Latest news with #LegalProfessionAct
Singapore Law Watch
3 hours ago
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
$3b money laundering case: MinLaw acts against 4 law firms and 1 lawyer over seized properties
$3b money laundering case: MinLaw acts against 4 law firms and 1 lawyer over seized properties Source: Straits Times Article Date: 16 Jul 2025 Author: Samuel Devaraj The Director of Legal Services, a department under MinLaw, conducted investigations into 24 law practices, and 11 of the probes have been concluded. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has taken four law firms and one lawyer to task for anti-money laundering breaches over the purchase of properties in the $3 billion money laundering case, with one of the practices receiving the maximum penalty of $100,000. In a press release on July 15, MinLaw said it is supporting the Director of Legal Services (DLS) in conducting inquiries into the law practices that were involved in the conveyancing of the real estate seized in an anti-money laundering operation in August 2023. It said the DLS conducted investigations into 24 law practices that were involved, and 11 of the probes have been concluded. The DLS heads the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, which is a department under MinLaw that oversees the regulation of all law practice entities and the registration of foreign lawyers in Singapore. The DLS has ordered two law practices to pay financial penalties of $30,000 and $100,000 respectively. A third law practice was issued a statutory notice of the intention to order it to pay a financial penalty of $70,000. A final decision will be made after receiving and considering the firm's written representations, if any, MinLaw said. The ministry added that the DLS privately reprimanded a fourth law practice, and also referred one lawyer to the Law Society of Singapore for disciplinary action. MinLaw did not name the four law practices and the lawyer that have received enforcement action in its press release. The Straits Times has contacted the ministry for more information. The DLS has decided it will not be necessary to take further regulatory action against seven other law practices. Said MinLaw: 'The DLS is considering the inquiry findings for the remaining 13 law practices, and whether any lawyers concerned should be referred to the Law Society of Singapore for disciplinary action.' Among its roles, the Law Society maintains the standards of conduct of the legal profession in Singapore. MinLaw added that a law practice that breaches its anti-money laundering obligations can face regulatory control action against its licence. In response to queries from ST, a MinLaw spokesperson said law practices found to have breached their anti-money laundering obligations under the Legal Profession Act may be given a warning, ordered to pay a penalty of up to $100,000, or have their law practice licence suspended or revoked. A lawyer who breaches his or her anti-money laundering obligations can face disciplinary proceedings, which could result in monetary penalties, suspension from legal practice or disbarment. Singapore's largest case of money laundering involving $3 billion in cash and assets saw 10 foreigners arrested in multiple islandwide raids here on Aug 15, 2023. The nine men and one woman, who were originally from Fujian, China, were jailed, deported and barred from re-entering Singapore. MinLaw noted that all law practices and lawyers are subject to anti-money laundering obligations under the Legal Profession Act. These obligations include analysing money laundering risks relating to each client and performing customer due diligence measures that are commensurate with the client's risk profile. A law practice or lawyer also must file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the police if they suspect the client may be engaged in money laundering, MinLaw noted. It added that if a law practice or lawyer decides to continue to act for the client despite these suspicions, it should substantiate and document the reasons for the decision. It must also adopt enhanced customer due diligence and monitoring measures. MinLaw said law practices must also have internal anti-money laundering policies, procedures and controls that fulfil the regulatory requirements and are sufficiently robust. The ministry said it issued a guidance note to the legal industry on June 23 to highlight the responsibilities of law practices and lawyers under their statutory anti-money laundering obligations. The note covered areas including analysing client risk, identifying material red flags, establishing a client's source of wealth and the timeline for filing an STR. MinLaw said that while Singapore has a comprehensive anti-money laundering regime, the landscape is constantly changing as new money laundering risks and methods emerge. It added: 'Everyone has a role in ensuring that Singapore's anti-money laundering systems continue to be robust, from the law enforcement agencies, to the service providers such as the financial institutions and law practices, to the general public.' The law firms and lawyer were the latest to be dealt with in relation to the $3 billion money laundering case. On July 4, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said nine financial institutions were given $27.45 million in composition penalties, and action was taken against 18 staff. MAS said the financial institutions did not adequately check on customers' sources of wealth, even though there were discrepancies in the documents they had provided. Eight of the nine institutions did not adequately investigate suspicious transactions flagged by their own systems. For the staff, breaches included failure to detect or adequately assess multiple deficiencies during the onboarding of higher-risk customers. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
AsiaOne
a day ago
- Business
- AsiaOne
$3b money laundering case: MinLaw acts against 4 law firms and 1 lawyer over seized properties , Singapore News
SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has taken four law firms and one lawyer to task for anti-money laundering breaches over the purchase of properties in the $3 billion money laundering case, with one of the practices receiving the maximum penalty. In a press release on July 15, MinLaw said it is supporting the Director of Legal Services (DLS) in conducting inquiries into the law practices that were involved in the conveyancing of the real estate seized in an anti-money laundering operation in August 2023. It said the DLS conducted investigations into 24 law practices that were involved, and 11 of the probes have been concluded. The DLS heads the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, which is a department under MinLaw that oversees the regulation of all law practice entities and the registration of foreign lawyers in Singapore. The DLS has ordered two law practices to pay financial penalties of $30,000 and $100,000 respectively. A third law practice was issued a statutory notice of the intention to order it to pay a financial penalty of $70,000. A final decision will be made after receiving and considering the firm's written representations, if any, MinLaw said. The ministry added that the DLS privately reprimanded a fourth law practice, and also referred one lawyer to the Law Society of Singapore for disciplinary action. MinLaw did not name the four law practices and the lawyer that have received enforcement action in its press release. The Straits Times has contacted the ministry for more information. The DLS has decided it will not be necessary to take further regulatory action against seven other law practices. Said MinLaw: "The DLS is considering the inquiry findings for the remaining 13 law practices, and whether any lawyers concerned should be referred to the Law Society of Singapore for disciplinary action." Among its roles, the Law Society maintains the standards of conduct of the legal profession in Singapore. MinLaw added that a law practice that breaches its anti-money laundering obligations can face regulatory control action against its licence. In response to queries from The Straits Times, a MinLaw spokesperson said law practices found to have breached their anti-money laundering obligations under the Legal Profession Act may be given a warning, ordered to pay a penalty of up to $100,000, or have their law practice licence suspended or revoked. A lawyer who breaches his or her anti-money laundering obligations can face disciplinary proceedings, which could result in monetary penalties, suspension from legal practice or disbarment. Singapore's largest case of money laundering involving $3 billion in cash and assets saw 10 foreigners arrested in multiple islandwide raids here on Aug 15, 2023. The nine men and one woman, who were originally from Fujian, China, were jailed, deported and barred from re-entering Singapore. MinLaw noted that all law practices and lawyers are subject to anti-money laundering obligations under the Legal Profession Act. These obligations include analysing money laundering risks relating to each client and performing customer due diligence measures that are commensurate with the client's risk profile. A law practice or lawyer also must file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the police if they suspect the client may be engaged in money laundering, MinLaw noted. It added that if a law practice or lawyer decides to continue to act for the client despite these suspicions, it should substantiate and document the reasons for the decision. It must also adopt enhanced customer due diligence and monitoring measures. MinLaw said law practices must also have internal anti-money laundering policies, procedures and controls that fulfil the regulatory requirements and are sufficiently robust. The ministry said it issued a guidance note to the legal industry on June 23 to highlight the responsibilities of law practices and lawyers under their statutory anti-money laundering obligations. The note covered areas including analysing client risk, identifying material red flags, establishing a client's source of wealth and the timeline for filing an STR. MinLaw said that while Singapore has a comprehensive anti-money laundering regime, the landscape is constantly changing as new money laundering risks and methods emerge. It added: "Everyone has a role in ensuring that Singapore's anti-money laundering systems continue to be robust, from the law enforcement agencies, to the service providers such as the financial institutions and law practices, to the general public." The law firms and lawyer were the latest to be dealt with in relation to the $3 billion money laundering case. On July 4, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said nine financial institutions were given $27.45 million in composition penalties, and action was taken against 18 staff. MAS said the financial institutions did not adequately check on customers' sources of wealth, even though there were discrepancies in the documents they had provided. Eight of the nine institutions did not adequately investigate suspicious transactions flagged by their own systems. For the staff, breaches included failure to detect or adequately assess multiple deficiencies during the onboarding of higher-risk customers. [[nid:719802]] This article was first published in The Straits Times . Permission required for reproduction.
Singapore Law Watch
02-06-2025
- Singapore Law Watch
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy Source: Straits Times Article Date: 31 May 2025 Author: Shaffiq Alkhatib Helen Chia Chwee Imm pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy. On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. Two other charges were considered during her sentencing. Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public. He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences. Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients. One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father. The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a 'lack of clarity' on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences. In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999. However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month. Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then discussed legal issues concerning the woman's care and custody of her son. Subsequently, and without Chia's involvement, the woman and her son's father signed an agreement to manage aspects of their child's life amicably. But on Aug 24, 2017, the woman contacted Chia again after disputes with the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the lawyer. Chia agreed, concealing the fact that she did not have a practising certificate. After collecting $2,000 in legal fees, Chia gave her client legal advice. In a court application filed on Nov 9, 2017, Chia indicated that another lawyer was the solicitor in charge of the case, deliberately excluding her own name. It was only on Dec 18, 2017, after the woman asked Chia to attend a mediation session with her, that Chia revealed she was an undischarged bankrupt. In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman. Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend – the second victim – asked her to act as the lawyer in her divorce proceedings and her plan to apply for a personal protection order. They met on Feb 13, 2018, and Chia reviewed her friend's divorce papers and personal protection order case file. The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise. Instead, Chia told the friend about the follow-up steps and quoted her legal fees of $20,000, saying it was a 'friend' rate – a third of what she would usually charge. After receiving a $3,000 deposit from her friend, Chia gave her legal advice and did a host of legal work for her. Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter. On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees. Chia's bankruptcy order was annulled on May 22, 2018, and she was allowed to practise law again. But a disciplinary tribunal was appointed after a complaint of misconduct was made against her. In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her. On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia. She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022. In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her. She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21. Shaffiq Alkhatib is The Straits Times' court correspondent, covering mainly criminal cases heard at the State Courts. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print 150
CNA
30-05-2025
- General
- CNA
Jail for woman who lied that she could act as family lawyer for her clients
SINGAPORE: A former lawyer who pretended that she could still represent clients and give legal advice was sentenced to six months' jail on Friday (May 30). Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, collected close to S$40,000 (US$31,000) in legal fees from two clients she took on without authorisation. She earlier pleaded guilty to one charge under the Legal Profession Act for falsely claiming that she was authorised to act as a lawyer, and one count of cheating. Two similar charges were taken into consideration for her sentencing. Chia was called to the Bar in 1999 but did not have the required practising certificate from Dec 17, 2016, to May 30, 2018. This was due to a bankruptcy order against her, which was annulled on May 22, 2018. Despite not being authorised to act as a lawyer, Chia concealed this fact from a woman who engaged her over a custody battle in August 2017. Chia gave the woman legal advice, and drafted and vetted documents for a court application related to the care and custody of the woman's son. She filed the court application under another lawyer's name as she knew she was not authorised to act for the woman, and twice got another lawyer to attend court hearings in her stead. Chia collected S$13,685.60 in legal fees and disbursements from this woman. Another victim was Chia's friend, who approached her for legal help in divorce proceedings around February 2018. Chia similarly hid the fact that she was not authorised to act as a lawyer from this woman, who wanted to apply for a personal protection order. When Chia got another lawyer to attend court mentions on her behalf, the victim voiced concerns about the lawyer's performance as he did not seem to be familiar with her case. However, Chia assured her friend that she and the other lawyer were working on the case together. The victim paid Chia S$26,000 before finding out through a news article that she was a bankrupt facing disciplinary proceedings. Chia was struck off as a lawyer on Aug 15, 2022. She has since made full restitution to the two victims. Chia's lawyer Nicholas Jeyaraj Narayanan had sought a fine of S$6,000 for the Legal Professions Act charge and an unspecified fine for the cheating charge. He highlighted Chia's mental health struggles, previously telling the court that she suffered from depression at the time due to "tragic incidents" involving her previous clients. Chia, who specialised in family law, was acting for the mother of a boy in a care and custody case when the boy was killed by his father in October 2015. In October 2016, she was also acting for a woman who was brutally slashed by her ex-husband, said Mr Narayanan. However, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay sought six to 12 months in prison, citing the effect of Chia's actions on public confidence in the legal profession.
New Paper
30-05-2025
- New Paper
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy. On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges - one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. Two other charges were considered during her sentencing. Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public. He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences. Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients. One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father. The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a "lack of clarity" on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences. In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999. However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month. Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then discussed legal issues concerning the woman's care and custody of her son. Subsequently, and without Chia's involvement, the woman and her son's father signed an agreement to manage aspects of their child's life amicably. But on Aug 24, 2017, the woman contacted Chia again after disputes with the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the lawyer. Chia agreed, concealing the fact that she did not have a practising certificate. After collecting $2,000 in legal fees, Chia gave her client legal advice. In a court application filed on Nov 9, 2017, Chia indicated that another lawyer was the solicitor in charge of the case, deliberately excluding her own name. It was only on Dec 18, 2017, after the woman asked Chia to attend a mediation session with her, that Chia revealed she was an undischarged bankrupt. In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman. Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend - the second victim - asked her to act as the lawyer in her divorce proceedings and her plan to apply for a personal protection order. They met on Feb 13, 2018, and Chia reviewed her friend's divorce papers and personal protection order case file. The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise. Instead, Chia told the friend about the follow-up steps and quoted her legal fees of $20,000, saying it was a "friend" rate - a third of what she would usually charge. After receiving a $3,000 deposit from her friend, Chia gave her legal advice and did a host of legal work for her. Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter. On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees. Chia's bankruptcy order was annulled on May 22, 2018, and she was allowed to practise law again. But a disciplinary tribunal was appointed after a complaint of misconduct was made against her. In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her. On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia. She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022. In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her. She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21.
