The general provisions are found in articles 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (APC), which apply to corruption in the public and private sectors. A crime under either of these provisions could result in a maximum penalty of $100,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years. Neither the Penal Code nor the PCA provides for Safe Harbor monetary policies for gifts, hospitality or other forms of hospitality, nor are there favorable assumptions under the regulations if these gifts are less than a certain monetary value. As a general rule, and only as a general rule, any agreement that can be considered wasteful, extravagant or exaggerated should be avoided in order to conclude that the agreements were intended for some form of corruption. As mentioned earlier, there is no formal defence under “reasonable procedures” in Singapore to reduce or eliminate liability for corruption offences due to the implementation of a compliance program. The “subjective knowledge of guilt” in the fourth element should not be confused with the subjective intent of corruption in the third, which is already summarized in the first part of the two-stage investigation for the third element. This distinction is important because a particular transaction that the defendant subjectively did not recognize as corrupt at the material time could subsequently be considered corrupt and the PCA was not intended to punish persons who did not have this necessary measure. In particular, the courts have recently expressed doubts as to whether, once the defendants` subjective intentions are found to be objectively corrupt within the meaning of the third element, it should still be necessary to prove subjective culpability that the company was objectively corrupt. Objective standards of corruption should apply equally to all, and the general maxim is that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Similarly, ignorance of the “ordinary and objective norm” should not be an excuse.
Given that the offences of bribery or bribery involving public servants under the Criminal Code largely overlap with those under the CPA and that the sentence imposed under the Criminal Code is lower than the penalties prescribed under the CPA, it is very rare for prosecutions under the Criminal Code to be imposed for obtaining or accepting unlawful satisfaction. The Penal Code of 1871 (Penal Code) contains other provisions on bribery and corruption. These include offences related to the bribery of national “officials” in accordance with articles 161 to 165 of the Criminal Code. In practice, however, the offences provided for in the Penal Code are rarely used to prosecute corruption offences. Prosecutors generally rely instead on crimes committed under the PCA. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is the only body responsible for fighting corruption in Singapore. The CPIB reports to the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO) and reports directly to the Prime Minister, allowing it to operate independently. In more than 60 years of the fight against corruption, a deterrent attitude has always been adopted, ensuring that there is no cover-up and that corruption is fought without fear or preference. With a formidable and trustworthy reputation, the CPIB acts quickly and vigorously to enforce strict anti-corruption laws impartially for corruption in the public and private sectors. During the investigation process, the CPIB will work with various government agencies and private organizations to gather evidence and obtain information. In addition, section 23 of the CPA expressly states that the fact that the granting of gifts or other benefits is customary in a trade or profession is not a valid defence against an offence of corruption. As regards hosting arrangements, unless they are excessive or inappropriate, they should not normally indicate corruption.
If the defendant can prove that the intention was only for hospitality, this would constitute a denial of any corrupt intent and allow for a good defense. It would necessarily be a question of fact as to whether or not certain agreements were solely for hospitality purposes. In any event, good faith hospitality agreements are unlikely to trigger the subjective element of knowledge of guilt, since the donor likely seriously believed that such transactions were legitimate and permissible (based on the “knowledge of guilt” test in Chan Wing Seng). The justification of public service has been extended to cases of corruption in the private sector concerning the use of public funds, the provision of public services or government contracts. It is increasingly common for the Singapore government to outsource and privatize public services. This has led to the need to ensure that these private actors are held accountable for the public services they are responsible for providing and how public money is spent. To combat corruption in the private sector, the CPIB launched the Anti-Corruption Partnership Network (ACPN) in September 2018. It aims to encourage companies to take anti-corruption measures and transmit a culture of integrity and business ethics to their employees through the exchange of meetings and discussions.
Singapore`s determination and commitment to the fight against corruption remains deeply unwavering. Singapore`s anti-corruption approach is alongside the best international standards, both on the ground and in terms of international cooperation with other anti-corruption agencies. The Government`s implementation of anti-corruption measures in Singapore takes the form of prosecutions and sanctions without exception. However, this does not prevent the client from bringing a civil action against the corrupt third party or the vicarious agent in accordance with § 14 (1) CPA. This gives legal effect to the common law civil lawsuit of “money that was received and was received,” where a principal can recover from an agent bribes or secret commissions that the agent received in violation of his fiduciary duties. However, the law distinguishes between the corruption of a public official and that of individuals in that there is a presumption of corruption in certain cases involving the bribery of public officials. In this context, section 8 of the CPA provides that DPAs may be entered into for offences committed before, from the date of coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act and falling under the Sixth Schedule to the CPC and involving corruption offences under sections 5 and 12 of the CPA.