Statute Details
- Title: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 11) Order 2007
- Act Code: TSFA2002-S287-2007
- Legislative Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Cap. 325)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Home Affairs
- Legal Instrument Date: Made on 21 June 2007
- Commencement Date: 22 June 2007
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Exemption); First Schedule; Second Schedule
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026
What Is This Legislation About?
The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 11) Order 2007 (“the Order”) is a targeted exemption instrument made under Singapore’s Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Cap. 325). In plain terms, it temporarily carves out a narrow legal permission from a general prohibition on dealing with “property” or “moneys” that are subject to the Act’s restrictions.
While the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act is designed to prevent terrorists and terrorist financiers from accessing funds, the Order recognises that certain funds may be administered through regulated mechanisms that require practical handling—such as payments from the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system. The Order therefore exempts the Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB) and certain nominees from the application of section 6 of the Act, but only for specified payments and only under specified conditions.
Crucially, this is not a general repeal or relaxation of counter-terrorism financing controls. It is a bespoke exemption tied to particular individuals (listed in the First Schedule) and particular nominees (listed in the Second Schedule), and it is conditioned on how the relevant moneys are deposited and used. The legal effect is to allow defined transactions to occur without triggering the prohibition in section 6, provided the statutory conditions are met.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Citation and commencement (Section 1)
Section 1 provides the formal citation and the commencement date. The Order may be cited as the “Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 11) Order 2007” and comes into operation on 22 June 2007. For practitioners, this matters for determining whether particular transactions occurred within the period when the exemption was legally effective.
2. The core exemption (Section 2(1))
Section 2(1) is the heart of the Order. It states that the Central Provident Fund Board is exempted from the application of section 6 of the Act in respect of the payment of moneys from the “Progress Package” belonging to persons listed in the First Schedule to their nominees listed in the Second Schedule.
In plain language, if a person on the First Schedule has entitlements in the CPF “Progress Package”, CPFB may pay those moneys to the designated nominees on the Second Schedule without the prohibition in section 6 applying—but only for that specific payment pathway.
The exemption is also subject to a key condition: the moneys must be deposited in the bank accounts of the nominees designated in their respective letters of exemption dated 22 June 2007. This means the exemption is not merely about who receives the funds; it is also about where the funds are deposited, and the designated bank accounts are determined by the letters of exemption.
3. Extension of exemption to nominees (Section 2(2))
Section 2(2) extends the exemption beyond CPFB. It provides that the nominees listed in the Second Schedule are also exempted from the application of section 6 of the Act in respect of:
- (a) any withdrawal from the bank accounts designated in their respective letters of exemption; and
- (b) the use of the sums withdrawn from those accounts.
This is significant because, under the Act, dealing restrictions can potentially apply not only to the institution that holds or transfers funds, but also to the recipient who withdraws and uses the funds. By expressly extending the exemption to nominees, the Order reduces legal uncertainty for recipients who might otherwise face allegations of prohibited dealing.
4. Conditions on use of withdrawn sums (Section 2(3))
Section 2(3) adds an important limitation: the exemption concerning the activity described in section 2(2)(b)—i.e., use of the sums withdrawn—is subject to the conditions stated in the respective letters of exemption.
Practically, this means that while nominees may withdraw and use the funds, the manner and purpose of use may be constrained. The letters of exemption become central compliance documents. For legal practitioners, the letters should be treated as part of the compliance framework: they define what is permitted and what is not, and they may impose restrictions that are not visible in the Order text itself.
5. Schedules and the “named persons” mechanism
The Order references two schedules. The First Schedule lists the persons whose Progress Package moneys are involved. The Second Schedule lists the nominees who may receive those moneys and who are entitled to the exemption for withdrawals and (conditionally) use. Although the extract provided does not reproduce the schedule contents, the legal structure is clear: the exemption is person-specific and nominee-specific.
From a compliance standpoint, this is a classic approach in counter-terrorism financing regimes: exemptions are granted only for identified parties and for identified transactions, rather than for broad categories. This reduces the risk of abuse and ensures that any permitted dealing remains traceable and controlled.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured in a short, functional format typical of subsidiary legislation granting exemptions:
- Enacting Formula: States that the Minister for Home Affairs makes the Order under powers conferred by section 7(1) of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act.
- Section 1 (Citation and commencement): Provides the name and commencement date.
- Section 2 (Exemption): Sets out the exemption scope and conditions, including the exemption for CPFB and nominees, and the limitations tied to letters of exemption.
- First Schedule: Identifies the persons whose Progress Package moneys are covered.
- Second Schedule: Identifies the nominees who receive the moneys and who benefit from the exemption for withdrawals and use (subject to conditions).
Notably, the Order does not contain extensive procedural rules or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, it relies on the underlying Act (Cap. 325) for the general prohibition framework and on the letters of exemption for operational conditions.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to two categories of persons/entities:
- The Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB), in relation to payments of specified moneys from the Progress Package belonging to persons listed in the First Schedule; and
- Nominees listed in the Second Schedule, in relation to withdrawals from designated bank accounts and the use of sums withdrawn.
It also indirectly applies to the persons listed in the First Schedule because their entitlements are the source of the moneys being paid. However, the exemption is operationally directed at CPFB and the nominees, not at the listed persons themselves.
Because the exemption is limited to the persons and nominees named in the schedules and to the bank accounts designated in the letters of exemption, it does not create a general right for other recipients. Any practitioner advising on transactions involving restricted funds should verify whether the relevant parties appear in the schedules and whether the transaction aligns with the designated accounts and letter conditions.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This Order is important because it illustrates how Singapore’s counter-terrorism financing framework balances strict prohibitions with controlled, practical exceptions. The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act aims to prevent access to funds by terrorist actors. However, real-world financial administration—especially within regulated systems like CPF—requires mechanisms for payments to nominees and for nominees to access funds for legitimate purposes.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order reduces the risk of inadvertent breaches. Without an exemption, CPFB’s payment of restricted moneys and a nominee’s withdrawal or use could potentially be characterised as “dealing” prohibited under section 6. By expressly exempting CPFB and nominees for defined activities, the Order provides legal certainty and a clear compliance pathway.
For practitioners, the most practical takeaway is that compliance is not limited to the Order text. The Order repeatedly points to letters of exemption dated 22 June 2007 and to conditions stated in those letters. Therefore, legal advice should include obtaining and reviewing the relevant letters, confirming the designated bank accounts, and ensuring that withdrawals and use of funds remain within the stated conditions.
Related Legislation
- Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Cap. 325) — in particular section 6 (prohibition against dealing) and section 7(1) (power to make exemption orders)
- Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) Orders — other “No. X” exemption orders made under the same authorising power (for comparative scope and conditions)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 11) Order 2007 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.