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved —(a)
to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer; or
(b)
to be attributable to any neglect on the officer’s part,
the officer as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
[44/2007]
(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her functions of management as if the member were a director of the body corporate.[44/2007]
(3) Where an offence under this Act committed by a partnership is proved —(a)
to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner; or
(b)
to be attributable to any neglect on a partner’s part,
the partner as well as the partnership shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
[44/2007]
(4) Where an offence under this Act committed by an unincorporated association (other than a partnership) is proved —(a)
to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the unincorporated association or a member of its governing body; or
(b)
to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer or member,
the officer or member as well as the unincorporated association shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
[44/2007]
(5) In this section —“body corporate” includes a limited liability partnership which has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005;
“officer” —(a)
in relation to a body corporate, means any director, partner, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate and includes any person purporting to act in any such capacity; or
(b)
in relation to an unincorporated association (other than a partnership), means the president, the secretary, or any member of the committee of the unincorporated association, or any person holding a position analogous to that of president, secretary or member of a committee and includes any person purporting to act in any such capacity;
“partner” includes a person purporting to act as a partner.[44/2007]
(6) The Minister may make regulations to provide for the application of any provision of this section, with such modifications as the Minister considers appropriate, to any body corporate or unincorporated association formed or recognised under the law of a territory outside Singapore.[59
[44/2007]
Composition of offences
81.—(1) The Minister, or any person authorised by the Minister in writing, may compound any offence under this Act, or under any regulations made under this Act, that is prescribed as a compoundable offence by collecting from a person reasonably suspected of having committed the offence a sum not exceeding —(a)
in the case of any offence under section 60(2) or 62(2), $20,000; or
(b)
in the case of any other offence, $5,000.[51/2018]
(2) The Minister may make regulations to prescribe the offences under this Act or any regulations made under this Act which may be compounded.[60
Jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Court and District Court
82.—(1) A Magistrate’s Court or a District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine any offence under this Act and, despite anything to the contrary in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, has power to impose the full penalty or punishment in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be construed to confer any jurisdiction or power on a Magistrate’s Court or a District Court where it is expressly provided in this Act that the General Division of the High Court has such jurisdiction or power.[61
[40/2019]
Rules of Court
83. Rules of Court may provide for the manner in which proceedings under this Act may be commenced or carried on.[62
Amendment of Schedules
84. The Minister may, by order in the Gazette, amend the First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules.[63
[Act 24 of 2024 wef 14/11/2024]
[Act 21 of 2025 wef 30/12/2025]
Regulations
85.—(1) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything which is required to be prescribed under this Act and generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.[21/2014]
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations —(a)
may provide that a contravention of any specified provision of the regulations shall be an offence; and
(b)
may provide for penalties not exceeding a fine of $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both for each offence.[64
[21/2014]
Source: Singapore Statutes Online (Attorney-General's Chambers), © Government of Singapore.
