The new asset recovery strategy includes legal provisions empowering authorities to petition courts to sell seized, rapidly depreciating goods or high-maintenance assets even before conviction, such as fine art, antiques, investment-grade wine, vessels, exotic livestock like fish and reptiles, and racehorses.

“Singapore has had a reputation for strict anti-money-laundering laws over the last few years,” said Sinyee Koh, director of Integrity Consulting, which provides anti-money-laundering consulting services. “That a case of such a nature can happen now shows that it takes more than strict anti-money-laundering laws to deter illicit financiers.”

The case does not mean Singapore’s anti-money-laundering regime is flawed, Koh said, since the banks were able to detect suspicious transaction reports and enforcement action was taken “relatively swiftly”. “But there is always room to improve,” she said.

“[Non-financial businesses] are still on a learning curve of how to properly implement anti-money-laundering controls,” Koh said. “Anti-money-laundering regulators of these sectors can exercise more oversight and outreach to help such non-financial businesses scale that curve.”

In the wake of the S$3 billion case, Singapore’s collaborative actions between public agencies and the private sector to uncover suspicious activities have underscored the country’s commitment to combating crime and positioning itself as a global leader, experts say.

The city state’s central bank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, recently launched a shared platform with six major domestic banks to facilitate information-sharing on customers exhibiting suspicious activity.

David Lewis, managing director and global head of anti-money-laundering advisory at risk advisory firm Kroll said the central bank’s use of technology and public-private sector collaboration for more effective financial crime risk management was “second to none”, listing the new shared platform as an example.

“Nationally, Singapore has seen big wins for law enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute money laundering and recover assets, including returning substantial sums to victims,” Lewis said.

The asset recovery report showed that from January 2019 to June this year, Singapore confiscated S$6 billion connected to illicit activities, with S$416 million returned to victims and S$1 billion forfeited, while the majority of the balance is associated with ongoing cases.

“This is a loss-prevention measure to ensure that any restitution to victims is maximised, whilst depriving money launderers of ill-gotten gains – which in turn acts as a deterrence against the laundering of funds through the Singapore financial ecosystem,” he said.

“All major international financial centres and trade hubs are susceptible to money laundering risks. What is key is the regulatory response to any cracks identified in the system. To this end, the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s National Asset Recovery Strategy is an important step in the right direction.”

Michael Meadon, a sanctions and financial crime expert and Asia-Pacific director at LSEG Risk Intelligence, similarly pointed out that the extensive nature of money laundering worldwide has enhanced Singapore’s standing among compliance and anti-money-laundering experts in light of recent notable cases.

“The true measure of a country’s anti-money-laundering effectiveness lies not in the absence of such crimes being reported, but in their ability to detect, report, and address them openly and promptly – an area where Singapore excels,” Meadon said.

“While there is always room for improvement, Singapore’s recent handling of such cases demonstrates that its anti-money-laundering controls are operational and ready.”