Home minister cannot confirm if deportation choice is part of plea bargain in S$3 B money laundering case

SINGAPORE: During the Parliamentary sitting on Tuesday (6 August), Ms Sylvia Lim, Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC from the Workers’ Party, asked Home Minister K Shanmugam in a supplementary question whether the choice of deportation countries for the ten convicted in S$3 billion money laundering case is part of the plea bargain process.

In response, Minister Shanmugam did not confirm this, noting that while such discussions between the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the defendants’ lawyers might occur, the choice of deportation country is not a significant factor in the plea bargaining process.

“As regards the choice of deportation and whether that is part of the plea bargain process, again, strictly speaking, if the offender, the person who is asked to leave can choose to go wherever he wishes to go to, then the relevance of it becomes small,” he explained.

“I don’t engage in plea bargains, that’s a matter between AGC and the defendants’ lawyers, I cannot rule out that these discussions take place, but I can tell you what the legal position is.”

Ms Lim, who is also the WP Chairman, filed a Parliamentary question asking whether the Government has a standard protocol for consulting the authorities of the intended receiving countries before proceeding with the deportations of foreigners convicted of offences in Singapore.

She further inquired about the specific case of a money laundering convict who was deported from Singapore to Cambodia in June 2024 and subsequently expelled by Cambodia after one month, asking what consultations the Government undertook with Cambodian authorities before deporting him.

In response, Minister Shanmugam said the Singapore government does not have a standard protocol for consulting the authorities of the intended receiving countries before proceeding with deportations.

Regarding the convict, Zhang Ruijin, who was expelled by Cambodia, he noted that no discussions took place with the Cambodian authorities prior to his deportation in June.

“We do not consult foreign countries beforehand, as a general rule, as to whether a traveller is allowed to go there,” Shanmugam said.

“The foreign country can, as a sovereign state, choose to allow entry, or it can choose to disallow entry when the person arrives on its shores.”

Zhang, one of the ten convicted in the S$3 billion case, was expelled from Cambodia by its General Department of Immigration on 16 July.

Shanmugam also highlighted that, as a general rule, the government does not disclose discussions with foreign governments on deportations due to operational security and intelligence concerns.

“It’s not in (the) public interest to disclose it,” he added.

In response to a supplementary question from Lim about concerns over offenders choosing to be deported to more favourable jurisdictions to avoid prosecution for other crimes, Shanmugam explained that under Singapore law, foreign nationals can choose any destination their passports permit.

“What we think about what will happen to them in the receiving country… is legally irrelevant,” said Shanmugam.

“It’s not something that the government can take into account.”

Ms Lim then asked the Minister whether he agreed that, given the transnational nature of money laundering, Singapore should be concerned about ensuring that offenders face justice for offences committed abroad.

Specifically, she inquired if the government is interested in the likelihood of these offenders facing prosecution or charges for predicate offences they may have committed overseas.

Minister Shanmugam acknowledged Singapore’s commitment to international standards and its role in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

However, without answering directly to Ms Lim’s question, he emphasized that while offenders will have served their time in Singapore, it is unrealistic to control or expect uniform prosecution of their overseas offences by other countries.