Part of a comprehensive analysis of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002
All Parts in This Series
Liability of Officers and Partners for Corporate Offences under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002
The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002 (the Act) imposes significant responsibilities on individuals who hold positions of authority within companies, firms, societies, or other bodies of persons. Section 35 explicitly addresses the liability of such officers or partners when an offence under the Act is committed by the corporate entity. This provision ensures that those in control cannot evade accountability merely because the offence was committed by the body corporate.
"Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, firm, society or other body of persons, any person who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer or a partner of the company, firm, society or other body of persons or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he or she proves that — (a) the offence was committed without his or her consent or connivance; and (b) he or she had exercised all such due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he or she ought to have exercised, having regard to the nature of his or her functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances." — Section 35
Verify Section 35 in source document →
This provision exists to deter corporate malfeasance and to promote vigilance among those in leadership roles. It places a burden on officers and partners to actively prevent offences related to terrorism financing within their organisations. The due diligence defence recognises that individuals may not always be aware of wrongdoing, but they must demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent such offences.
Requirement of Public Prosecutor’s Consent for Prosecution
Section 36 of the Act stipulates that no prosecution for offences under the Act can be initiated without the consent of the Public Prosecutor. This procedural safeguard ensures that prosecutions are conducted judiciously and in the public interest.
"A prosecution under this Act must not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Public Prosecutor." — Section 36
Verify Section 36 in source document →
The rationale behind this provision is to centralise prosecutorial discretion, thereby preventing frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions. It also ensures that cases brought before the courts have sufficient evidential basis and are consistent with Singapore’s broader counter-terrorism strategy.
District Court Jurisdiction and Penalty Powers
Section 37 confers jurisdiction on the District Court to try offences under the Act and empowers it to impose the full range of penalties prescribed. This is a notable departure from the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, which may limit the District Court’s sentencing powers for certain offences.
"Despite any provision to the contrary in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, a District Court has jurisdiction to try any offence under this Act and has power to impose the full penalty or punishment in respect of the offence." — Section 37
Verify Section 37 in source document →
This provision exists to facilitate efficient and effective prosecution of terrorism financing offences at a level of the judiciary that can handle such matters expeditiously. It reflects the legislative intent to prioritise swift justice in matters of national security without compromising on the severity of penalties.
Ministerial Powers to Amend Schedules Relating to Terrorist Entities and Acts
Section 38 empowers the Minister to amend the First and Second Schedules of the Act by order published in the Gazette. These Schedules list terrorist entities and specify acts or omissions punishable as terrorist acts under laws implementing international treaties or conventions.
"The Minister may by order in the Gazette — (a) amend, add to or vary the First Schedule; and (b) amend the Second Schedule to specify any act or omission that is punishable under any law that implements any treaty, convention or other international agreement to which Singapore is a party as a terrorist act." — Section 38
Verify Section 38 in source document →
This provision is crucial for maintaining the Act’s relevance and responsiveness to evolving international counter-terrorism obligations. It allows Singapore to swiftly incorporate new terrorist entities or acts designated by the United Nations Security Council or other international bodies, thereby ensuring compliance with global standards.
Minister’s Regulatory Powers to Implement the Act
Section 39 grants the Minister authority to make regulations necessary or expedient for carrying out or giving effect to the Act’s provisions.
"The Minister may make such regulations as are necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out or giving effect to the provisions of this Act." — Section 39
Verify Section 39 in source document →
This regulatory power provides flexibility to address practical and procedural matters that arise in enforcing the Act. It enables the government to adapt to operational needs without requiring frequent legislative amendments, thereby enhancing the Act’s effectiveness.
Definitions of Key Terms Related to Terrorist Entities and Sanctions Committees
The First Schedule of the Act provides detailed definitions of terms essential for the application of the Act’s sanctions regime. These definitions align Singapore’s domestic law with United Nations Security Council Resolutions targeting terrorist organisations and individuals.
"In this Schedule, unless the context otherwise requires — “1267/1989/2253 ISIL (Da’esh) and Al‑Qaida Sanctions Committee” means the committee established pursuant to Resolution 1267 (1999); “1988 Committee” means the committee established pursuant to Resolution 1988 (2011); “ISIL (Da’esh) and Al‑Qaida Sanctions List” means the List of individuals and entities belonging to or associated with ISIL (Da’esh) or the Al‑Qaida organization, established and maintained by the 1267/1989/2253 ISIL (Da’esh) and Al‑Qaida Sanctions Committee pursuant to Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015), which is updated from time to time by that Committee, and made available on the Internet through the official United Nations website at http://www.un.org/; “Resolution 1267 (1999)” means Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council of the United Nations concerning Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities; “Resolution 1988 (2011)” means Resolution 1988 (2011) of the Security Council of the United Nations concerning the Taliban and associated individuals and entities; “Resolution 1989 (2011)” means Resolution 1989 (2011) of the Security Council of the United Nations concerning Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities; “Resolution 2253 (2015)” means Resolution 2253 (2015) of the Security Council of the United Nations concerning ISIL (Da’esh) and Al‑Qaida, and associated individuals and entities; “Taliban List” means the List of individuals and entities belonging to or associated with the Taliban, established and maintained pursuant to Resolution 1988, which is updated from time to time by the 1988 Committee, and made available on the Internet through the official United Nations website at http://www.un.org/." — First Schedule, Section 3
Verify Section 3 in source document →
These definitions exist to provide clarity and precision in identifying the entities and individuals subject to sanctions. By referencing United Nations Security Council Resolutions and their associated committees, the Act ensures Singapore’s sanctions regime is consistent with international law and obligations.
Penalties for Non-Compliance and Enforcement Mechanisms
While Part 7 of the Act titled “Miscellaneous” does not specify detailed penalties, it reinforces the liability of officers or partners for offences committed by the body corporate and confirms the District Court’s authority to impose full penalties for offences under the Act.
"any person who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer or a partner of the company, firm, society or other body of persons or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he or she proves that — (a) the offence was committed without his or her consent or connivance; and (b) he or she had exercised all such due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he or she ought to have exercised, having regard to the nature of his or her functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances." — Section 35
Verify Section 35 in source document →
"Despite any provision to the contrary in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, a District Court has jurisdiction to try any offence under this Act and has power to impose the full penalty or punishment in respect of the offence." — Section 37
Verify Section 37 in source document →
The absence of explicit penalty details in this Part suggests that penalties are prescribed elsewhere in the Act or related legislation. However, the provisions underscore the seriousness with which Singapore treats terrorism financing offences and the comprehensive enforcement framework to hold individuals accountable.
Cross-References to Other Legislation and International Instruments
The Act explicitly cross-references the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and laws implementing international treaties, conventions, or agreements to which Singapore is a party. These references ensure coherence and integration of the Act within Singapore’s broader legal and international obligations.
"Despite any provision to the contrary in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, a District Court has jurisdiction to try any offence under this Act and has power to impose the full penalty or punishment in respect of the offence." — Section 37
Verify Section 37 in source document →
"The Minister may by order in the Gazette — ... (b) amend the Second Schedule to specify any act or omission that is punishable under any law that implements any treaty, convention or other international agreement to which Singapore is a party as a terrorist act." — Section 38
Verify Section 38 in source document →
These cross-references exist to harmonise domestic enforcement with international counter-terrorism frameworks, facilitating Singapore’s compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions and other multilateral commitments.
Conclusion
Part 7 of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002 establishes critical legal mechanisms to ensure effective enforcement against terrorism financing in Singapore. It holds corporate officers accountable, centralises prosecutorial discretion, empowers the judiciary with appropriate jurisdiction and sentencing powers, and enables the Minister to update the Act in line with international developments. The detailed definitions of terrorist entities and sanctions committees align Singapore’s domestic law with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, reinforcing the country’s commitment to global counter-terrorism efforts.
Sections Covered in This Analysis
- Section 35 – Liability of Officers or Partners for Corporate Offences
- Section 36 – Requirement of Public Prosecutor’s Consent for Prosecution
- Section 37 – District Court Jurisdiction and Penalty Powers
- Section 38 – Minister’s Power to Amend Schedules
- Section 39 – Minister’s Power to Make Regulations
- First Schedule, Section 3 – Definitions of Sanctions Committees and Lists
Source Documents
For the authoritative text, consult SSO.