Various Questions That Relate To The Singapore Jurisdiction (Term Paper Sample)

Jurisdiction in Singapore
Name:
Institution:
The answer to Question A.
Three principals determine money laundering offense according to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which are the concealing offense, the arranging, and the acquisition or possession offense. The concealing offense is determined when a person gets concealed of property crimes, disguised to have committed property crime or even when a person has transferred crime property (Money Laundering, n.d). Most of the time the maximum sentence for concealing offense is 14 years imprisonment after conviction or a fine or both. Therefore, any property that constitutes a person benefiting from criminal conduct gets termed as criminal property or when an individual is suspected to have benefited from a property. Moreover, there is the arranging offense which is committed when an individual commits an arranged crime when he or she enters into an arrangement which he or she suspects or knows that will facilitate the retention, acquisition or control of criminal property. Sometimes the individual may commit an arranging offense on behalf of some else who may be concealing their identity from the public. Furthermore, the arranging crime is punishable by the Singapore jurisdiction in that the individual may face 14 years imprisonment on indictment or a fine and sometimes both may apply depending on the arranging offense the individual may have committed. Also, the individual may face a six months imprisonment or fine, and sometimes both may use depending on the arranging crime the individual may have committed. For the prosecution to occur in regards to the arranging offense, the prosecutor must prove that the individual played a role in arranging the criminal property offense knowingly. Also, there is the acquisition, use and possession crime which is committed when an individual acquires criminal property, uses criminal property or is in possession of criminal property. It should get noted that this offense is mainly considered punishable by the Singapore jurisdiction when the person is suspected or knows that the property which got acquired is from criminal conducts or is intended to benefit somebody else. According to Legiswatch (2013, p. 2), it is essential that financial institutions review their policies that exist and diligence measures which get needed in surveillance in assessing the clients' tax risk profile.
The answer to Question B.
No, this constitutes an offense in money laundering through the foreign tax evasion transfer happened unknowingly by the bank. According to ISCA (2015, p.9), the bank may unknowingly assist in the occurrence of this offense means that the services that are provided by the professional accountants could be as a result of valued successful criminal transactions. Therefore, this may include the expertise that created the legal arrangement and trust that facilitated the money laundering to occur. Moreover, the financial advice and financial provision that promoted the elements in the criminal schemes. The bank is liable for such an offense because some of their professional accountants could have played a role in assisting the crime to take place even though it may be willingly or unknowingly. Hence, it is essential that the prosecutor proves that the person had actual knowledge of the transaction that leads to the foreign tax evasion. Furthermore, the professional accountants may be held responsible depending on reasonable grounds that facilitated the occurrence of the criminal offense. Moreover, the professional accountants in the bank may get held accountable if they fail to report the illegal crime earlier. Therefore, it is essential that they professional accountants say any money laundering offenses to the relevant authorities as soon as possible. In this case, the bank forwarded foreign tax evasion money which means the professional accountants liable to the transaction should get held responsible for such an offense because they did not report the incident earlier as required. However, the bank is not responsible for any tipping-off crime because they did not disclose any information to any person because by doing so they would have prejudiced investigation attempts (ISCA, 2015, p.9). On the other hand, when the professional accountants fulfill his responsibilities as required, he or she is not at risk of committing the offense even if the money laundering offense took place. It is essential that the professional accountants report any suspicion or knowledge regarding money laundering to prevent being held responsible for legal actions that could be detrimental (Schott, 2006, p. VI-24).
The answer to Question C.
According to the World Bank (2013, p.23), the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has provided flexible offers by recommending low-risk scenarios, for instance, it has not prescribed a particular way in which countries should introduce these exemptions. These may include the national regulation implementations which require to be clear and the conditions provided for exceptions. For such example, it has covered financial institutions and their activities such that it has provided a list of commercial operations to get referred for CFT and AML purposes. Moreover, the financial institution means that any legal individual who conducts a business some of the listed activities are incurred on behalf of the customer. For instance, acceptance of deposits and any other repayable funds from the public, money transfer services, financial commitments, and guarantees. Furthermore, the FATF enables the trading of foreign exchange, trading of transferable securities and money market instruments such as cheques, bills, and certificates of deposits. Also, FATF enables financial institutions to safe-keep and administer liquid or cash securities on behalf of other individuals (FATF, 2014, p.13). Moreover, the conditions for exemptions provided by the FATF recommend that financial institutions should take action when it comes to low-risk money laundering which may occur in justified and limited circumstances. According to the World Bank (2013, p.24), the conditions for exemptions may be provided to a financial institution by FAFT when the economic activities are carried out by a legal individual such that there is minimal risk of money laundering. Also, the FATF allows countries not to apply some financial institutions recommendations provided that it occurs in strictly justified and limited circumstances which deliver low risks to money laundering occurrence. Furthermore, FATF recommendations permit countries not to apply CFT or AML requirements to particular financial activities because of the magnitude of the business or no evidence to justify the risk ranking (FATF, 2014, p. 31). It is crucial to note that the primary challenge faced by countries is seeking the provision of low-risk exemptions which demonstrates the justified circumstances depending on the activities of the financial institution.
The answer to Question D.
According to, this requires businesses to have various systems put in place to ensure that any activities of money laundering and terrorist financing are detected and prevented from operating. The 2007 Regulations covers the following issues such as providing that there is proper recording-keeping systems in place, reporting procedures, internal control, communication and risk assessment and management. Therefore, businesses are required to establish policies that people are aware of and enable people to understand that it is their responsibility to report any money laundering activities that may occur. It gets activated by the business outlining the type and complexity of its operations and how it sells its services. Furthermore, the business may describe the kind of transaction it undertakes for its actions and the associated risks that may occur in each region of the business departments. Therefore, it is vital that businesses allocate responsible internal controls that are effective in risk management and should also ensure that there is the appointment of sufficient authority to carry out risk management plans. Furthermore, recording keeping is essential in managing any potential sanction breach the clients' identity get kept thus there is supportive evidence that may identify a victim in case they are involved in money laundering activities. It is crucial to note that the records must get kept for five years after the end of any relevant business transactions which will provide a brief history of an individual's transactions. Moreover, there should be proper reporting procedures in place which may be documented providing relevant personnel about the procedures to be used. Also, Asset freezing may help in managing the money laundering attempts by an individual. According to OFSI (2018, p.13), the assets that may face freezing may include the individual's accounts that are known or suspected to have gotten involved in money laundering or even the individual's cheques, drafts and money orders may face freezing. According to the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap 186), 7 financial institutions get prohibited from providing any form of financial service that could lead to the North Korean weapons program (N.R.F, 2009). Also, proper training and communication may help the professionals in the businesses to be aware of money laundering activities which will help them to identify and recognize such transaction in case they occur (ICAEW, n.d).
The answer to Question E.
According to Section 2 of the reporting and tipping-off act, suspicion may not get defined as existing legislation through in case of law it indicates that suspicion is more than just speculations even if it fails to show knowledge of the individual in committing an offense (ISCA, 2017, p.9). Therefore, the reasonable ground to suspect an individual may be based on actual knowledge or shutting someo...