Statute Details
- Title: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 7) Order 2013
- Act Code: TSFA2002-S426-2013
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Home Affairs (powers under section 7(1) of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act)
- Citation: SL 426/2013
- Commencement: 15 July 2013
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Key Provisions: 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 2013 is a targeted exemption instrument made under Singapore’s Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (the “TSFA”). In practical terms, it temporarily or conditionally permits certain dealings with specified funds that would otherwise be caught by the TSFA’s prohibitions.
Under the TSFA, when a person is subject to counter-terrorism financing measures, the law generally restricts dealing with their property or funds. This Order does not repeal those restrictions. Instead, it creates a narrow carve-out: it exempts a life assurance company and a named individual from the application of section 6 of the TSFA for a specific payment and related transactions.
Accordingly, the Order is best understood as a compliance and risk-management tool. It allows the payment of an accident injury claim (and interest, if any) and permits the recipient to withdraw and use the relevant sums, but only if the money is handled in the manner specified in the “notice of exemption” issued to the parties on 15 July 2013.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1: Citation and commencement confirms that the Order may be cited as the “Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 7) Order 2013” and that it comes into operation on 15 July 2013. For practitioners, this matters because the exemption’s legal effect begins on that date, and any dealings outside the exemption period may still be prohibited.
Section 2: Exemption is the operative provision. It provides three linked exemptions, structured around (i) the payer (Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd), (ii) the ultimate recipient of the claim proceeds (Mohamed Abdul Khader Mohamed Khan), and (iii) the recipient’s ability to withdraw and use the funds.
Section 2(1): Exemption for the insurer’s payment exempts Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd from the application of section 6 of the TSFA in respect of the payment of an accident injury claim amounting to $439.73 and interest thereon (if any). The payment is described as being due to Mohamed Ellias s/o Mohamed Khan (NRIC No. S7202661F), but payable to Mohamed Abdul Khader Mohamed Khan (NRIC No. S0253878D).
Crucially, this exemption is conditional. The Order requires that the moneys are deposited in the bank account of Mohamed Abdul Khader Mohamed Khan that is designated in the notice of exemption issued to both Mohamed Ellias and Mohamed Abdul Khader Mohamed Khan dated 15 July 2013. This means the exemption is not a general permission to pay; it is permission to pay only in the prescribed way and to the prescribed account.
Section 2(2): Exemption for withdrawals and use by the recipient extends the exemption to Mohamed Abdul Khader Mohamed Khan. It exempts him from the application of section 6 of the TSFA in respect of:
- (a) any withdrawal from the designated bank account; and
- (b) the use of the sums withdrawn.
In other words, once the funds are properly deposited into the designated account, the recipient is permitted to access and use them without breaching the TSFA’s dealing prohibition—again, subject to further conditions.
Section 2(3): Conditions for use clarifies that the exemption relating to the activity in section 2(2)(b) (i.e., use of the withdrawn sums) is subject to the conditions stated in the notice of exemption referenced in section 2(1). This is an important drafting point: while withdrawals are exempted, the use of funds may be constrained by additional conditions set out in the notice. Practitioners should therefore treat the notice as integral to the scope of the exemption, not merely ancillary.
Practical compliance implication: the Order itself specifies the exemption framework, but the “notice of exemption” is where the operational details—such as the designated account and any conditions on use—are likely to be found. Any deviation from those conditions could expose the parties to liability under the underlying TSFA prohibitions.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is short and structured in two main provisions. It follows a typical subsidiary-legislation format:
(1) Enacting formula and commencement: The Minister for Home Affairs makes the Order under the powers conferred by section 7(1) of the TSFA. Section 1 then sets out the citation and commencement date.
(2) Operative exemption provision: Section 2 contains the substantive relief. It is divided into subsections that (a) exempt the insurer’s payment process, (b) exempt the recipient’s withdrawals and use, and (c) impose condition linkage to the notice of exemption for the “use” aspect.
There are no schedules or complex procedural steps in the text provided. The key “moving parts” are the named parties, the specified claim amount, the designated bank account, and the conditions in the notice of exemption dated 15 July 2013.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to specific named persons and an identified entity, rather than to a broad class. It exempts:
- Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd (the insurer) in relation to a particular accident injury claim payment; and
- Mohamed Abdul Khader Mohamed Khan (the recipient) in relation to withdrawals from, and use of, the deposited sums.
Although the payment is described as being due to Mohamed Ellias s/o Mohamed Khan, the exemption is framed around the insurer’s payment obligation and the recipient’s handling of the funds. The notice of exemption is issued to both Mohamed Ellias and Mohamed Abdul Khader Mohamed Khan, indicating that Mohamed Ellias is part of the exemption’s administrative context.
From a legal risk perspective, the exemption is person-specific and transaction-specific. It does not automatically permit other dealings by the same parties, nor does it extend to other funds or other accounts. Practitioners should therefore confirm that any contemplated dealing falls squarely within the described claim amount, the designated account, and the conditions in the notice.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Orders like this are significant because they demonstrate how Singapore balances two competing imperatives: (i) strict controls on terrorism financing and prohibited dealings under the TSFA, and (ii) the need for practical, lawful administration of funds in exceptional circumstances. The exemption mechanism under section 7(1) of the TSFA allows the authorities to permit limited access to funds where appropriate, while maintaining overall regulatory integrity.
For practitioners advising insurers, banks, or affected individuals, the Order provides a clear example of how exemptions operate in practice. The exemption is not blanket permission; it is conditional and tightly linked to compliance steps—most notably, depositing the specified sums into a designated account and adhering to conditions on use. This structure is consistent with counter-terrorism financing objectives: even when funds are released, they are released under controlled parameters.
Enforcement and liability considerations are also central. If a party acts outside the exemption—such as depositing the funds into a different account, withdrawing amounts beyond what is covered, or using the funds in a manner inconsistent with the notice’s conditions—then the TSFA’s prohibitions may still apply. Accordingly, counsel should treat the notice of exemption as a critical document and ensure that internal compliance processes (including sanctions screening, payment controls, and transaction monitoring) reflect the exemption’s scope.
Finally, the Order’s specificity (including the exact claim amount of $439.73 and the interest “if any”) highlights that exemptions may be calibrated to particular factual circumstances. This is a useful reminder for legal teams: when dealing with TSFA exemptions, the factual matrix—amount, payer, recipient, account designation, and conditions—must be documented and verified.
Related Legislation
- Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 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 numbered orders, if applicable, for different persons/transactions)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 7) Order 2013 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.