Where a court convicts any person of an offence committed by the acceptance of any gratification in contravention of any provision of this Act, then, if that gratification is a sum of money or if the value of that gratification can be assessed, the court shall, in addition to imposing on that person any other punishment, order him or her to pay as a penalty, within such time as may be specified in the order, a sum which is equal to the amount of the gratification or is, in the opinion of the court, the value of that gratification, and any such penalty shall be recoverable as a fine.
Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence under section 2 or 3, it is proved that any gratification has been paid or given to or received by a person employed by a public body, by or from a person or agent of a person who has or seeks to have any dealing with any public body, the gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as an inducement or reward as hereinbefore mentioned unless the contrary is proved.
In any trial by a court of an offence under this Act, the fact that an accused person is in possession, for which he or she cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his or her known sources of income, or that he or she had, at or about the time of the alleged offence, obtained an accretion of his or her pecuniary resources or property for which he or she cannot satisfactorily account, may be proved and may be taken into consideration by the court as corroborating the testimony of any witness in the trial or inquiry that the accused person accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification and as showing that the gratification was accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempted to be obtained corruptly as an inducement or reward.
An accused person shall, for the purposes of subsection 1 , be deemed to be in possession of resources or property or to have obtained an accretion to resources or property where the resources or property are held or the accretion is obtained by any other person whom, having regard to his or her relationship to the accused person or to any other circumstances, there is reason to believe to be holding the resources or property or to have obtained the accretion in trust for or on behalf of the accused person or as a gift from the accused person.
Notwithstanding any rule of practice or written law to the contrary, no witness in any trial by a court of an offence under this Act shall be regarded by the court as being unworthy of credit by reason only of any payment or delivery by him or her or on his or her behalf of any gratification to an agent or member of a public body. Any court may, upon application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, issue an order placing such restrictions as appear to the court to be reasonable, on the operation of any bank account of the accused person or a person suspected of having committed an offence or any person associated with such an offence or on the disposal of any property of the accused person, the suspected person or a person associated with the offence or the suspected person for the purpose of ensuring the payment of compensation to any victim of the offence or otherwise for the purpose of preventing the dissipation of any monies or other property derived from or related to an offence under this Act.
Any restriction imposed under subsection 1 on the operation of the bank account of a person shall be limited to such amount as is necessary to compensate the victim of the offence or an amount not exceeding the amount involved in the commission of the offence whichever is the higher; and any money in the account in excess of that amount shall continue to be at the disposal of the person to whom the order under subsection 1 relates.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - Wikipedia
The order imposing restriction shall be reviewed by the court every six months if still in force. The order shall, unless earlier revoked, expire six months after the death of the person against whom it was made. The Director of Public Prosecutions shall ensure that any order issued by a court under subsection 1 is served on the banker, or accused person or suspected person and any other person to whom the order relates.
Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a principal whose agent has been convicted of an offence under this Act has suffered loss as a result of the commission of the offence, then the court may order any sums standing to the credit of the convicted person or any property which the court is satisfied was acquired directly from any gratification obtained by the agent to be applied in making good the loss; and in the case of property which is not money, the court may order the sale of the property and the proceeds of sale paid to the principal.
Any monies remaining from the proceeds of sale of property after payment to the principal of any loss under subsection 1 shall be refunded to the convicted person. Any transfer of any property contrary to any restriction imposed under section 14 is void and, in particular, the court may by order set aside any transaction aimed at defeating the purposes of subsection 1. Any person who obstructs the implementation of the order of a court under subsection 1 or 3 commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred and fifty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both.
The Director of Public Prosecutions may, if he or she considers that any evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act by a person employed by a public body is likely to be found in any documents relating to that person, his or her spouse or child or to a person reasonably believed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to be a trustee or agent for the person, by order authorise any police officer of or above the rank of assistant superintendent named in the order or any special investigator so named to inspect any such documents; and a police officer or special investigator so authorised may, at all reasonable times, enter the place specified in the order and inspect such documents kept in that place and may take copies of any such documents.
Whenever it is shown to a chief magistrate, a magistrate grade I or to the Director of Public Prosecutions upon information and after such inquiry as he or she thinks necessary that there is reasonable cause to believe that in any place there is any document containing any evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act, the magistrate or the Director of Public Prosecutions may, by warrant directed to any police officer, or special investigator, empower that officer or investigator to enter the place by force if necessary and there to search for, seize and detain any such document.
Whenever it appears to any police officer not below the rank of inspector that there is reasonable cause to believe that in any place there is concealed or deposited any document containing evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act and the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that by reason of the delay in obtaining a search warrant the object of the search is likely to be frustrated, he or she may exercise in and in respect of such place all the powers mentioned in subsection 1 in as full and ample a manner as if he or she were empowered to do so by warrant issued under that subsection.
Where any person in or about any place that is searched under subsection 1 or 2 is reasonably suspected of concealing about his or her person any document for which search should be made, that person may be searched and any document so found may be seized and detained; but whenever it is necessary to cause a woman to be searched, the search shall be made by another woman. For the purposes of subsection 1 , the information mentioned in that subsection shall only be acted upon if—.
Corruption Index reflects Moldova’s disappointing response to corruption
Any person who—. Every person to whom a notice is sent by the Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection 1 shall, notwithstanding any written law or any oath of secrecy to the contrary, comply with the terms of that notice within such time as may be specified in the notice and any person who willfully neglects or fails so to comply commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding ninety currency points or to both.
The Director of Public Prosecutions may, in the course of any investigation into or relating to an offence under this Act, invite any person who has given a sworn statement under subsection 1 a or b to give an explanation or amplification of that statement, if he or she considers that it is necessary or desirable so to do. In any civil proceeding under this Act, evidence shall not be admissible to show that any such gratification as is mentioned in this Act is customary in any profession, trade, vocation or calling or in the course of any particular business transaction.
It shall not be a defence to any offence under this Act to establish that any such gratification as is mentioned in this Act is customary in any profession, trade, vocation or calling, or in the course of any particular business transaction. A person employed by a public body to whom any gratification is corruptly given or offered shall arrest the person who gives or offers the gratification to him or her and take over the person so arrested to the nearest police station; and if he or she fails to do so without reasonable excuse, he or she commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding sixty currency points or to both.
Except as hereafter provided, no complaint as to an offence under this Act shall be admitted in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding, and no witness shall be obliged or permitted to disclose the name or address of any informer, or state any matter which might lead to his or her discovery. If any books, documents or papers which are in evidence or liable to inspection in any civil or criminal proceeding contain any entry in which any informer is named or described or which might lead to his or her discovery, the court before which the proceeding is heard, shall cause all such passages to be concealed from view or to be obliterated so far as is necessary to protect the informer from discovery, but no further.
If on a trial for any offence under this Act, the court, after full inquiry into the case, is of opinion that the informer wilfully made in his or her complaint a material statement which he or she knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true, or if in any other proceeding the court is of the opinion that justice cannot be fully done between the parties to the proceeding without the discovery of the informer, the court may require the production of the original complaint, if in writing, and permit inquiry and require full disclosure concerning the informer.
Any person who gives any information which he or she knows or believes to be false, intending by giving it to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he or she will by giving it cause, an investigation or prosecution to be commenced under this Act, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding fifty currency points or to both.
Tinsley, Edited by Alan D. Schrift and Duncan Large. Law, Justice, and Power.
Description Desc. Table of Contents. More in Philosophy—Ethics and Moral Philosophy. However, as section 12 does not apply to foreign officials, it is worth considering the application of the general provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the PCA to the topical issue of facilitation payments. Where facilitation payments are narrowly defined as nominal payments for the purpose of expediting routine non-discretionary governmental action such as processing papers, issuing permits, etc. Nonetheless, caution would be advised, as such an argument would be of limited scope.
Second, even where the reward was not corrupt with respect to the expedition of the application in the particular instance, it could still be corrupt if the court were to find that the gratification was such as to put the official in a position beholden to the third party so as to prefer his interests in future transactions. As for hospitality arrangements, provided they are not excessive or improper, they should not normally raise an inference of corruption.
If the defendant is able to show that the intent was purely for hospitality sake, this would constitute a denial of any corrupt intent and afford a good defence. It would necessarily be a question of fact in each case whether particular arrangements were merely in the way of hospitality or not. As CPIB investigations depend on the leads given in complaints and reports made by the public, there is naturally a policy in favour of encouraging informants to come forward.
First, informants are assured that their identity is protected under sections 36 1 and 36 2 of the PCA as follows:.
Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!
These protections are, however, qualified by section 36 3 of the PCA which provides that the court may require the production of the original complaint or permit inquiry and require full disclosure concerning the informant if:. Second, where the informant is himself implicated in corruption, it is ultimately a matter for prosecutorial discretion whether or not to prosecute him.
In practice, the Public Prosecutor would weigh the public interest of encouraging informants to come forward versus the public interest in bringing all corrupt offenders to justice.
- Hurricane of Independence: The Untold Story of the Deadly Storm at the Deciding Moment of the American Revolution.
- Language selection.
- Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie!
- Matematyka - Fizyka.
- Editors' Picks.
- Navigation menu.
- Nationalism: a critical introduction.
In the appropriate case, the Public Prosecutor may decide not to prosecute where there is a relatively low level of culpability; for example, if the informant did not initiate the bribe but was pressured into the arrangement, lost no time in reporting the incident, and assisted the CPIB in bringing the wrongdoers to justice. However, this would only count in his favour where it was genuinely indicative of remorse and contrition, and not if it was motivated by other reasons such as a falling-out with his conspirators.
There is no formal process for plea bargaining in Singapore. Negotiations may take place via written representations addressed to the Public Prosecutor or in person through the Criminal Case Management System CCMS which affords the prosecution and defence counsel the opportunity to meet early on in proceedings to discuss the issues in dispute and the possibility of a guilty plea.
Alternatively, parties may refer the case for a Criminal Case Resolution Program CCRP where a senior judge would act as a neutral mediator to facilitate a consensual resolution for parties negotiating in person. Section 39 provides that:. The person may do this by filing a suspicious transaction report with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office, which is established under the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force.
Although the provision is targeted at money laundering, bribery and corruption also constitute criminal conduct involving the transfer of property and would also come within its scope. Notably, section 39 does not make it an offence for a lawyer to fail to disclose information which is subject to legal privilege. Deferred Prosecution Agreements — dealing with corporate offenders. In practice, the deterrent effects of the criminal law may well be of limited impact on corporations. To disguise the source and disbursement of the bribes, the defendants used the global financial system by passing the funds through a series of shell companies.
In the wake of this case, the Singapore legislature saw fit to equip the Public Prosecutor with an additional tool for dealing with corporations by adopting the Deferred Prosecution Agreements DPAs framework passed into law on 19 March The DPA achieves these purposes by allowing the Public Prosecutor the flexibility to negotiate with the offending company:. A requirement for the DPA to take effect in Singapore is that once the terms are agreed between parties, they must be approved by the court, which would do so only in the interest of justice, and where the terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
However, such applications to the court will be heard in camera and the judge has discretion as to whether he deems it appropriate to issue grounds for his decision. Failure to comply with any of the terms imposed by the Public Prosecutor would be a breach of the DPA and may result in the Public Prosecutor applying to the High Court to terminate the DPA, following which criminal prosecution may ensue.
There is no requirement that the breach must be material and it is within the prosecutorial discretion whether or not to terminate the DPA and prosecute the company. On the one hand, DPAs allow companies to avoid the expense, reputational damage and uncertainty of being embroiled in a long drawn-out scandal and criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, corporations may be disinclined to agree to the more onerous terms of the DPA if the penalty under the criminal provisions are relatively light, i. Proving corruption — common evidential inferences. The mechanics of proving corruption follow the four elements of corruption. Once the actus reus has been made out, the next step is to infer the intention behind the transaction. This, and the fourth element of guilty knowledge, are necessarily intensive evidential exercises and the courts rely on some common inferences drawn from the following indicia:.
Often, the accused is betrayed by his own efforts to avoid criminal detection. Statutory presumption of corruption under section 8. To provide for more effectual prevention of corruption in the public sector, the legislature has emplaced a presumption in the terms of section 8 of the PCA that the gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as an inducement or reward where, in any proceedings for an offence under sections 5 or 6 of the PCA, it is proved:.
In effect, section 8 essentially operates to presume the mens rea component of the offence; that is, the second, third and fourth elements under sections 5 or 6.
Corruption Index reflects Moldova’s disappointing response to corruption
However, this does not make the offence one of strict liability as it remains available for the accused to rebut the presumption on the facts of the case. The High Court overturned the conviction of the District Court, as it found that the presumption of corruption had been rebutted on the fact that the student had genuine love and affection for the appellant which motivated the acts of sexual intercourse and gifts without ulterior motive. Offence under section 6 is complete notwithstanding that purpose of corrupt transaction was not carried out — section 9. The subjective and conscious or unconscious considerations and influences operating on the mind of the agent are all too easily rationalised, justified or concealed.
The practical effect of section 9 is to render it unnecessary for the prosecution to prove the actual act of showing favour or disfavour. Section 24 2 broadens the scope of the provision by providing that a person shall be deemed to be in possession of resources or property where such resources or property is held by any person whom, having regard to his relationship to the accused person or other circumstances, there is reason to believe to be holding those resources or property in trust for or on behalf of the accused person or as a gift from the accused person.
When applied in tandem with section 21, section 24 is a powerful tool for proving corruption. Section 21 also empowers the Public Prosecutor to require the Comptroller of Income Tax to furnish information relating to the affairs of the accused and his family and any bank to give copies of the accounts of the accused and his family. State enforcement of anti-corruption measures in Singapore invariably takes the form of criminal prosecution and penalties. However, this does not preclude the principal from seeking a civil remedy against the corrupt third party or agent. On the contrary, section 13 imposes an additional criminal penalty, while section 14 is a civil remedy.
They therefore operate independently of each other and are by no means mutually exclusive. This would presumably leave it open for the principal to elect for a remedial constructive trust to be imposed over the bribe monies received following the ruling in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid New Zealand UKPC. Section 37 of the PCA gives the PCA extra-territorial effect with respect to Singapore citizens, such that where any offence under the PCA is committed by a Singapore citizen outside Singapore, that Singapore citizen would be liable for that offence as if it had been committed in Singapore.
The CPIB recognises the increasingly transnational character of corruption. Generally, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act Chapter A applies and sets out a framework for international cooperation to bring criminals to justice, including locating a suspect believed to be in Singapore, obtaining evidence, arranging for attendance of witnesses in foreign countries, taking into custody persons travelling through Singapore, and the enforcement of foreign confiscation orders.
The recent high-profile Keppel case represented the first coordinated Foreign Corrupt Practices Act resolution involving the US and Singapore authorities, and underscored the importance of international collaboration to hold corrupt companies and individuals accountable. Having joined with law enforcement across the Commonwealth and the United States to launch the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre in July , the CPIB remains committed to contributing to the worldwide prevention of corruption globally.
The event was attended by 30 anti-corruption officers hailing from South Asian and Southeast Asian nations, and equipped investigators to better handle financial crimes and corruption cases.
In Singapore, corporations may be liable for corruption under the Penal Code and PCA, just as any natural person would be. That said, there are no specific corporate offences in the PCA, and any prosecution must be brought within the provisions of the PCA as though the company was a natural person. The issue then arises as to when the relevant actus reus of an employee i. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion whether to charge a company, an individual, or both, with corruption. In the upcoming year, we are likely to see the sentencing regime for corruption augmented.