3 days ago
‘Modest sum' of $4,500 confiscated from foreigner over undeclared cash brought into Singapore
Find out what's new on ST website and app.
Under Singapore's anti-money laundering laws, travellers must declare if they are carrying more than $20,000 when entering or leaving the country.
SINGAPORE – A 47-year-old foreigner who brought more than $49,000 into Singapore without declaring the cash has had $4,500 confiscated by the state, in addition to being fined $3,000 for the offence.
The money in various currencies was found in the sling bag and luggage of Ding Rongwei, a St Kitts and Nevis national, in Changi Airport after he arrived in Singapore from Cambodia in July 2024.
Under Singapore's anti-money laundering laws, travellers must declare if they are carrying more than $20,000 when entering or leaving the country.
In the current case, while there was insufficient evidence to prove that the cash was illegally obtained, a district judge concluded that it was 'just and appropriate' to forfeit part of the seized money as an additional deterrent and punishment.
In a written judgment published on July 26, District Judge Vince Gui said a 'modest sum' of $4,500 would be commensurate with the culpability and harm arising from this offence.
The confiscated sum represented about 15 per cent of $29,486.29 – the amount exceeding $20,000 – that was liable to be confiscated.
The judge said: 'The accused failed to satisfactorily disclose the source and intended purpose of the undeclared cash, thereby undermining the authorities' efforts to investigate their legitimacy.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Asia Thailand, Cambodia agree to 'immediate and unconditional ceasefire' to de-escalate border row
Singapore Tanjong Katong sinkhole backfilled; road to be repaved after LTA tests
Singapore Ong Beng Seng set to plead guilty on Aug 4 in case linked to ex-transport minister Iswaran
Asia Gunman kills 5 security guards near Bangkok's Chatuchak market before taking own life
Singapore COE quota up 2.6% to 18,701 for August to October
Business Resilient economy versus uncertain outlook splits views on Singapore's monetary policy
Singapore HPB looking for vaping, smoking counselling services for up to 175 secondary school students
Singapore Jail for former pre-school teacher who tripped toddler repeatedly, causing child to bleed from nose
'The sums moved were not extraordinary but also not insignificant.'
The remaining cash will be returned to Ding.
He was stopped at Changi Airport on July 21, 2024, by an officer from the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority.
After Ding said he had nothing to declare, the officer checked his bag and discovered an assortment of currencies.
Ding initially denied that he was carrying more cash, but eventually admitted that there was money in his luggage.
The money was in nine different currencies, including US dollars, Hong Kong dollars, Singapore dollars, Philippine pesos and Chinese yuan.
During investigations, he claimed that he did not know he was required to report movement of sums above $20,000 into and out of Singapore.
He admitted to moving money into and out of Singapore on two previous occasions.
On June 3, 2024, he moved $32,360.35 into Singapore, and on July 4, 2024, he moved $49,645 out of Singapore.
Ding pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to report the movement of cash.
The maximum sentence is a fine of up to $50,000 and a jail term of up to three years.
Two similar charges over each of the previous occasions were taken into consideration during sentencing.
According to Ding, he travelled frequently as a car salesman with a Singapore company, helping high-net-worth Chinese nationals purchase vehicles from his company.
He said the cash he was carrying came from his family-run provision shop business in the Philippines, supplemented with $15,000 he had borrowed from his employer for his travels.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Louis Ngia sought a fine of $3,000, and also asked the court to confiscate a sum of $4,500.
He argued that disclosure helps law enforcement agencies detect and combat money laundering, and it was therefore not only cases where there is 'actual money laundering' that are of concern.
The prosecutor said it was unbelievable that Ding, a frequent traveller, did not know of the reporting requirement.
He also pointed out Ding's shifting claims as to the source of the cash in US dollars and Hong Kong dollars.
Ding first said these were profits from the previous year, but subsequently claimed that they were a loan to be deducted from the next year's profit.
Ding's lawyer, Mr Ravindran Ramasamy, asked for a fine of $2,500. He objected to a confiscation order, arguing that the monies were not linked to criminal conduct.
The lawyer said Ding did not have a credit card and habitually carried large amounts of cash.
He warned against the risk of injustice in imposing confiscation orders not based on proven wrongdoing but on a perceived likelihood.
In his judgment, Judge Gui said it was open to the court to make a confiscation order even when the prosecution had not proven that the cash is linked to criminal conduct.
In the current case, he agreed that a fine was appropriate as the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the undeclared cash was 'tainted' by illegality.
But the judge also noted that the prosecution did not concede that the funds came from legitimate sources.
He noted that the difficulty in establishing the legitimacy of the funds stemmed primarily from Ding's failure to provide credible explanations regarding the source and purpose of the undeclared cash.
The judge said Ding failed to give further information about the supposed family business in the Philippines, and noted that the sum in Philippine pesos was just a fraction of the cash seized.
Ding also did not give the name of the supposed employer who allegedly lent him $15,000.
'His explanations raised more questions than provided answers,' said the judge.
