Written Answer by Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, to Parliamentary Question on Number of Prosecution Agreements and Conditional Warnings Involving Corporations

15 FEB 2022

15 February 2022 Posted in Parliamentary speeches and responses

Mr Murali Pillai (Member of Parliament for Bukit Batok SMC)

Question

To ask the Minister for Law (a) to date, how many deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) with corporations have been entered into; and (b) what are the considerations for the Public Prosecutor to issue conditional warnings to corporations in lieu of prosecution as opposed to entering into DPAs in respect of offences which are covered under the Sixth Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Written Answer:

  1. To date, no deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) have been entered into, since their introduction in 2018.
  1. The second part of the Member’s question touches on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Public Prosecutor (PP). Whether the PP issues a conditional warning, enters into a DPA, or takes some other approach, will depend on the PP’s assessment of which option best serves the public interest, based on the specific facts of each case.
  1. A conditional warning may be more suitable in cases where the entity had sufficiently addressed the wrongdoing, made restitution or substantial reparations, and had cooperated with law enforcement authorities.
  1. On the other hand, a DPA may be more suitable for more complex arrangements, because these are clearly provided for under the statutory framework. For example, the legislation provides that a DPA may require the entity to implement a compliance programme or enhance an existing compliance programme, and to appoint persons to supervise and monitor its internal controls and implementation of the compliance programme.
  1. It is not possible to exhaustively describe the considerations, as each case will be assessed on its own facts.

Last updated on 15 February 2022