Tag Archives: CEA

Combating money laundering and countering terrorism financing

Posted on 6 Sep 2015 | Comments Off on Combating money laundering and countering terrorism financing

As part of efforts to enhance industry awareness of anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT), CEA and CAD conducted a second joint industry outreach/briefing session on 27 July 2015 at the HDB Auditorium. The event was attended by some 350 participants.

In his opening remarks, CEA Deputy Executive Director Lee Kwong Weng said that “AML and CFT are very important issues and the Singapore government takes them seriously”. He emphasised the important role the real estate agency industry has to play in AML and CFT, and that “we must not let the industry be unwittingly made use of to finance terrorism”.

In the first of two briefings, CAD Commercial Affairs Officer Fam Suen Li highlighted the vulnerabilities of the real estate sector to money laundering and terrorism financing through the sharing of case studies. CEA Principal Manager (Policy & Planning) Cedric Peeris then brought the audience through the requirements in the Practice Circular on prevention of money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, and key learning points from inspections of estate agents for compliance with AML/CFT measures.

The participants were reminded that lodging a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) is a legal obligation. STRs play an important role in combating money laundering and terrorism financing. Under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act [CDSA], it is mandatory for a person, in the course of his/her business or employment, to lodge a STR if he/she knows or has reason to suspect that any property may be connected to a criminal activity. Failure to disclose such knowledge, suspicion, or other related information constitutes an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding $20,000.

Other than briefing sessions, CEA issued a revised Practice Circular on AML and CFT in February 2015, which superseded the previous circular issued in November 2013.

The updated circular sought to increase industry understanding on issues relating to AML/CFT. It provided information on the measures to prevent against such activities that might be conducted through property transactions. Also highlighted were the key provisions, offences and obligations for compliance by estate agents and salespersons. CEA also provided a self-assessment checklist to guide estate agents on AML/CFT procedures, training and compliance management.

Comments Off on Combating money laundering and countering terrorism financing

Posted in General

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Agent punished for misleading potential buyer

Posted on 6 Sep 2015 | Comments Off on Agent punished for misleading potential buyer

Registered salesperson, Ho Wee Chun, Eugene, was disciplined for misleading a potential buyer that her offer was rejected, bringing disrepute to the real estate agency industry. At the time of offences, Ho was a salesperson with PropNex Realty Pte. Ltd.

Ho represented the potential buyer in purchasing a property and conveyed her offered price to the seller’s salesperson. However, before getting a response, Ho informed the potential buyer that her offer was rejected, when in fact it was still being considered.

After the seller’s salesperson informed Ho that the potential buyer’s offer had been accepted, Ho did not update the potential buyer. Instead, he tried to get her to increase her offer. She requested Ho to notify the seller that she would take up a bridging loan in order to raise her offer. In exchange, she wanted a longer period of four weeks to exercise the Option to Purchase. Ho then misled the potential buyer that he had informed the seller’s salesperson of her request, when this was not the case.

Subsequently, Ho avoided all attempts by the potential buyer to contact him. He then liaised with a salesperson from his own estate agent to purchase the property at the same price offered by the potential buyer. He represented his colleague to deliver the cheque and offer letter to the seller’s salesperson.

Ho then informed the potential buyer that the property had been taken. He misled her to believe that his colleague had marketed and closed the transaction for the eventual buyer, when he was the one who had done so.

Ho has brought disrepute to the estate agency industry, which is a breach of the Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care. He was sentenced to a financial penalty of $11,000 and a suspension of seven months, with two other suspensions of six months and one month running concurrently. He was also ordered to pay fixed costs of $1,000.

Comments Off on Agent punished for misleading potential buyer

Posted in CEA

Tagged , , , , , ,