Statute Details
- Title: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 7) Order 2010
- Act Code: TSFA2002-S375-2010
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Cap. 325)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Home Affairs (exercising powers under section 7(1) of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act)
- Statutory Citation: SL 375/2010
- Date Made: 8 July 2010
- Commencement: 9 July 2010
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026
- Key Provisions (from extract): Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Exemption)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 7) Order 2010 is a targeted exemption order made under Singapore’s terrorism financing framework. In plain terms, it temporarily “carves out” a specific set of transactions from a general legal prohibition on dealing with certain funds that are subject to the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (the “TSFA”).
The TSFA is designed to prevent and disrupt the financing of terrorism. One of its core mechanisms is to prohibit dealing with funds that are connected to terrorism-related persons or activities, typically after designation or other triggering events. However, the law also recognises that strict prohibitions may, in limited circumstances, impede legitimate or administratively necessary transactions. This is where exemption orders come in.
This particular Order (No. 7) addresses dealings involving Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) moneys in the Central Provident Fund account of a named individual, and it also addresses how those moneys may be withdrawn and used. The exemption is not blanket: it is conditional, person-specific, and tied to a designated bank account and a “letter of exemption” dated 8 July 2010.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1: Citation and commencement establishes the formal identity of the instrument and when it takes effect. The Order may be cited as the “Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 7) Order 2010” and it came into operation on 9 July 2010. For practitioners, commencement matters because the exemption’s legal effect begins only on that date, which can be relevant when assessing whether any dealing occurred before or after the exemption took effect.
Section 2: Exemption is the operative provision. It exempts two categories of persons from the application of section 6 of the TSFA—the provision that imposes the prohibition against dealing. The exemption is structured in three layers: (i) exemption of the CPF Board for payments from a specific CPF account; (ii) exemption of a named bank account holder for withdrawals and use; and (iii) conditions that tie the exemption to a specific letter of exemption.
Section 2(1): Exemption of the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF Board)
The CPF Board is exempted from the application of section 6 of the TSFA in respect of the payment of funds in the Central Provident Fund account of Jamil Bin Ansani (NRIC No. S0125569Z). The exemption applies pursuant to a withdrawal of those funds by Jamil Bin Ansani in accordance with section 15(2)(a) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 36).
Crucially, the exemption is subject to a condition: the moneys must be deposited in the bank account of Zainab Bte Mohd Idrus (NRIC No. S2003065H), and that bank account is “designated in the letter of exemption dated 8th July 2010.” This means the exemption is not merely about allowing withdrawal from CPF; it is about controlling the destination of the withdrawn funds.
Section 2(2): Exemption of Zainab Bte Mohd Idrus
The Order also exempts Zainab Bte Mohd Idrus from the application of section 6 of the TSFA. The exemption covers two activities:
- (a) any withdrawal from the bank account referred to in section 2(1); and
- (b) the use of the sums withdrawn therefrom.
This is significant because the TSFA prohibition against dealing typically extends beyond the initial transfer. It can restrict subsequent withdrawals and use. By expressly exempting both withdrawal and use, the Order clarifies that the designated bank account holder may handle the funds in specified circumstances without breaching section 6.
Section 2(3): Conditionality tied to the letter of exemption
Section 2(3) provides that the exemption regarding the activity in section 2(2)(b)—i.e., use of the sums withdrawn—is subject to the conditions stated in the letter of exemption referenced in section 2(1). In other words, the Order itself does not list all conditions; it incorporates them by reference to an external document.
For legal practice, this incorporation-by-reference is a key point. Advisers must obtain and review the letter of exemption dated 8 July 2010 because it likely contains the practical constraints on how the funds may be used (for example, limitations to particular categories of expenditure, reporting requirements, or restrictions on further transfers). Without reviewing that letter, counsel may not be able to give a reliable compliance assessment.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is a short, instrument-style subsidiary legislation with a simple structure. It contains:
- Enacting formula indicating it is made under section 7(1) of the TSFA;
- Section 1 on citation and commencement; and
- Section 2 on the exemption, with subsections (1) to (3) setting out the scope, persons affected, and conditions.
There are no “Parts” or complex schedules in the extract provided. The operative content is concentrated in section 2, and the Order’s compliance logic depends heavily on the cross-references to:
- section 6 of the TSFA (the prohibition being disapplied);
- section 15(2)(a) of the CPF Act (the withdrawal authority); and
- a letter of exemption dated 8 July 2010 (the conditions and designated bank account).
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
Although the Order is made under the TSFA, it does not apply generally to all persons. Instead, it applies to specific parties and specific transactions. The exemption is directed at:
- The Central Provident Fund Board, in relation to payments from the CPF account of a named individual (Jamil Bin Ansani) when withdrawals are made under the CPF Act; and
- Zainab Bte Mohd Idrus, in relation to withdrawals from, and use of sums withdrawn from, a designated bank account.
Practically, the Order affects compliance obligations for these parties and any intermediaries involved in executing the withdrawal and transfer. It also indirectly affects the named individuals by permitting a controlled flow of funds that would otherwise be restricted under section 6 of the TSFA.
Because the exemption is conditional and tied to a designated bank account and a letter of exemption, the scope is narrow. If the withdrawal is not made in accordance with the CPF Act provision referenced, or if the funds are not deposited into the designated account, the exemption may not apply.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This Order is important because it illustrates how Singapore balances two competing objectives: (1) strong counter-terrorism financing controls and (2) the need for limited, lawful access to funds in defined circumstances. For practitioners, it demonstrates that the TSFA’s prohibitions are not necessarily absolute in all cases; they can be modified through ministerial exemption orders.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order is a reminder that exemptions under the TSFA are typically transaction-specific and condition-dependent. The legal risk is not only whether an exemption exists, but whether the factual circumstances fall within the exemption’s precise terms. Here, the exemption is anchored to:
- a particular CPF account (Jamil Bin Ansani’s CPF account);
- a particular CPF withdrawal mechanism (section 15(2)(a) of the CPF Act);
- a particular destination bank account (Zainab Bte Mohd Idrus’s account, designated in the letter of exemption); and
- conditions governing the use of funds (also in the letter of exemption).
For lawyers advising financial institutions, compliance officers, or affected individuals, the practical impact is that counsel must treat the exemption as part of a compliance “chain.” The exemption does not automatically authorise any subsequent dealing; rather, it authorises dealing only to the extent permitted by the Order and the incorporated letter of exemption. In disputes or regulatory inquiries, the ability to show compliance with these conditions—especially those not reproduced in the Order itself—can be decisive.
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)
- Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 36) — in particular section 15(2)(a) (withdrawal of CPF moneys)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 7) Order 2010 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.