Money mules in scam cases should get jail time starting from 6 months, recommends advisory panel

People here who allow scammers to control their bank or Singpass accounts should be jailed for at least six months if convicted, with immediate effect.

In an Aug 21 statement, the Sentencing Advisory Panel recommended that significant jail sentences should be the norm for such offences to send a strong deterrent signal. This means that from Aug 21, anyone convicted of these offences can be jailed for at least six months.

The panel added that jail time should apply even to offenders below 21 years old, except for those who are dealt with in the Youth Court. Currently, those convicted of the offences can be fined, or jailed, or both.

The panel said scams are a major and fast-growing concern, citing how scam cases have increased by more than sevenfold over the past five years, with the amount lost to scams quadrupling.

In 2023, there were 46,563 scam cases, resulting in a total loss of $651.8 million by scam victims.

Due to the devastating impact of scams on vulnerable victims, the panel recommended heftier sentences for cases involving such victims, which include the elderly, or those unable to protect themselves due to physical or mental infirmity.

It added that the starting sentences for those involved in such cases should be increased by at least 25 per cent.

The panel comprises members from the judiciary, the Law and Home Affairs ministries, the police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Bar.

The panel’s guidelines, unlike judicial ones, are not binding on any court. They are meant to guide judges in passing sentences, and guide the prosecution and defence in their sentencing submissions.

Since Feb 8, it has become an offence for money mules to make a transaction if they know or have some idea that what they are doing involves a criminal element, or to continue a transaction that would have raised red flags for a reasonable person.

Those who sell their Singpass accounts can also be prosecuted under new offences introduced then.

The new offences target a critical component of the scam syndicates’ operation – people in Singapore who allow others to use these accounts to commit scams and launder scam proceeds, said the panel.

Under the new guidelines, a starting sentence of six months’ imprisonment is recommended for those who:

• Hand over control of their bank account without taking reasonable steps to check why their account is being used.
• Negligently hand over their bank account to another person.
• Disclose their Singpass credentials.

The panel also recommends at least 12 months’ jail for those who:

• Rashly hand over control of a bank account.
• Share someone else’s Singpass details.

Those who hand over control of a bank account believing it could help that person in a crime should get 18 months’ jail, said the panel.

It also recommended harsher sentences if there are aggravating factors. These include if a vulnerable victim was involved, if significant amounts of $100,000 or more passed through the account after it had been handed over, or if the offender was motivated by gain.

Mr David Chew, director of the police’s Commercial Affairs Department, said the guidelines show money mules that they will likely face a significant jail sentence when they abuse their bank accounts or Singpass credentials to facilitate the laundering of criminal proceeds. He added: “By taking a tough stance against money mules, we will protect the vulnerable members of society by removing the ease by which criminals can source, acquire and abuse money mules to move criminal proceeds.”

Ms Tania Chin, director of TSMP Law Corp’s criminal litigation department, said Singapore can expect greater clarity and consistency when those charged with the offences are sentenced.

RHTLaw Asia lawyer Alexander Joseph Woon, who focuses on criminal law and legal innovation, added that the guidelines would help set a standard for judges.

“Translating qualitative principles to a concrete sentence can be difficult, so the guidelines help judges get on the same page,” said Mr Woon, who is Provost’s Chair at the Singapore University of Social Sciences’ School of Law.

While the recommendations lack legal teeth and the courts have the final say, it is likely that the guidelines will be adopted by judges, the lawyers said.

Said Ms Chin: “As judges are encouraged to provide reasons for not applying a relevant guideline, it is likely that the guidelines will be adopted, excluding exceptional cases.”

The new offences to target those involved in money mule operations were tabled in Parliament in April 2023 after most money mules investigated by the police could not be prosecuted.

This was due to the difficulties in proving the suspects’ intent to help commit a crime.

Between 2020 and 2022, the police looked into more than 19,000 people suspected of money mule activities. Only fewer than 250, or about 1 per cent of those investigated, could be prosecuted due to gaps in the law.

Amendments passed by Parliament in May 2023 ushered in tougher laws on money mules and those who sell their Singpass accounts.

The move empowered the police to act against money mules who hand over control of their payment accounts to criminals, or who use their payment accounts to receive or transfer money for criminals.

Money mules could then no longer claim they did not know they were selling their bank or Singpass accounts to scammers.

Singapore’s efforts to combat scams come as several victims lost their lives after falling for such ruses in recent years.

ST reported in 2023 that a man had entrusted his nine-year-old daughter to his brother after realising his life savings were drained by a tech support scam. The father was then found with self-inflicted injuries and died days later.

Also that year, a coroner ruled that a police full-time national serviceman died by suicide after he lost about $10,000 in a scam.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Ex-lawyer M. Ravi ordered to return $120,000 paid by former clients to law firm Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of Winson’s claim against OCBC and StanChart