On 13 January 2025, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) published its response to feedback received on its proposed notice on the prevention of money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) requirements for approved exchanges and recognised market operators formed or incorporated in Singapore (collectively referred to as “Singapore organised market operators”).

Click here to view the article.

Our firm continues to be recognised as a leading firm across multiple practice areas in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2025.

Where a bank finances an international sale of goods, original bills of lading (“OBLs”) are amongst the documents that will be presented by a seller to the bank to obtain payment for the goods. The OBLs are held by the bank as security for the financing extended to the buyer. If the cargo is discharged by the carrier without presentation of the OBLs, the bank has a claim in misdelivery against the carrier.

One of the defences raised against a misdelivery claim is that the bank would have consented to the cargo being discharged from the carrier without presentation of the OBLs in any event. As such, it is argued, the bank is not entitled to the damages sought as the carrier’s breach of the contract of carriage did not cause the loss allegedly suffered by the bank. Such a defence was successfully established in Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2022] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 467, where the English High Court rejected the plaintiff bank’s misdelivery claim. The decision was affirmed on appeal.

In the recent case of The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282, the same defence was considered by the Singapore High Court, but the carrier in that case failed to succeed in this defence. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that a bank’s security over the cargo (by virtue of being holder of the OBLs) would be compromised if the carrier is able to prove that the bank would have counterfactually consented to the discharge of the cargo without presentation of the OBLs.

Click here to view the article.

The Court of Appeal ruled that assignments may be ineffective for offending public policy. Additionally, an assignment of a bare right to sue must not prejudice the administration of justice. Generally, non-assignment clauses would also prohibit the assignment of contractual and related rights.

Click here to view the article.

Shook Lin & Bok LLP is pleased to announce the admission of five new Partners, with effect from 1 January 2025.

We are delighted to announce that our firm is ranked across 11 practice areas, with 13 of our partners being recognised for their expertise in the recently published Chambers Asia-Pacific 2025 rankings. The overall ranking of the firm has improved with Employment, Investment Funds and Shipping rising a tier.

On 6 November 2024, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) published its response to feedback received on its consultation paper proposing a new class exemption for single family offices (“SFOs”) from the requirement to be licensed for fund management under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (“SFA”).

This note summarises the key points from the consultation response.

Click here to view the article..

On 25 October 2024, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) published the Circular on Anti-scam measures by Major Payment Institutions Providing Personal Payment Accounts that contain E-money (the “Circular”). The Circular sets out MAS’ supervisory expectations of Major Payment Institutions (“MPIs”) that provide personal payment accounts containing e-money. This Client Update provides a summary of the key contents of the circular.

Click here to view the article.

For the fifth consecutive year, we are pleased to be recognised as one of The Straits Times’ Singapore’s Best Law Firms 2025.