Question:
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what percentage of financial crime cases that involve confiscated assets result in full or partial restitution to victims; (b) what proportion of seized scam proceeds in the past five years have been forfeited to the state rather than returned to victims; and (c) what measures are in place to ensure that all reasonably identifiable scam victims receive restitution before funds are transferred to the Government's Consolidated Fund.
Answer:
Ms Sun Xueling, Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Social and Family Development:
1. When investigating financial crime cases, the Police would freeze bank accounts and seize any assets suspected to be proceeds of crime or which constitute evidence. The Police do their best to ascertain the ownership of the seized property by examining bank transaction records. The seized property may often be needed for continuing investigations or subsequent court proceedings. If they are not so needed, the Police would apply to the Court for the property to be returned to the rightful owners.
2. Where the persons entitled to the seized property cannot be ascertained or found, the Police would publish a notice in the Government Gazette to request for persons to establish their claim to the property within six months. The seized property would only be forfeited to the State if no one establishes a claim after the six-month notice period.
3. It is operationally challenging to apportion and thus track the number of scam proceeds returned to victims or forfeited to the state. This is because seized proceeds could be co-mingled with other non-scam-related activities, such as cases involving unlicensed moneylending proceeds. Seized proceeds may also not be directly co-related to crime committed in that same year. It would also be resource intensive, given the high volume of scam cases. The MHA will explore the feasibility of tracking these amounts in the longer term. Thank you.
