This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 SINGAPORE 003516 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR L/LEI DAVID BUCHHOLZ 
JUSTICE FOR DOJ/OIA STEWART ROBINSON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KTIA KJUS KCRM PGOV SN
SUBJECT: U.S.-SINGAPORE MLAT DISCUSSIONS 
 
REF: (A)04 SINGAPORE 1140, (B)03 STATE 319319 
 
¶1. This is an action request.  Please see para 17. 
 
¶2.  Summary:  On December 7, 2005, Singapore and U.S. 
delegations met in Singapore to continue discussions 
related to a possible bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance 
Treaty (MLAT).  Negotiators had met twice before, in 
discussions in April 2004 and in a round of negotiations 
in November 2003 in Washington (Ref A and B). 
Discussions this time focused on several overarching 
obstacles to progress, most of which are linked to 
Singapore's restrictive mutual assistance law.  While 
Singapore showed some flexibility -- identifying one 
pending change to its law and expressing a willingness to 
consider others -- the GOS made clear that ultimately its 
domestic requirements must be reflected in the treaty in 
some fashion.  The two sides agreed to continue informal 
contacts and exchanges of ideas on text and legislative 
changes in the coming months, with a view toward creating 
a basis for further negotiations.  End Summary. 
 
¶3.  The U.S. delegation consisted of representatives from 
State L/LEI, the Department of Justice's Office of 
International Affairs, and Embassy Singapore.  The 
Singapore representatives were from the Attorney- 
General's Chambers (AGC), the Ministry of Home Affairs, 
the Ministry of Law and an observer from the Monetary 
Authority of Singapore.  Separately, Embassy Singapore 
and L/LEI met with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
(Septel). 
 
Overarching Concerns 
-------------------- 
 
¶4.  The impetus for this latest round of discussions on a 
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) was a September 29 
letter from the USG outlining four overarching areas of 
concern:  (1) whether an MLAT would be entirely "subject 
to domestic law," as Singapore had proposed; (2) whether 
it would be limited to cover only offenses criminal in 
both countries ("dual criminality") or some other 
specified set of offenses; (3) whether it would contain 
an extensive set of limitations on when assistance could 
be granted; and (4) whether it would allow Singapore to 
provide assistance in situations in which charges had not 
yet been filed in the United States.  These had been the 
key areas in which a fundamental difference of approach -- 
the United States preferring broad, open-ended 
obligations to assist and Singapore preferring limited, 
restricted obligations -- had manifested itself. 
 
¶5.  The Singapore delegation noted at the outset of the 
meeting that "the situation had changed" since the last 
discussions in April 2004 and that they felt they had 
more flexibility and were in a better position to make 
progress.  They repeated this theme throughout the day. 
AGC's Mathew Joseph, the head of Singapore's delegation, 
specifically noted that Singapore no longer felt the 
treaty needed to correspond exactly with its domestic 
law: "That is where we were, not where we are," he said. 
 
"Subject to Domestic Law" 
------------------------- 
 
¶6.  Singapore expressed a willingness to consider the 
question of "subject to domestic law" on an article-by- 
article basis, rather than as the controlling principle 
of the treaty.  This would have been a major concession, 
but it became clear in further discussions that it did 
not necessarily reflect an ability or willingness to 
dispose of the most troubling requirements of Singapore's 
domestic law (primarily in the Mutual Assistance in 
Criminal Matters Act of 2000).  Rather, Singapore 
indicated that its "essential domestic requirements" 
would have to be reflected in each article of the treaty. 
These requirements, in many cases, will likely be 
unworkable for the United States, and the U.S. delegation 
indicated as much.  Toward the end of the day, Singapore 
did leave open the possibility that it could seek 
legislative changes, where necessary, to accommodate 
cooperation. 
 
Dual Criminality 
---------------- 
 
¶7.  One of Singapore's key concerns was the scope of 
offenses to which the treaty would apply, and Singapore 
seemed greatly mollified by a U.S. proposal that the 
treaty could be limited to cases in which dual 
criminality existed.  This is consistent with the 
approach in Singapore's law, in which assistance is 
available only for certain listed "serious offenses."  To 
ensure the treaty would cover the major crimes for which 
the United States seeks foreign evidence, the U.S. 
proposed that the treaty also contain an annexed list of 
offenses for which assistance would be granted regardless 
of whether they are recognized under Singapore law. 
Singapore expressed concern that it would be unable to 
provide certain types of assistance if an offense was not 
recognized in Singapore, thus making it unclear the U.S. 
proposal would work. 
 
¶8.  Singapore did, however, express a willingness to look 
at the specific offenses of concern to the United States. 
Significantly, Singapore shared with the United States a 
proposed amendment to its own list of "serious offenses" 
for which assistance could be granted.  This proposed 
amendment, which Singapore has been preparing in part to 
comply with its Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 
obligations, would add approximately 150 offenses, 
including many of great importance to the United States 
(such as intellectual property crime, environmental 
crimes, computer crimes, securities offenses, and 
terrorism offenses), to the serious offense list.  If it 
were to include all offenses of concern to the United 
States, such a list might obviate the need for an annex 
to the treaty.  The Singapore delegation indicated that 
the list need not be approved by Parliament, as a Gazette 
notification was sufficient (analogous to a Federal 
Register Notice).  When the U.S. delegation pointed out 
that gaps may still exist in the list, Singapore 
indicated that the list was not yet "cast in stone," and 
that if the United States wanted to suggest additions, 
Singapore would consider them. 
 
Absence of Tax and Fiscal Crimes 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  One potentially problematic area is tax and fiscal 
offenses, which the United States noted are not on 
Singapore's current or proposed amended list of serious 
offenses.  The U.S. delegation underscored the necessity 
of being able to request assistance in tax cases. 
Singapore suggested that tax assistance should come 
directly from revenue authority to revenue authority, and 
alluded to ongoing discussions on a proposed Double 
Taxation Agreement (DTA).  Singapore also noted that it 
does not recognize certain types of fiscal offenses, such 
as those involving movement of currency.  When the U.S. 
delegation pressed the issue, Singapore indicated it 
might be able to render assistance in a tax case if the 
facts of a tax or fiscal offense also supported other, 
recognized offenses such as fraud or money laundering. 
This is an issue requiring further study by the United 
States. 
 
Limitations on Assistance 
------------------------- 
 
¶10.  The two sides discussed at great length the issue of 
limitations on assistance.  Singapore's domestic law 
contains 16 different grounds under which assistance can 
be refused, many of which it had previously sought to 
incorporate in treaty text.  The Singapore delegation 
stressed that decisions to refuse assistance under its 
law are left to the discretion of the AGC, and that with 
a treaty partner it would exercise its discretion not to 
employ many of the grounds.  Singapore offered that it 
now felt comfortable omitting some of the grounds from 
treaty language, and proposed that a treaty adopt 
language similar to that in the U.S.-Hong Kong MLAT, in 
which various grounds for refusal of requests -- some 
characterized as mandatory and some as discretionary -- 
are identified. 
 
¶11.  The U.S. side expressed a preference for including 
only 3-4 discretionary grounds for refusal, and sought 
clarification whether the omission of certain grounds 
from the treaty would have the effect of overriding 
domestic law provisions to the contrary.  Singapore at 
first stated that the grounds for refusal would still 
apply if the AGC found them applicable.  Later, however, 
the Singapore delegation indicated that, at least with 
respect to certain specific grounds for refusal (in 
particular, refusal based on "insufficient importance" of 
the evidence or "insufficient gravity" of the offense), 
omission from the treaty would mean that such grounds 
would not be used to deny requests and that it would be 
up to Singapore to determine how to implement this treaty 
obligation domestically.  In this context, Singapore 
stressed that, because its law applies to both treaty 
partners and non-treaty partners, it contains provisions 
that cannot be eliminated but would not be applied 
against treaty partners.  Singapore also stressed that it 
would not look behind the face of U.S. assistance 
requests to seek out reasons to deny them (such as, for 
example, in the case of double jeopardy).  (Comment:  USG 
negotiators may wish to consider ways in which to reflect 
such assurances in treaty language, or a related exchange 
of notes, given the lack of clarity on their legal status 
under Singapore domestic law.  End Comment.) 
 
Assistance Before Charges? 
-------------------------- 
 
¶12.  On the issue of Singapore's ability to provide 
assistance in a situation in which no U.S. charges have 
yet been filed, Singapore clarified that the issue 
relates to only one type of assistance:  testimony that 
must be obtained by compulsion.  Under Singapore law, 
while police can compel witnesses to testify in a 
domestic investigation, there is no authority to compel 
the testimony of witnesses on behalf of a foreign 
government unless it is related to "criminal proceedings 
pending in a court."  The U.S. delegation explained the 
grand jury process in the United States, and the need to 
be able to compel witness testimony during the grand jury 
stage.  Singapore asked whether the grand jury could be 
considered a criminal proceeding pending in a court, and 
the U.S. delegation, while promising to report back on 
that question, expressed doubt.  Singapore also indicated 
its view that this would not be a significant problem, 
because its police could generally convince witnesses to 
testify voluntarily (they indicated they had done this 
for other countries, including the Netherlands), and 
because witness testimony could sometimes be obtained in 
connection with a production order (i.e., when the 
witness is a records custodian). 
 
¶13.  Singapore noted that Canada has specific legislation 
authorizing it to provide compulsory assistance on behalf 
of foreign cases, and the U.S. delegation pointed out 
that Canada's legislation was adopted precisely to comply 
with a U.S.-Canada MLAT.  The Singapore delegation 
volunteered that it might need a legislative amendment to 
solve this issue, and, in perhaps the most significant 
moment of the day, said it could consider doing the same 
thing Canada did. 
 
Disclosure and Use of Evidence 
------------------------------ 
 
¶14.  Finally, the two sides discussed the question of 
whether the treaty could include language, previously 
suggested for deletion by Singapore, which contemplates 
and permits disclosure of evidence obtained under the 
treaty when required by the U.S. Constitution for 
exculpatory purposes.  The U.S. delegation clarified the 
limited scope of this exception, and the Singapore 
delegation appeared satisfied with the U.S. explanation 
and willing to include the language.  Furthermore, 
Singapore seemed willing to consider generally reversing 
the presumption that use of evidence produced under the 
treaty would be limited, absent consent; the U.S. side 
suggested, and Singapore seemed ready to accept, that the 
presumption should be that the evidence can be used for 
any purpose unless the state producing the evidence 
requests otherwise.  In this regard, the U.S. delegation 
clarified that information requested under the MLAT would 
generally be for public use at trial, in contrast to 
intelligence or police-gathered information, which would 
continue to remain confi dential. 
 
Next Steps 
---------- 
 
¶15.  The two sides agreed to informally exchange 
information and proposals in the near future, including 
on those issues outlined in the action paragraphs below. 
In addition to those, the U.S. delegation asked the 
Singapore delegation to look again at Articles 1, 3, and 
7 of the draft treaty in light of the discussions and 
consider proposing new text.  Further next steps will 
depend on those interactions; no specific commitments 
were made regarding further negotiations. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶16.  The U.S. delegation viewed the discussions with 
cautious optimism.  Singapore seemed ready to take 
several significant steps.  The informal explorations of 
issues should continue, and will reveal whether further 
negotiations are worthwhile.  The United States should 
continue to put political pressure on Singapore to show 
flexibility, to achieve an effective, broad and useful 
MLAT. 
 
Action Request 
-------------- 
 
¶17. Action Request: The U.S. delegation identified three 
follow-up items for the United States from the 
discussions: 
 
-- Per para 8, Department and Department of Justice are 
requested to review the Singapore-proposed list of new 
serious offenses against their own requirements for an 
MLAT and provide to Singapore (and Embassy) a list of any 
additional offenses for Singapore to consider. 
 
-- Per para 11, Department and Department of Justice are 
requested to provide a list of limitations on assistance 
it would like to see reflected in the treaty.  The GOS 
also agreed to provide us with its list and to exchange 
such lists informally.  In addition, the U.S. delegation 
committed to look at certain language in other treaties, 
such as double jeopardy language in MLATs with the U.K., 
Ireland, Hong Kong, and Switzerland, and to report to the 
Singapore delegation on the meaning of the language 
"important public policy" in the essential interests 
clause of the U.S.-U.K. MLAT. 
 
-- Per paras 12-13, Department and Department of Justice 
are asked to follow up with Singapore by providing 
information on the characterization of grand jury 
proceedings, as well as information on Canada's 
legislation on compulsory assistance for foreign cases 
and on similar legislation in the U.K. 
 
¶18. Drafted by L/LEI David Buchholz. 
 
HERBOLD