Corrections regarding false statements of fact by Bloomberg LP, The Edge Singapore, The Independent Singapore and The Online Citizen

1. The Ministry of Justice is aware of the following publications that make false factual statements about Good Class Bungalow (“GCB“) transactions:

  1. Bloomberg LP (“Bloomberg“) article published on her website on December 12, 2024 (“Bloomberg article“) and reposted to Bloomberg’s Facebook and X accounts.
  2. The Bloomberg article was republished in full by The Edge Singapore on December 12, 2024, and reposted to The Edge Singapore’s account on Facebook;
  3. Independent Singapore (“TISG”) article published on its website on December 12, 2024 and reposted to TISG’s account on Facebook; And
  4. The online citizen (“TOC”) article published on its website on December 12, 2024 and reposted on TOC’s accounts on Facebook and Instagram.

2. The Bloomberg article communicates the following untruths:

  1. There are no publicly available government records of GCB sales transactions without caveats.
  2. The identity of the beneficial owner is not required to be disclosed to the government, and the government is therefore unaware of the identity of the beneficial owner, in GCB real estate transactions purchased using a trust agreement or shell company.
  3. GCB ownership transactions can be carried out without any government checks on the identity of the beneficial owners.
  4. The primary responsibility for combating money laundering in real estate transactions is left to real estate agents and other service providers.
  5. For GCB real estate transactions there is:
    1. no publicly accessible government document of the GCB transaction if no reservation is made; And
    2. no requirement to disclose the identity of the beneficial owner in a trust agreement or shell company to the government;

    and this allows parties (including ministers and wealthy migrants) to trade such property in a way that facilitates money laundering.

3. The untruths in the other publications are set out in the appendix Appendix.

4. These false statements attack the transparency of real estate transactions in Singapore. Together, these falsehoods create the impression that Singapore does not have a robust legal framework to require disclosure of information to the government in GCB transactions, allowing misconduct to occur undetected. It is in the public interest that these falsehoods are addressed so that public confidence in government is not undermined.

Facts:

Property ownership and transfer information, including for all GCBs, is available on the Integrated Land Information Service portal (“INLIS”), regardless of whether a reservation has been made for the sale transaction.

5. Property ownership and transfer information, including for all GCBs, is available on INLIS, which is operated by the Singapore Land Authority (“SALAD”). This is regardless of whether a reservation has been made for the sales transaction.

6. Alerts are not intended to monitor real estate transactions or ensure transparency. The purpose of a caveat is to protect the interests of the buyer, mortgagee or other parties who have a legal right to the property. They have been accommodated voluntarily by parties who want to protect their interest in real estate. For example, someone purchasing real estate may choose to file a caveat to protect his/her interests pending the completion of the transaction and the filing of the final transfer with SLA’s Land Titles Registry.

The government requires strict disclosure of the identity and citizenship of buyers and beneficial owners in all landed property transactions, including GCB transactions.

7. The government has clear disclosure requirements regarding the identity and citizenship of purchasers and beneficial owners for all landed property transactions, including GCB transactions. This is regardless of whether a contingency is placed on the transaction, and regardless of whether the purchase is made by an individual, an entity or through a vehicle such as a trust or corporation, including a shell company.

8. The government takes a strict approach to the ownership of landed properties by foreigners. Under the Residential Property Act 1976 (“RPA“), foreign individuals (including permanent residents) and foreign entities wishing to acquire such properties must obtain approval. As of 2021, no approvals have been given for foreign buyers to acquire GCBs in any capacity, personal or otherwise.

9. As part of the sales process for landed properties, including GCBs, SLA requires the identity and citizenship of the buyer to be declared to SLA when the deed of transfer is lodged with the Land Registry. In addition, the buyer’s lawyer must confirm that the information in the deed of transfer is correct and that all relevant provisions of the RPA have been complied with.

10. Additionally:

  1. For all real estate transactions involving land concluded through trust agreements, lawyers are required to submit a copy of the trust deed to the SLA. SLA checks and verifies the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner.
  2. For all landed property transactions where the buyer or ultimate owner is a company, the applicant must meet strict requirements before obtaining a clearance certificate to purchase the landed property. The company must be incorporated in Singapore and all their directors and members must be Singapore citizens or Singapore entities as defined under the RPA. In addition, companies incorporated in Singapore are required under the Companies Act 1967 to maintain accurate and up-to-date information about their beneficial ownership.

The government has the primary responsibility to combat money laundering in real estate transactions and has put in place a robust anti-money laundering (“AML”) framework to counter the money laundering risk in real estate transactions.

11. The government has introduced a robust AML framework to combat money laundering risk, which applies in the context of real estate transactions, including those through trust agreements and companies. The framework is supported by a three-pronged strategy:

  1. Strengthening our legal and regulatory framework Prevent criminals operating in Singapore;
  2. Develop measures to improve Detect signs of illegal activity; And
  3. Taking decisive administrative, regulatory and criminal measures to Enforce our laws.

12. The government requires regulated private sector ‘gatekeepers’ involved in real estate transactions to comply with AML requirements to carry out checks to identify and verify the identity of their customers, including beneficial owners. Where there are higher risks, gatekeepers must also verify the sources of wealth of their clients. The financial institutions involved must know the customers and the purpose of the transactions and, if necessary, the sources of the funds. The requirements are strict and comparable to the standards in leading financial centers. Obligations are also imposed on lawyers who handle the transactions, real estate salespeople and real estate agencies. These requirements and obligations are laid down in law.

13. The government also requires that these gatekeepers, including financial institutions, have processes in place to promptly identify and submit a Suspicious Transaction Report to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office of the Singapore Police Force’s Commercial Affairs Department, as soon as there is suspicious activities are discovered that may be related to criminal behavior in their interactions with their customers. The government is responsible for analyzing the reported information and taking enforcement action.

14. The Minister of Culture, Community and Youth and the Second Minister for Law, Mr Edwin Tong, has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office to issue a correction directive to Bloomberg LP, The Edge Singapore, The Independent Singapore and The Online Citizen in relation to their articles or posts. The Corrections Directive requires recipients to post a notice with the original article or message (or at a specified online location, where the article or message has been removed), with a link to the government clarification.

Appendix: Falsehoods communicated in each publication

1. The article of The Edge Singapore communicates the following untruths:

  1. There are no publicly available government records of Good Class Bungalow (“GCB“) sales transactions if no reservations have been made.
  2. The identity of the beneficial owner is not required to be disclosed to the government, and the government is therefore unaware of the identity of the beneficial owner, in GCB real estate transactions purchased using a trust agreement or shell company.
  3. GCB ownership transactions can be carried out without any government checks on the identity of the beneficial owners.
  4. The primary responsibility for combating money laundering in real estate transactions is left to real estate agents and other service providers.
  5. For GCB real estate transactions there is:
    1. no publicly accessible government document of the GCB transaction if no reservation is made; And
    2. no requirement to disclose the identity of the beneficial owner in a trust agreement or shell company to the government;

    and this allows parties (including ministers and wealthy migrants) to trade such property in a way that facilitates money laundering.

2. The article of Ee Independent Singapore communicates the following untruths:

  1. There are no publicly available government records of GCB sales transactions without caveats.
  2. There is no obligation to disclose the identity of the beneficial owners to the government when GCBs are purchased through shell companies or trust agreements.
  3. For GCB real estate transactions there is:
    1. no publicly accessible government document of the GCB transaction if no reservation is made; And
    2. no requirement to disclose the identity of the beneficial owner in a trust agreement or shell company to the government;

    and this allows parties to trade such properties away from public or government scrutiny.

3. The article of The online citizen communicates the following untruths:

  1. There are no publicly available government records of GCB sales transactions without caveats.
  2. The identity of the beneficial owner is not required to be disclosed to the government, and the government is therefore unaware of the identity of the beneficial owner, in GCB property transactions purchased using a trust agreement.
  3. GCB ownership transactions can be carried out without any government checks on the identity of the beneficial owners.
  4. For GCB real estate transactions there is:
    1. no publicly accessible government document of the GCB transaction if no reservation is made; And
    2. no requirement to disclose the identity of the beneficial owner in a trust agreement to the government;

    and this allows parties (including ministers) to trade such properties, outside of public or government control.