Seized money-laundering assets exceeding S$2 billion yet to be surrendered to the state

Even as the last of the 10 foreign nationals convicted for being involved in Singapore’s S$3 billion anti-money laundering bust has been sentenced, attention is turning towards the more than S$2 billion in assets that were frozen or seized, but remain in limbo.

Some S$944.5 million in assets seized from the perpetrators have already been surrendered to the state. These range from cars, property and ornaments to physical cash, donations to charities and balances in bank accounts.

Non-cash assets from this sum will be sold in auctions, and, together with the cash assets, will be paid into the state’s consolidated fund, which works like a bank account in Singapore.

However, more than S$2 billion in assets remain frozen or seized, but have not yet been surrendered to the state. In response to queries, the police said these assets belong to 17 other foreigners still under investigation in relation to the case.

The police said they will maintain the prohibition against the disposal and custody of these seized assets, until they are dealt with by the court at the close of the case.

Stephanie Chew, associate director at TSMP Law Corporation, said seized assets are generally held separately from the consolidated fund, but may subsequently be ordered to be forfeited to the consolidated fund under relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code.

She noted that if no one is charged with criminal offences for these assets, Section 370 of the code will apply.

“Under (this section), a report of the seizure must be made to the relevant court one year at the latest after the seizure of the property,” she told The Business Times. “The court has various powers to deal with the matter, including adjourning the matter for further investigations.”

The S$3 billion in assets seized in this case have been handled and safeguarded by the police; as at March 2024, nearly S$650,000 had been spent to maintain and store them, said Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam in May.

The expenses, which include engaging specialised services to handle the upkeep the assets and preserve their value, are borne by the state and covered by the forfeited cash.

Shanmugam previously stated in a reply to a parliamentary question that if the seized monies are still relevant for the purposes of investigation or trial, the court cannot dispose of them.

Chew added that the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act has the power to deal with such assets, such as through the application of confiscation orders.

When an asset has been given such an order, it is considered forfeited to the state and will likely be added to the consolidation fund, she said.

Assets forfeited to the state

Of the S$944.5 million forfeited to the state from the 10 money launderers, Turkish passport holder Vang Shuiming and Vanuatu passport holder Su Jianfeng surrendered the largest sums – S$179 million each. This is about 90 per cent and 95 per cent of their respective seized assets.

Two other individuals with fewer assets seized – Wang Baosen (S$8 million) and Su Wenqiang (S$6 million) – have forfeited the full sum of their assets.

The full list of assets forfeited by the 10 foreigners were disclosed by the court as the money laundering case concluded this week.

According to court documents, 60 properties were surrendered to the state. The amounts paid towards these properties and estimated realisable values stood at S$372.7 million.

The records listed 36 forfeited vehicles, including models such as the Rolls-Royce Dawn and Toyota Alphard. Money launderer Lin Baoying’s green Rolls-Royce Dawn Black Badge MY21 was valued at S$1.6 million when it was forfeited; a Porsche 911 Targa 4S that was towed away from a Good Class Bungalow along Third Avenue, where Su Jianfeng stayed, was worth S$888,000.

Other seized assets include cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, ether and Dogecoin, several watches, luxury handbags, pieces of jewellery and ornaments. Among the unique items forfeited were Su Haijin’s collection of 69 Bearbricks figurines, which the authorities have been unable to peg a value to, and Vang Shuiming’s Kawai Grand Piano Model CR40, valued at S$240,000.

Early in the investigations, court proceedings revealed that the police were seeking documents from up to 10 financial institutions. With the conclusion of the case, even more local and international banks have been found to have been involved. Around 159 bank accounts containing around S$372.8 million were surrendered.

The money launderers had several bank accounts to receive deposits of their laundered funds. These accounts were either in their names, or in the names of their associates or companies. For example, Su Jianfeng, his wife Chen Qiuyan and their associated companies held the most accounts – 36 in total.

These banks caught in the web were DBS, OCBC, Bank of Singapore, UOB, RHB, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), Citibank, CIMB, Standard Chartered Bank, Maybank, HSBC, Credit Suisse, UBS, Julius Baer and LGT Bank.

Some of the convicted also had accounts with the brokerage UOB Kay Hian.

The total amount of money stored in these accounts was S$372.8 million.

Alongside these financial institutions, lenders were also involved as creditors or named in the charges, because the money launderers attempted to submit forged documents to explain their substantial wealth.

Deutsche Bank was a creditor to Golden Eagle Assets, a company where Lin Baoying and Zhang Ruijin were directors.

Business filings reviewed by BT also identified banks that were creditors to companies linked to 24 associates of the 10. These were HSBC, Morgan Stanley, UOB, DBS, Bank of Singapore and Credit Suisse.

These associates had been previously identified by the Ministry of Law in a list sent to regulated dealers of precious stones and metals, who are required to report suspicious transactions to the police.

Lin Baoying, the lone woman convicted in the case, also had an insurance policy from AIA worth S$178,090.40, which was forfeited to the state.

Among the institutions, OCBC has sought to regain assets from Su Baolin, filing a claim in Singapore’s High Court for at least S$19.7 million and for the possession of his mortgaged Sentosa Cove villa.

The court has since ruled in the bank’s favour, and the bank has put up the property along Ocean Drive for sale. The plot of land went unsold at its first auction conducted by Edmund Tie, as the sole bid did not meet the reserve price of S$27.1 million.

Meanwhile, shophouses linked to the case have been put on the market by DBS, as the properties had earlier been used as collateral to secure loans from the bank.

BT reported that DBS is understood to have accepted offers totalling over S$100 million for 13 mortgaged shophouses in Chinatown and Geylang. These properties were owned separately by Su Binghai and Su Fuxiang, who are linked to the case.

The Singapore authorities in February confirmed that they were preparing for the prohibition orders on the seized assets to be lifted, so that proceeds can be recovered.

Official responses

The anti-money laundering case was addressed in Parliament last October, as the amount of assets involved ballooned over the course of the investigations.

Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo, Second Finance Minister Indranee Rajah and Minister of State for Trade and Industry Alvin Tan made ministerial statements on the case, fielding some 50 questions posed by Members of Parliament.

At the time, the ministers said Singapore will be reviewing its anti-money laundering controls through an inter-ministerial committee, including looking into the incentive administrative process for single family offices.

The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority tabled in March several proposals to strengthen Singapore’s anti-money laundering regime, including increasing fines faced by corporate service providers for failing to fulfil their anti-money laundering obligations. 

What’s next?

With their sentences backdated to Aug 15 last year, at least five of the convicted individuals have been deported following a one-third remission on their jail terms. This means they served two-thirds of their sentences.

An Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) spokesman said on May 6 that the deported individuals will be barred from re-entering Singapore.

The authority said in April that the “location of deportation is dependent on the admissibility of the foreigner, based on his or her valid passport”.

Thus far, the convicted individuals have been deported to Cambodia and Japan. The remaining money launderers are also likely to be deported when they complete their sentences.

Other individuals, such as Wang Dehai’s brother-in-law Su Yongcan and cousin Wang Huoqiang, are still at large. Investigations are ongoing.

Source: Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

How AI is exacerbating cybercrime: Opinion ADV: <Complimentary> Launch of the Express Track in the General Division of the High Court (27 Jun)