Domestic bribery

Legal framework

Describe the individual elements of the law prohibiting bribery of a domestic public official.

The principal anti-corruption statute in Singapore is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 (PCA). The main offence-creating sections are 5 and 6, which prohibit active and passive bribery in the public and private sectors. Section 6 of the PCA specifically prohibits bribery in an agent-principal context, whereas section 5 covers all other instances of bribery. The bribery of domestic public officials is specifically prohibited under sections 11 and 12.

Under section 11 of the PCA, which prohibits bribery of members of parliament, it is an offence for:

  • any person to offer any gratification to a member of parliament as an inducement or reward for the latter’s doing or forbearing to do any act in his or her capacity as a member of parliament; or
  • any member of parliament to solicit or accept any gratification as an inducement or reward for his or her doing or forbearing to do any act in his or her parliamentary capacity.

Under section 12 of the PCA, which prohibits bribery of public officers generally, it is an offence for:

  • any person to offer any gratification to any member of a public body as an inducement or reward for: (1) the member’s voting or abstaining from voting at any meeting of the public body in favour of or against any measure, resolution or question submitted to that public body; (2) the member’s performing or abstaining from performing, or his or her aid in procuring, expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing the performance of, any official act; or (3) the member’s aid in procuring or preventing the passing of any vote or the granting of any contract or advantage in favour of any person; or
  • any member of a public body to solicit or accept such gratification.

Where a public official has received any gratification, there is a statutory presumption under section 8 of the PCA that the gratification was given and received corruptly, unless the contrary is proved. The burden lies on the accused person to show otherwise on a balance of probabilities.

The PCA does not impose liability for simple failure to prevent bribery of a domestic public official. However, the PCA does provide for accessory liability for acts of abetment and conspiracy, if so proved.

The Penal Code 1871 (PC) also contains provisions for bribery offences involving domestic public servants (sections 161 to 164), which include:

  • a public servant taking a gratification, other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act;
  • a person taking a gratification in order to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means;
  • a person taking a gratification to exercise personal influence over a public servant;
  • a public servant abetting any of the above offences; and
  • a public servant obtaining anything of value without consideration, or with consideration that they know to be inadequate, from a person concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by the public servant.

Section 165 of the PC is also relevant.

Lastly, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (CDSA) is an important accessory legislation that provides for the confiscation of corrupt and other criminal proceeds.

Scope of prohibitions

Does the law prohibit both the paying and receiving of a bribe?

Both paying and receiving bribes are prohibited.

Definition of a domestic public official

How does your law define a domestic public official, and does that definition include employees of state-owned or state-controlled companies?

Under the PCA, section 2 defines ‘public body’ to mean ‘any corporation, board, council, commissioners or other body that has power to act under and for the purposes of any written law relating to public health or to undertakings or public utility or otherwise to administer money levied or raised by rates or charges in pursuance of any written law’. It was held in Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 1189 that the National University of Singapore was a public body within the meaning of section 2 of the PCA as ‘public utility’ included the provision of public tertiary education.

The PC however defines ‘public servant’ differently under section 21 to include every:

  • officer in the Singapore Armed Forces;
  • judge;
  • officer of a court of justice;
  • assessor assisting a court of justice or public servant;
  • arbitrator;
  • officeholder who is empowered to confine any person;
  • officer of the government;
  • officer or employee of a public body established for a public function;
  • officer acting on behalf of the government; and
  • member of the Public Service Commission, the Judicial Service Commission, or Legal Service Commission.

Employees of state-owned or state-controlled companies may or may not fall within either the PCA definition of ‘public body’ or the PC definition of ‘public servant’ depending on the nature of the company.

Gifts, travel and entertainment

Describe any restrictions on providing domestic officials with gifts, travel expenses, meals or entertainment. Do the restrictions apply to both the providing and the receiving of such benefits?

Any ‘gratification’ provided or received with the requisite corrupt intent will be caught by anti-bribery laws.

Under section 2 of the PCA, ‘gratification’ is defined widely as including:

  • money;
  • gifts;
  • loans;
  • fees;
  • rewards;
  • commissions;
  • valuable security;
  • property or interest in property of any description, whether movable or immovable;
  • any office, employment, or contract;
  • any payment, release, discharge or liquidation of any loan, obligation or other liability whatsoever, whether in full or in part; and
  • any service, favour, or advantage of any description whatsoever, including protection from any disciplinary or penal penalty and the exercise of or the forbearance from the exercise of any right or any official power or duty.

The Court of Appeal has observed that the above statutory definition is not exhaustive and that parliament intended the term to be of ‘wide application’: Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha [2014] SGCA 45. The PCA also disallows any defence that the gratification was customary in any profession, trade, vocation, or calling.

Under the PC, ‘gratification’ is not expressly defined but its explanatory note states that it is not limited to money or anything with monetary value.

Section 165 of the PC is also relevant to the receiving of gifts by public servants. 2024 marked the first time that section 165 of the PC was prosecuted, in Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran [2024] SGHC 251 (Iswaran). As set out at [67]–[68] of the Iswaran judgment, section 165 criminalises the following situation:

  • a public servant ('A') accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain;
  • for A or for any other person;
  • any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which A knows to be inadequate;
  • from a person of the following description:
    • any person whom A knows to have been, to be or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by A or having any connection with the official functions of A or of any public servant to whom he (A) is subordinate (ie, A’s superior); or
    • any person whom A knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned.

The requisite mens rea for section 165 is knowledge on the part of the A, that the giver of the valuable thing was concerned, or likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by A or having any connection with A's official functions or those of A's superior. Unlike section 161 of the PC, there is no requirement that the benefits received constitute a motive or reward bearing some connection with A's official acts, exercise of his or her official functions or rendering of service or disservice to any person.

In other words, for a charge under section 165 of the PC to be made out, the prosecution does not need to prove that the benefit was in exchange for the receiver agreeing to do something. 

Facilitating payments

Have the domestic bribery laws been enforced with respect to facilitating or ‘grease’ payments?

Yes, facilitation or ‘grease’ payments to foreign officials are not permitted. Section 12(a)(ii) of the PCA expressly prohibits the offer of gratification to any member of a public body as an inducement or reward for, among other things, that member ‘expediting’ any official act.

Public official participation in commercial activities

What are the restrictions on a domestic public official participating in commercial activities while in office?

Under the Singapore Government Instruction Manual, which governs all public officers in Singapore:

  • public officers are required to seek approval before they can engage in outside activities that are related to their official duties and in outside employment, and are to ensure that there should be no conflict of interest between their official duties and their participation in these outside activities; and
  • public officers are required to make annual declarations of interests in investments and properties to the head of their agency, including investments and properties owned by their spouse and financially dependent children.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers also provides a comprehensive list of obligations setting out how ministers are to act and arrange their personal affairs. Some of the restrictions set out therein include a prohibition on ministers against practising in a professional firm (or other business) for remuneration or playing a part in the day-to-day management of the firm's affairs. A minister also cannot enter into transactions where his or her financial interests may, even conceivably, come into conflict with his public duties. The Code of Conduct also provides strict restrictions on the types of gifts that a minister may accept.

On 22 November 2023, parliament passed the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill to create a framework in the Constitution for Singapore's ministers and the president to be able to take on international roles in their private capacities, if in line with national interest. Prior to this latest amendment, the Constitution only allowed for ministers to serve international appointments in their private capacities if permission was granted by the prime minister, and for the president to take on public or international roles only in his official capacity.

Payments through intermediaries or third parties

In what circumstances do the laws prohibit payments through intermediaries or third parties to domestic public officials?

All corrupt payments to domestic public officials, whether through intermediaries or other third parties, are prohibited. Section 5 of the PCA expressly provides that the offence of bribery can be made out by a person either acting ‘by himself or in conjunction with any other person’.

There may also be liability for any intermediaries under the PCA or CDSA, or both.

Individual and corporate liability

Can both individuals and companies be held liable for violating the domestic bribery rules?

Both individuals and corporate entities can be held liable for bribery offences, including bribery of a domestic public official. The primary bribery offences in the PCA and PC apply to all ‘persons’. The Interpretation Act 1965 provides that ‘person’ includes ‘any company or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporate’.

Private commercial bribery

To what extent does your country’s domestic anti-bribery law also prohibit private commercial bribery?

The general prohibitions against bribery in sections 5 and 6 of the PCA apply to both public and private sector corruption.

Defences

What defences and exemptions are available to those accused of domestic bribery violations?

The general exceptions set out in the PC would technically apply to domestic bribery violations. For example, the defences of mistake and accident under sections 79 and 80, respectfully, could be applicable. However, given the nature of domestic bribery violations, the factual matrices on which such defences could be applicable are exceedingly rare.

There are no other specific defences or exceptions for domestic bribery violations. Apart from the above, the only way for an acquittal is by successfully raising a reasonable doubt over at least one of the constituent elements of the bribery charge.

Agency enforcement

What government agencies enforce the domestic bribery laws and regulations?

Attorney-General’s Chambers

In Singapore, the Attorney-General is also the Public Prosecutor who is solely responsible for the control and direction of all criminal prosecutions and proceedings. Officers of the Attorney-General’s Chambers Crime Division, particularly from the Financial and Technology Crime Division, act as deputy public prosecutors who conduct the prosecutions and appeals of most white-collar crimes and commercial offences.

Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau

This is the exclusive anti-corruption agency dedicated to investigating offences under the PCA and CDSA, and other related offences. It is an independent body that reports directly to the Prime Minister’s office, and its officers have extensive investigative powers under the PCA in addition to the general investigative powers given to the police by the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC).

Singapore Police Force

The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) is the main department of the Singapore Police Force responsible for investigating white-collar, financial, and corporate offences under the PC, the Companies Act 1967, and the Security and Futures Act 2001, among others. CAD officers have wide investigative powers under the CPC to interview and record statements from individuals and order the production of documents. Warrants may be issued in the event of non-compliance.

Monetary Authority of Singapore

As Singapore’s central bank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore is responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services sector. It can, in the course of investigations, require the disclosure of information about securities and futures contracts, and the production of companies’ books, search companies’ premises, and interview individuals. Together with the CAD, it also exercises investigative powers into market misconduct offences (eg, insider trading and market manipulation), money laundering, and terrorism financing.

Patterns in enforcement

Describe any recent shifts in the patterns of enforcement of the domestic bribery rules.

Domestic anti-bribery laws have always been and continue to be strictly enforced. In a press release dated 30 April 2024, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) reported that the corruption situation in Singapore remains firmly under control. It received 215 corruption-related reports in 2023, an 8 per cent decrease from the 234 corruption-related reports received the year before in 2022, of which 81 reports were registered as new cases for investigation. Similar to previous years, private sector corruption cases form the majority (86 per cent) of cases investigated in 2023.

Prosecution of foreign companies

In what circumstances can foreign companies be prosecuted for domestic bribery?

Foreign companies can be prosecuted for bribery if it was committed in Singapore.

In addition, section 29 of the PCA read with section 108A of the PC would expose a foreign company in Singapore to prosecution for abetting bribery even if the actual act of bribery took place overseas.

Sanctions

What are the sanctions for individuals and companies that violate the domestic bribery rules?

Sanctions include a fine, a term of imprisonment, or both.

Under the PCA, the prescribed punishment under sections 5 and 6 is a fine not exceeding S$100,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. For offences involving a government contract or the bribery of a member of parliament or public body, the punishment is enhanced to a fine not exceeding S$100,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or both. The court may also order the offender to pay a further penalty equivalent to the amount of corrupt gratification received under section 13 of the PCA.

Under the PC, individuals and companies may be liable for a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.

Further, under section 7 of the CDSA, the court also has the power to order the confiscation of any benefits derived by an individual or company convicted of bribery.

Recent decisions and investigations

Identify and summarise recent landmark decisions and investigations involving domestic bribery laws, including any investigations or decisions involving foreign companies.

Enhanced sentencing framework for private sector corruption

In October 2022, the High Court laid down an enhanced sentencing framework for private sector corruption in Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor [2023] 4 SLR 1385. Applying the revised framework, the High Court in Goh Ngak Eng more than doubled the offender’s initial sentence despite the lack of a cross-appeal by the prosecution on sentence. The framework was applied more recently in Teo Chu Ha (alias Henry Teo) v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2023] 5 SLR 1305.

The BP Singapore case

On 17 August 2023, the High Court of Singapore, in Chang Peng Hong Clarence v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2023] SGHC 225, increased the jail terms for a former BP Singapore manager and a businessman involved in a US$5.88 million corruption case after an appeal against conviction and cross-appeal on sentence. The former BP manager, Mr Clarence Chang, was found guilty of accepting US$3.95 million in bribes over 19 occasions from Mr Koh Seng Lee, 60, the director of marine fuel trading firm Pacific Prime Trading (PPT), in exchange for advancing PPT's business interests with BP Singapore, though each appellant had a conviction on a charge concerning a payment to Mindchamps Preschool @ City Square Pte Ltd overturned on appeal. Both appellants had their sentences enhanced from 54 months to 80 months. In addition, Mr Chang was ordered to pay a penalty equivalent to the bribes he received between 2006 and 2010 (ie, S$5,877,595), with a total in-default imprisonment term of 2,129 days (~70 months).

On 4 December 2024 and further to a criminal reference from Mr Chang, the Court of Appeal clarified several questions of public interest in Chang Peng Hong Clarence v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 58 (Clarence Chang (CA)). In particular, the Court clarified that under section 13(1) of the PCA, a sentencing judge can and must impose a penalty for each charge, when an accused person has been convicted of multiple offences involving the acceptance of gratification. Per the Court of Appeal, this ensures that offenders fully disgorge their ill-gotten gains and are appropriately deterred from engaging in corrupt practices. The Court also established a framework for calibrating the in-default imprisonment terms for non-payment of penalties. Under this framework:

  1. The Court determines an initial in-default imprisonment term for each offence by dividing the penalty amount (equal to the gratification received) by a standard daily monetary value (set in Clarence Chang (CA) as S$1,000 per day), to calculate the number of days of in-default imprisonment corresponding to each penalty. This number may be enhanced or ameliorated within the statutory limits, depending on factors such as the financial position of the accused.
  2. The Court then ensures that the in-default imprisonment term for each charge does not exceed the legal maximum (of 30 months for PCA offences).
  3. The aggregate in-default imprisonment terms are thereafter adjusted so that the aggregate imprisonment term does not surpass the statutory limit of 20 years.
  4. The Court then also adds the amounts set out in the take into consideration (TIC) charges, and can impose an in-default imprisonment term for the amounts in the TIC charges.
  5. Finally, the Court considers the totality principle and may refine the in-default imprisonment terms depending on factors such as whether the total in-default imprisonment provides sufficient disincentive to not pay the penalties, as well as whether the offender has the financial means to pay the penalty.

Mr Chang's total penalty order was left unchanged (ie, S$5,877,595), though the aggregate in-default imprisonment term was enhanced to 120 months. 

Acquittals in matter relating to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Tiong Seng Contractors (TSC) 

In October 2024, the District Court in Public Prosecutor v Pay Teow Heng and another [2024] SGDC 267 acquitted a former LTA deputy group director and a director at construction firm TSC, in relation to graft-related offences. In reaching its decision, the District Court noted that the statements recorded by the CPIB were inaccurate and unreliable, including embellishments and paraphrases by the investigating officer, and found that one of the investigating officers had a 'blatant disregard for the truth'. The Court therefore found that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Attorney-General's Chambers has appealed against both acquittals, and the matter is pending before the General Division of the High Court.

Conviction and sentencing of former Minister of Transport

In January 2024, the former Minister of Transport, S Iswaran, was charged with 27 charges, including two charges of corruption under section 6(a) of the PCA, as well as a charge for obstructing the course of justice under section 204A of the PC as well as 24 charges under section 165 of the PC. The charges related to alleged bribes valued at more than S$384,000. Subsequently, the accused was served eight additional charges concerning valuables of a quantum of around S$19,000.

The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges and the matter was transferred to the General Division of the High Court on the prosecution's application. Subsequently, the accused undertook numerous interlocutory challenges, including challenges relating to the criminal case disclosure procedures under the CPC, through which the defence sought, but were unsuccessful in obtaining the conditioned statements of the prosecution's witnesses.

The matter was fixed for trial in September 2024. On the first day of trial, the prosecution reduced the two charges under section 6(a) of the PCA to charges under section 165 of the PC, and the accused pleaded guilty to one charge under section 204A of the PC as well as four charges under section 165 of the PC, concerning his receipt without consideration of tickets for a flight, the Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, liquor and a bicycle, from persons concerned with business connected to the accused's official functions as Minister for Transport.

The prosecution sought a global sentence of six to seven months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a global sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment. The Court found that the prosecution's sentencing position was manifestly inadequate. The Court considered factors such as the high level of the accused's office, great degree of influence, premeditation in relation to certain offences, as well as the harm caused (being the tendency for public distrust concerning the independence of procurement processes and the integrity of public officials). The Court also considered the TIC charges, the accused's contributions to the public, his voluntary disgorgement as well as his plea of guilt. In the round, he found that a global sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was appropriate.

The accused did not appeal the sentence, and commenced serving his sentence on 7 October 2024.