SG Talk

Disclosure of buyers’ identities, citizenship required in all landed home sales, including GCB deals: MinLaw https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/propert...als-minlaw

Flaws in the Article "Disclosure of buyers’ identities, citizenship required in all landed home sales, including GCB deals: MinLaw"
 
The article "Disclosure of buyers’ identities, citizenship required in all landed home sales, including GCB deals: MinLaw" published on Business Times on December 23, 2024, contains several flaws.
 
1. Misrepresentation of Transparency:
 
- The article claims that there are no publicly available government records of GCB sale transactions if caveats were not lodged. This is false.
- The Ministry of Law clarifies that information on property ownership and transfers, including GCBs, is available on the Integrated Land Information Service portal, regardless of whether a caveat was lodged.
 
2. Misleading Information on Beneficial Ownership:
 
- The article asserts that the ultimate beneficial owner's identity need not be disclosed to the government in GCB deals carried out through a trust arrangement or shell company.
- This is misleading. The Ministry of Law states that buyers and ultimate beneficial owners of all landed residential property transactions, including GCBs, are required to disclose their identities and citizenship.
 
3. Incorrect Assumption on Money Laundering:
 
- The article suggests that GCB deals could be carried out without any checks by the government on the identities, facilitating money laundering.
- This is inaccurate. The Ministry of Law emphasizes that regulated gatekeepers involved in property transactions must comply with anti-money laundering requirements, including verifying customers' and beneficial owners' identities.
 
4. Oversimplification of Caveats:
 
- The article implies that caveats are primarily used for tracking property transactions and ensuring transparency.
- This is incorrect. The Ministry of Law clarifies that caveats are intended to protect the interest of the purchaser, mortgagee, or other parties who have legal rights in the property.
 
5. Misleading Statement on Responsibility for Combating Money Laundering:
 
- The article states that property agents and other service providers are primarily responsible for combating money laundering in home sales.
- This is a misrepresentation. While gatekeepers have a crucial role in verifying identities and sources of wealth, the government maintains a robust legal framework to ensure transparency and prevent financial crime.
 
Overall, the article presents a distorted picture of Singapore's property transaction regulations and transparency measures. It misrepresents the availability of information, the disclosure requirements for beneficial ownership, and the role of gatekeepers in combating money laundering. The Ministry of Law's clarification highlights the importance of accurate reporting and the need to rely on official sources for information.

The article states that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) requires disclosure of buyers' identities and citizenship in all landed home sales, including Good Class Bungalow (GCB) deals. However, there are some potential flaws and considerations:

- *Lack of clarity on enforcement*: The article doesn't provide details on how MinLaw plans to enforce this requirement. Will there be penalties for non-compliance, and if so, what are they? ¹

- *Potential impact on foreign buyers*: The requirement may deter foreign buyers, who might be concerned about disclosing their identities and citizenship. This could lead to a decrease in demand for landed properties, potentially affecting the market. ²

- *Possible loopholes*: The article doesn't address potential loopholes, such as the use of trusts or nominees to conceal buyers' identities. How will MinLaw ensure that buyers are not using these methods to avoid disclosure?

- *Data protection concerns*: The requirement raises data protection concerns, as buyers' personal information will be disclosed. How will MinLaw ensure that this information is kept confidential and secure?

- *Alignment with existing regulations*: The article doesn't clarify how this requirement aligns with existing regulations, such as the Residential Property Act. Will there be any changes to these regulat
ions to accommodate the new requirement? ³

Shanmugam is screwed.😆

The article "Disclosure of buyers’ identities, citizenship required in all landed home sales, including GCB deals: MinLaw" is inconsistent in its portrayal of Singapore's property transaction regulations and transparency measures. Here are the key inconsistencies:
 
1. Transparency of GCB Transactions:
 
- Inconsistent Claim: The article states that there are no publicly available government records of GCB sale transactions if caveats were not lodged, implying a lack of transparency.
- Contradictory Fact: The Ministry of Law clarifies that information on property ownership and transfers, including GCBs, is publicly available on the Integrated Land Information Service portal, regardless of whether a caveat was lodged. This contradicts the article's claim and highlights a significant inconsistency.
 
2. Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership:
 
- Inconsistent Claim: The article asserts that the ultimate beneficial owner's identity need not be disclosed in GCB deals carried out through a trust arrangement or shell company.
- Contradictory Fact: The Ministry of Law explicitly states that buyers and ultimate beneficial owners of all landed residential property transactions, including GCBs, are required to disclose their identities and citizenship. This directly contradicts the article's claim and reveals a major inconsistency in its reporting.
 
3. Role of Gatekeepers in Combating Money Laundering:
 
- Inconsistent Claim: The article suggests that property agents and other service providers are primarily responsible for combating money laundering in home sales.
- Contradictory Fact: The Ministry of Law clarifies that regulated gatekeepers have a crucial role in verifying identities and sources of wealth, but the government maintains a robust legal framework to ensure transparency and prevent financial crime. This highlights an inconsistency in the article's portrayal of the government's role and the extent of its oversight.
 
4. Purpose of Caveats:
 
- Inconsistent Claim: The article implies that caveats are primarily used for tracking property transactions and ensuring transparency.
- Contradictory Fact: The Ministry of Law clarifies that caveats are intended to protect the interest of the purchaser, mortgagee, or other parties who have legal rights in the property. This inconsistency in the article's explanation of caveats undermines its credibility and accuracy.
 
Overall, the article demonstrates a significant lack of consistency in its reporting, relying on misleading claims and misinterpretations of government statements. This inconsistency undermines its credibility and misinforms readers about Singapore's property transaction regulations and transparency measures.

After analyzing the article, I found some potential inconsistencies:

# Inconsistencies
1. *Lack of clear definitions*: The article doesn't clearly define what constitutes a "buyer" or "citizenship" in the context of landed home sales. This ambiguity may lead to confusion.

2. *Unclear scope*: The article states that the requirement applies to "all landed home sales," but it's unclear if this includes sales of vacant land, collective sales, or other types of transactions.

3. *Inconsistent treatment of foreign buyers*: The article mentions that foreign buyers will be required to disclose their identities and citizenship, but it's unclear how this will be enforced or if there will be any exemptions.

1. *No clear guidelines for trusts and nominees*: The article doesn't address how the requirement will apply to trusts, nominees, or other indirect ownership structures.

2. *Lack of clarity on enforcement mechanisms*: The article doesn't provide details on how MinLaw will enforce the requirement, including penalties for non-compliance.

3. *Unclear relationship with existing regulations*: The article doesn't clarify how the new requirement aligns with existing regulations, such as the Residential Property Act.

4. *No clear guidelines for data protection*: The article doesn't address how MinLaw will ensure the confidentiality and security of buyers' personal information.

5. *Unclear timeline for implementation*: The article doesn't provide a clear timeline for when the new requirement will take effect.

These inconsistencies highlight the need for further clarification and guidance from MinLaw to ensure a smooth implementation of the new requirement.

Questions:

# Clarity and Specificity
1. What is the exact definition of "buyer" and "citizenship" in the context of landed home sales?
2. Are there any exemptions or exceptions to the requirement for disclosure of buyers' identities and citizenship?
3. How will MinLaw ensure that the requirement is enforced consistently across all landed home sales?

# Enforcement and Penalties
1. What are the penalties for non-compliance with the requirement, and how will they be enforced?
2. Will there be any audits or checks to ensure that buyers are disclosing their identities and citizenship accurately?
3. How will MinLaw handle cases where buyers refuse to disclose their identities or citizenship?

# Impact on Foreign Buyers
1. How will the requirement affect foreign buyers, and are there any special provisions or exemptions for them?
2. Will foreign buyers be required to disclose additional information, such as their tax residency or employment status?
3. How will MinLaw ensure that the requirement does not unfairly discriminate against foreign buyers?

# Data Protection and Confidentiality
1. How will MinLaw ensure the confidentiality and security of buyers' personal information?
2. Will buyers' identities and citizenship information be stored in a secure database, and who will have access to it?
3. How will MinLaw handle data breaches or unauthorized disclosure of buyers' personal information?

# Implementation and Timeline
1. When will the new requirement take effect, and what is the timeline for implementation?
2. Will there be any transitional provisions or grandfathering for existing sales or purchases?
3. How will MinLaw communicate the new requirement to buyers, sellers, and real estate agents?

# Alignment with Existing Regulations
1. How does the new requirement align with existing regulations, such as the Residential Property Act?
2. Will there be any changes to existing regulations to accommodate the new requirement?
3. How will MinLaw ensure that the new requirement does not conflict with other laws or regulations?

# Additional Information
1. What prompted MinLaw to introduce the new requirement, and what are the expected benefits?
2. Will there be any additional requirements or regulations introduced in the future to further regulate landed home sales?
3. How will MinLaw monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the new requirement?

Questions:

Regarding Transparency and Information Availability:

- How does the Integrated Land Information Service portal ensure the accuracy and completeness of property ownership and transfer data, especially for GCB transactions?
- What specific measures are in place to prevent fraudulent or misleading information from being submitted to the portal?
- If the information on the portal is publicly available, what safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of individuals involved in property transactions?
- What are the specific mechanisms for verifying the identities and citizenship of buyers and ultimate beneficial owners in GCB deals?

Regarding Beneficial Ownership Disclosure:

- What are the specific legal requirements for disclosing the identities and citizenship of ultimate beneficial owners in GCB transactions?
- What are the penalties for failing to comply with these disclosure requirements?
- How does the government ensure that the information provided by buyers and ultimate beneficial owners is accurate and reliable?
- What are the procedures for investigating potential instances of false or misleading information regarding beneficial ownership?

Regarding Money Laundering Prevention:

- What specific anti-money laundering requirements do regulated gatekeepers involved in property transactions need to comply with?
- How does the government monitor and enforce compliance with these anti-money laundering requirements?
- What are the specific measures in place to identify and mitigate high-risk transactions involving GCBs?
- What are the procedures for reporting suspected cases of money laundering related to property transactions?

Regarding Caveats:

- What are the specific legal grounds for lodging a caveat in a property transaction?
- How does the government ensure that caveats are not misused for purposes other than protecting legal rights?
- What are the procedures for challenging or removing a caveat that is deemed to be improperly lodged?

Regarding the Ministry of Law's Response:

- What specific evidence does the Ministry of Law have to support its claim that the article contains false and misleading information?
- Why did the Ministry of Law choose to issue a correction direction through the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act Office (Pofma) rather than through other channels?
- What are the potential consequences for the media companies that published the article if they fail to comply with the correction notices?

By the time effective already 60 years later. And no back date.

Why are matters getting worst than a estranged wife?

MP S by- pass SLA to get the GCB List from Deputy Sec of Ministry of Law to rent. Then he went to POFMA Bloomberg . Now, SLA said there must be Buyers Identity which seems to be absent. This leads us back to Square One.

The CEO of URA should be sacked for lapses

Unless, instructions given is to purposely have these lapses over the past 15 years or so

Like ACRA Chief follow instructions creating Hoo- Ha cannot be sacked


https://www.tatlerasia.com/people/lim-eng-hwee