Singapore Law Firms Fined $200K in Major Anti-Money Laundering Crackdown, ETLegalWorld
Four Singapore-based law firms face close to $200,000 in penalties, alongside disciplinary action, following the conclusion of the initial phase of investigations stemming from a major anti-money laundering (AML) operation launched by Singapore Ministry of Law in August 2023.
The MinLaw has announced stringent enforcement actions against these law practices, which were found to have facilitated the conveyancing of high-value real estate properties seized during a 2023 bust.
The inquiry, initiated by the Director of Legal Services (DLS) between 2023 and 2025, targeted 24 law practices suspected of compliance failures regarding strict AML regulations. As of August 2025, investigations have concluded for 13 of these firms, with four facing direct regulatory action.
The DLS has also made referrals of lawyers related to the four law practices to the Law Society, to consider if there are grounds for further professional disciplinary action against these lawyers.
While these six firms have faced direct action, inquiries into the remaining 11 law practices are ongoing, and further updates are anticipated upon their conclusion. This indicates that the current wave of enforcement is far from over.
The MinLaw’s press release re-enforced that all Singapore law practices are bound by the Legal Profession Act 1966 and must adhere to strict AML protocols, including customer due diligence and proper documentation. Notably, updated rules further strengthening AML obligations for the legal sector came into effect on July 1, 2025.
Penalized law firms: breaches and sanctions detailed
The concluded inquiries reveal a range of compliance lapses, leading to substantial penalties and referrals for disciplinary action against lawyers.Anthony Law Corporation (ALC): This firm was hit with the largest financial penalty of $100,000. ALC’s breaches included inadequate scrutiny of transactions not commensurate with money-laundering risks, failing to corroborate or verify client explanations for third-party funding (which were red flags), and poor documentation. Notably, ALC continued to undertake transactions for some clients even after filing Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) against them, without substantiating or documenting its reasons for doing so. A lawyer from ALC, Tan Chau Chuang, has been referred to the Law Society for potential disciplinary action. ALC acted for nine clients in transactions involving 25 properties valued at around $135 million. ALC has since paid the financial penalty.Legal Solutions LLC (LS): This firm received a $70,000 fine. LS failed to adequately document the details of its analysis of clients’ money-laundering risks. It also did not comply with all enhanced customer due diligence requirements after filing an STR, such as documenting internal discussions and reasons for retaining clients despite the STR. Ee Tian Huat Patrick, a lawyer from LS, was referred for review. LS was involved with two clients conveying 20 properties valued at around $117 million.
Fortis Law Corporation (FLC): FLC was fined $30,000. Their key failure was insufficient verification of claimed legitimate remittance sources used to fund transactions; FLC did not conduct checks to verify client claims that payments were from legitimate remittance companies. Two lawyers, Andrew Wong Wei Kiat and Tan Tse Chia Patrick, have been referred to the Law Society. FLC acted for 16 clients for 55 properties valued at approximately $398.7 million. FLC has paid the financial penalty.
Malkin & Maxwell LLP (M&M): M&M received a reprimand (without a fine). Their lapse involved not conducting sufficiently in-depth independent checks into their client’s source of funds. Instead, the firm relied unduly on checks it assumed that third parties would have done on its client. M&M acted for one client conveying one property valued at around $40 million.
William Poh & Louis Lim (WPLL, now Louis Lim & Partners) and Templars Law LLC (TL): Both practices were reprimanded for inadequate customer due diligence and risk mitigation. Breaches observed included not obtaining certain required documents as part of customer due diligence, not adequately scrutinizing clients’ and transactions’ money-laundering risks, and not applying commensurate risk mitigation measures. The managing partner, Poh Tian Hock William, who commenced transactions for six clients at WPLL (which handled 32 properties valued at around $246.7 million) before moving to TL and concluding related work there, has been referred for disciplinary review. The fees collected by these law practices for their involvement in these transactions ranged from $15,000 to $170,000.