Significantly, a new civil penalty of up to S$10 million gives the authorities the option to choose to pursue an action that could succeed on the balance of probabilities. That matters, because the criminal standard of needing to demonstrate an offence was committed beyond reasonable doubt can sometimes set the evidential bar too high for cross-border prosecutions such as these.
A trial-in-absentia provision closes another gap. If an accused served with a notice to attend court fails to appear, the court may proceed without them, provided they were warned this could happen.
Companies cannot later have such proceedings set aside. Playing hide and seek with the law is no longer a viable strategy.
THE STRONGEST LEVER
Potentially the most powerful deterrent requires no conviction at all.
Under new section 8D, the minister may designate an entity, its business partners or those controlling it, where the minister “knows or has reason to suspect” it has committed an offence or is unlikely to comply with a notice. That threshold is ordinarily used for purposes of arrest and carrying out investigations, but is used here to exact financially prejudicial measures on errant companies.
The consequences are severe. Orders include barring anyone from supplying, buying from, lending to or insuring a designated entity. Another subsection goes further, requiring it and its counterparties to terminate existing business arrangements.
For a company that banks, trades or raises capital through Singapore, this can be financially suffocating. It brings to bear Senior Minister K Shanmugam’s pledge to pull on every lever, including “access to financing”, and reflects Singapore’s leverage as the region’s gateway to finance and commerce.
The law also designates “persons on notice” who must not enter into or continue dealings with offenders. This targets the network around errant companies, making it harder to evade scrutiny simply by reshuffling corporate structures.
