Proposal for More Severe Penalties for Scams Involving Impersonation of Government Agencies

Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider more severe penalties and longer jail sentences for criminals involved in scams using the impersonation of Ministries and Government agencies including those who allow the use of their bank accounts.

Our assessment is that the existing penalties are currently adequate. Depending on the facts of the case, scammers and money mules, including those involved in scams that impersonate government officials may face charges which carry imprisonment terms of up to 10 years.

However, many scammers are based overseas, making it difficult to identify and prosecute them. We have hence focused on punishing and deterring those in Singapore who facilitate scams. For example, in 2023, we amended the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to allow the Police to take firmer enforcement action against money mules, whose bank accounts are used to perpetrate scams and other crimes.

We have also worked with the Inter-agency Sentencing Advisory Panel to publish sentencing guidelines for certain scams related offences last year. The guidelines recommend that significant imprisonment terms should be the norm for scam related offences. For example, the recommended starting sentence is six months' imprisonment for negligently handing over control of one's bank account to another person; and 18 months' imprisonment for handing over control of his bank account to another person, knowing or having reason to believe that this would assist the person in retaining criminal proceeds.

The Ministry of Home Affairs regularly reviews the adequacy of our criminal penalties and will likewise do so for scams-related offences.

Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question. In view of the recent reports of scam victims themselves who become involved in carrying out the scams, what would be the sentencing considerations, and if it can be made clear that such victims would not face any leniency under the law?

I thank the Member for her question. In line with established case law, the fact that an offender has committed an offence, whether it is out of financial need or in the hope of recouping his losses due to being a scam victim, in and of itself does not have any mitigating value, save in the most exceptional or extreme circumstances.

But I would say that there might be other cases which may contain mitigating factors. For example, if it is a government official impersonation scam victim, and he went and he did money mule-related work, thinking that he was truly authorised by a government official, and he was deceived as to the nature of the money mule work that he was doing, then this would be taken into consideration by the courts.