Statute Details
- Title: Charities (Prohibition of Fund-raising Appeal) Order 2013
- Act Code: CA1994-S695-2013
- Type: Subsidiary legislation (Order)
- Enacting / Authorising Act: Charities Act (Chapter 37)
- Authorising Provision: Section 39B(1) of the Charities Act
- Enactment Date: 13 November 2013
- Commencement Date: 14 November 2013
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Prohibition)
- Regulatory Status: Current version as at 26 March 2026
- Legislative Citation: S 695/2013
What Is This Legislation About?
The Charities (Prohibition of Fund-raising Appeal) Order 2013 is a targeted regulatory instrument made under Singapore’s Charities Act. In plain language, it empowers the Commissioner of Charities to stop specific individuals and entities from conducting fund-raising appeals. The Order does not create a general fundraising regime for everyone; instead, it identifies named persons and prohibits them from carrying out fundraising appeals.
The practical purpose of the Order is protective and preventive. Fund-raising appeals can be used to solicit donations from the public, and the Charities Act framework is designed to ensure that fundraising is conducted responsibly and in accordance with regulatory requirements. Where the Commissioner considers that a person should not be allowed to conduct fundraising appeals, the Commissioner may issue an Order to prohibit and stop such conduct.
Because this is subsidiary legislation, it operates alongside the primary Charities Act. Lawyers should read the Order together with the relevant provisions of the Charities Act—particularly the authorising section (section 39B(1))—to understand the legal basis for the prohibition, the procedural safeguards (if any), and the consequences of non-compliance.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation and commencement) is straightforward. It provides the formal name of the instrument—“Charities (Prohibition of Fund-raising Appeal) Order 2013”—and states that it comes into operation on 14 November 2013. For practitioners, this matters for determining the start date of the prohibition and for assessing whether any alleged fundraising conduct occurred before or after the Order’s commencement.
Section 2 (Prohibition) contains the operative command. The Commissioner “hereby prohibits and stops the conduct of any fund-raising appeal” by the persons listed in paragraphs (a) to (d). The Order is therefore both prohibitive and enforcement-oriented: it does not merely declare that fundraising is unlawful; it expressly directs that the conduct be stopped.
The persons named are:
- Global Virtue Pte. Ltd. (UEN No. 201216906D)
- Muhammad Zuhairi Bin Abdullah (NRIC No. S6923810F)
- Mohammad Rudi Bin Muhammad Suffian (NRIC No. S7917512I)
- Jeffri Bin Pawel (NRIC No. S7048308D)
From a legal analysis perspective, the breadth of the prohibition is significant. The Order prohibits “any fund-raising appeal” by the listed persons. This wording suggests that the prohibition is not limited to a particular campaign, method, or channel. It is also not limited by the amount raised or the intended purpose of the appeal. Accordingly, if any of the named persons were to solicit donations from the public—whether through events, online platforms, door-to-door solicitation, or other fundraising methods—the prohibition would be implicated.
Enforcement implications and compliance risk flow from the nature of the prohibition. While the extract provided does not include the penalties or enforcement provisions, the Order’s legal effect is to remove any lawful basis for the named persons to conduct fundraising appeals. In practice, lawyers advising these persons (or advising third parties who may be approached by them) should treat the prohibition as an immediate restriction requiring cessation of fundraising activity. Any continued solicitation could expose the persons to regulatory action and potential criminal or civil consequences under the Charities Act framework, depending on how the Act treats contraventions of such Orders.
Formalities: The Order is “Made this 13th day of November 2013” and signed by LOW PUK YEONG, Commissioner of Charities. The enacting formula and signature confirm that the Commissioner acted within the statutory powers conferred by section 39B(1) of the Charities Act.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is extremely concise and consists of only two substantive provisions:
- Section 1: Citation and commencement (when the Order takes effect).
- Section 2: Prohibition (the list of prohibited persons and the prohibition on conducting any fund-raising appeal).
There are no separate “Parts” or detailed definitions in the extract. For practitioners, this means that most interpretive work will be done by reference to the Charities Act itself—particularly definitions of “fund-raising appeal,” the scope of “conduct,” and the legal consequences of breaching a prohibition order.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
This Order applies specifically to the persons named in section 2. It is not a general prohibition applicable to all charities, all fundraisers, or all members of the public. Instead, it is a targeted regulatory measure directed at Global Virtue Pte. Ltd. and three named individuals.
Accordingly, the legal question for applicability is not whether a person is a charity or whether they are fundraising for a charitable purpose. The key criterion is whether the person is one of the named entities or individuals. Lawyers should also consider practical issues of attribution: for example, whether fundraising activity conducted through intermediaries, agents, or associates could be treated as “conduct” by the prohibited persons. While the Order’s text focuses on the named persons, enforcement authorities may examine control, involvement, and benefit to determine whether the prohibition is being circumvented.
For third parties—such as event organisers, platforms, donors, or marketing agencies—this Order is a red flag. If they engage with or facilitate fundraising appeals by the named persons, they may face legal and reputational risk. At minimum, due diligence should be undertaken to ensure that the fundraising activity is not being carried out in contravention of the prohibition.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is short, it is legally significant because it reflects the Commissioner of Charities’ power to intervene rapidly against fundraising activity that is considered inappropriate or unlawful. The Charities sector relies on public trust. Prohibition orders help protect donors and the public by preventing solicitation by persons who are not permitted to conduct fundraising appeals.
From an enforcement perspective, the Order provides a clear, public, and legally binding directive. The named persons cannot plausibly argue ambiguity about what is prohibited: the Order explicitly prohibits and stops “the conduct of any fund-raising appeal” by the listed persons. This clarity strengthens the Commissioner’s ability to take action if fundraising continues.
For practitioners, the Order also illustrates how the Charities Act can be implemented through subsidiary legislation. Rather than relying solely on general offences or licensing requirements, the Commissioner can issue a specific prohibition order under section 39B(1). This can be particularly relevant in advising clients on regulatory strategy, risk assessment, and compliance planning.
Finally, the Order’s continued status as “current version as at 26 Mar 2026” indicates that it remains part of the active legal landscape. Lawyers should therefore treat it as still operative unless and until it is amended, revoked, or superseded by a later instrument. When advising on historical conduct, the commencement date (14 November 2013) is crucial; when advising on current conduct, the “current version” status is equally crucial.
Related Legislation
- Charities Act (Chapter 37) — in particular, section 39B(1) (the authorising provision for this Order)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Charities (Prohibition of Fund-raising Appeal) Order 2013 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.