《预防腐败法》罪行按犯罪的严重性作出区分，规定了一系列制裁。监禁是公 共部门贪污案件和适当的私营部门贪污案件（如涉及大笔金额或有损公共利 益）的规定做法。此外，如果贿赂罪涉及公共合同，那么其严重性就会更高 《预防腐败法》第 7 条。《预防腐败法》第 13 条对腐败所得从受贿者流出作出 了明确规定。新加坡未出版判刑准则。但法院发布的基准决定为判刑提供了确 定性和明确性（检察官诉 Ang Seng Thor [2011]新加坡高等法院(SGHC)134）。 因此，每项罪行都有判刑规范，法院在确定合适刑罚时会将其纳入考虑。 涉及《公约》所列犯罪的国内公职人员不享有豁免权或管辖特权。同样，新加 坡总统或司法人员也不享有豁免权。 《宪法》赋予总检察长起诉贪污罪的权力，其以检察官的身份行事（《宪法》 第 35(8)条，《刑事诉讼法》第 11(1)条）。行使这一自由裁量权一般不受限 制，除非是恶意或越权行使此权力。（Ramalingam Ravinthran 诉 AG [2012] 2 SLR 49；Quek Hock Lye 诉检察官[2012]新加坡上诉法院 (SGCA) 25）。在检察 官的起诉决定中强烈体现了普遍威胁和公众利益的原则。这一决定因而受到严 格监督。总检察署的起诉准则为决策和一致性提供一个框架，并得到定期审议 和更新，还设有一套严格的内部审议制度。由检察官做出的几乎所有决定都会 经过至少一名高级官员审查。根据《预防腐败法》做出的每次起诉都必须得到 检察官的书面同意，然后才能提交法院审理。 通过足量保释保证书的方式，确保了被告出席刑事诉讼（《刑事诉讼法》第 96 条）。《刑事诉讼法》第 104(1)条对担保义务作出了规定，包括确保被告能配 合调查或参与法院听证、与被告每日保持联系，以及确保被告留在新加坡（除 非法院另行许可）。 确定被定罪者是否有资格享有提前释放或假释的法定标准反映了罪行的不同严 重性。减刑（即提前释放）可用于大部分罪行（包括腐败），特定严重犯罪除 外。被判处终身监禁的被定罪者在服刑 20 年后可考虑给予减刑。 如果一名公职人员的刑事犯罪被披露，其将在法院受到起诉；如被定罪，将采 取纪律行动（停职、调职、免职）。尽管检察官决定不提起起诉，公职人员也 可能面临类似处分。 被判处至少一年监禁或 2,000 新加坡元罚款的被定罪者将取消担任特定公职资格 （《宪法》第 37E、45 和 72 条）。被判犯有欺诈或不诚实罪且可处以三个月或以上监禁的任何个人将被自动取消新加坡注册公共或私营企业之董事职务，为 期五年或由法院决定（《公司法》第 154 条）。 新加坡设有支持囚犯重新融入社会的若干方案。
PCA offences recognize the differences in the gravity of offences and provide for a range of sanctions. A sentence of imprisonment is the norm for cases of public sector corruption and for appropriate private sector corruption cases such as those that involve large amounts or impinge on the public interest. Further, the gravity of the bribery offence is more severe when public contracts are involved (section 7 PCA). Section 13 PCA expressly provides for the disgorgement of corrupt proceeds from recipients of bribes. Singapore does not have published sentencing guidelines. However, the courts issue benchmark decisions which provide certainty and clarity on sentencing (Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor [2011] Singapore High Court (SGHC)134). As such, there are sentencing norms for each offence which courts take into account in determining appropriate sentences. There are no immunities or jurisdictional privileges accorded to domestic public officials in respect of offences covered by the Convention. Similarly, there is no immunity for the President of Singapore or for members of the judiciary. The authority to prosecute corruption offences is constitutionally vested in the Attorney-General, acting in the capacity of the Public Prosecutor (article 35(8) Constitution, section 11(1) CPC). The exercise of this discretion is generally unfettered, except for the mala fide or ultra vires exercise thereof: (Ramalingam Ravinthran v AG [2012] 2 SLR 49; Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2012] Singapore Court of Appeals (SGCA) 25). The principles of general deterrence and public interest feature strongly in the Public Prosecutor’s decision to prosecute. This decision is accordingly subject to scrutiny. Prosecution guidelines within the AGC provide a framework for decision-making and consistency, and are regularly reviewed and updated, coupled with a rigorous system of internal review. Almost all decisions made by prosecutors are reviewed by at least one more senior officer. Every prosecution under the PCA requires the written consent of the Public Prosecutor before it can be brought to court. The attendance of accused persons at criminal proceedings is secured by way of a sufficient quantum of bail bond (Section 96 CPC). Section 104(1) CPC sets out the obligations of the surety, which include ensuring that the accused makes himself available for investigations or court hearings, keeping in daily contact with the accused and ensuring that the accused remains in Singapore unless otherwise permitted by the court. Statutory criteria for determining the eligibility of convicted persons for early release or parole reflect the varying gravity of offences. Remission (i.e. early release) is available for most offences (including corruption), save for certain grave offences. Convicted persons serving life imprisonment may be considered for remission after serving 20 years of their sentence. Where a criminal offence is disclosed against a public official, he will be prosecuted in court; disciplinary action (suspension, reassignment, removal) will be proceeded with if he is convicted. Public officers may also be similarly disciplined even if the Public Prosecutor decides not to prosecute them. Convicted persons sentenced to at least one-year imprisonment or fine of at least S$2,000 are disqualified from holding certain public offices (sections 37E, 45 and 72 Constitution). Any person convicted of offences involving fraud or dishonesty punishable with imprisonment for three months or more is automatically disqualified from being a director of a public or private company registered in Singapore for a period of five years or a period to be determined by the court (section 154 Companies Act). Singapore has several programmes to support the reintegration of prisoners into society.