(from Newzzit; the original story is here http://newzzit.com/stories/terrorism-financing-to-cost-the-same-as-money-laundering-in-singapore)

Quick Summary

Penalties for terror financing brought at par with money laundering offences after more than 10 years of TSOFA enactment

Maximum imprisonment remain unchanged at 10 years

No comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation as yet

Itwas long overdue. Finally in August, the Parliament amended Terrorism(Suppression of Financing) Act (TSOFA),enacted in 2002, to increase penalties for terrorism financingoffences and bring it in line with the maximum fines for moneylaundering offences under Sections 46 and 47 of the Corruption, DrugTrafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act,or CDSA.

Asper TSOFA, it's an offence “to provide or collect property forterrorist acts, provide property and services for terrorist purposes,use or possess property for terrorist purposes, or deal with propertyof terrorists”. Earlier, the penalty for such offences was a finenot exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10years, or both. After amendment, the maximum fine for these offenceshas been raised to $500,000 for individuals, and $1 million forentities. The maximum imprisonment term for such offences remainsunchanged at 10 years.

Interestingly,S Iswaran, Second Minister for Home Affairs, who presented theamendment bill on the floor of the Parliament informed that therehave not been any prosecution under TSOFA thus far. “This isbecause most cases involved terrorists who were self-financed, andthe issue of third party financing did not arise,” he said.

Theminister also noted concerns expressed by various MPs who asked“whetherthe penalty for terrorism financing offences should be set higherthan that for money laundering offences, given the severity ofterrorism acts”?

“Thepenalties for the terrorism financing offences are in line with thoseof other jurisdictions. For example, Canada, Hong Kong, Germany,Switzerland and United Kingdom, impose a maximum imprisonment termranging from five years to 14 years. So there is a spectrum and wethink ten years is a reasonable reference point at this stage,”Iswaran replied.

“Irecognise the point that for corporations the sum of $1 million maynot be significant. But I think we have to look at it in totality.Once an entity is the subject of such action, the reputational damageand  limitations it will have on its operational capabilities, willalso have a significant sobering effect. We have made this move toenhance the penalties significantly. We will monitor theeffectiveness of these enhanced penalties and are not adverse toreviewing them if necessary,” he added.

Onquestions regarding Singapore having no comprehensive anti-terrorismlaw, Iswaran concluded, “We don't have any plans for such an act asyet. There are a range of acts and provisions across differentlegislations that enable us to act against terrorism. While this maynot be elegant from legislation point of view, it gives us theflexibility to take calibrated and targeted action depending on theterror activities revealed. Having said that, I won't rule it out infuture.”

Summary of amendments in TSOFA

Increase penalties for terror offences to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for entities

Making tip-offs that prejudice an investigation an offence

Protect identity of informers against disclosure and discovery during legal proceedings

Refine exemption provisions to rehabilitate and re-integrate former terrorism detainees

Consolidate all counter-terrorism financing provisions under TSOFA

US calls SG “inconsistent”; SG expresses “surprise and disappointment”

The US State Department in its annual country reports on terrorism published in May this year said, “In 2012, Singapore’s bilateral and multilateral engagement on counter-terrorism intelligence and law enforcement cooperation was inconsistent and marked by a transactional mindset that impeded the development of broad, deep, and predictable agency-to-agency relationships. While some agencies have had success from time to time, Singapore appeared to provide selective cooperation dependent upon the issue.”The report further adds, “Singapore is a member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering, a FATF-style regional body. There were no assets frozen or confiscated for terrorist finance-related crimes in 2012.”This attracted a strong rebuttal from the ministry of home affairs in Singapore government expressing “surprise and disappointment”. “The State Department has cast a negative light on Singapore’s bilateral and multilateral cooperation on counter-terrorism. We are of the view that the State Department’s report does not accurately describe the relations that we have with US agencies involved in counter-terrorism matters. It also shows a lack of understanding of Singapore’s deep commitment towards international cooperation against the threat of terrorism, whether at the bilateral or multilateral level, and not least on the intelligence and law enforcement front,” the ministry added.