Introduction of the Protection From Scams Bill

1. The Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) introduced the Protection from Scams Bill for First Reading in Parliament today. The Bill empowers the Police to issue Restriction Orders (ROs) to banks to restrict an individual’s banking transactions, if there is reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to scammers. This will enable the Police to better protect targets of ongoing scams who refuse to believe that they are being scammed.

Background

2. Scams have proliferated in recent years. From 2019 to 2023, the number of scam cases increased almost five times, from about 9,500 to about 46,600 cases. In 2023 itself, approximately $650 million was lost to scams.

3. The Government has worked with banks to put in place a suite of safeguards to protect the public. These include the Kill-Switch, which allows customers to freeze their bank accounts if they suspect that their accounts are compromised, and Money Lock, where customers can set aside a sum of monies that cannot be transferred out of their bank accounts via online means.

4. However, despite these safeguards and extensive public education efforts, the number of scam cases involving the voluntary transfer of monies by the victim to the scammer (“self-effected transfers”) remains high. In the first half of 2024, 86% of reported scams were the result of self-effected transfers. The scammers did not gain direct control of the victims’ accounts, but manipulated the victims into transferring their monies to the scammers.

5. In some of these cases, the victims were told by the Police, banks or family members that they were being scammed, but they still proceeded with the money transfers. These included victims of investment scams and government officials impersonation scams (GOIS), which contributed to very high average monetary losses. ¹ Currently, the Police have no powers to stop the victims from transferring their monies to the scammers if they insist on doing so.

Restriction Orders

6. The proposed Bill seeks to protect targets of ongoing scams by empowering the Police to issue Restriction Orders (RO) to banks to restrict the banking transactions of the individual, if there is reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to a scammer. The intent is to protect the individual from losing his money to scammers.

7. In determining the scope of the RO, MHA has given due consideration to strike a balance between protecting the public from scams and maintaining a sense of personal responsibility. There is also a mechanism to avoid unduly inconveniencing the individual who is subjected to the RO. The details are set out below.

Issuance of a RO

8. The decision to issue a RO will be made by a Police officer, ² based on an assessment of the facts and circumstances of each case. The Police may take into account relevant facts provided by the individual or his family members in making the decision.

9. A Police officer may issue a RO to a bank if he has reasonable belief that:

(a) The individual will execute a money transfer to a scammer; and

(b) The RO is necessary for the protection of the individual. The RO will be issued only as a last resort, after other options to convince the individual have been exhausted.

Scope of RO

10. The Police will only issue ROs for scam cases, i.e., cases of cheating that are conducted substantially via digital or telecommunication channels (i.e., calls, SMSes, or online communications). Traditional cheating cases involving in-person interactions will not be covered (e.g., transfers to an errant renovation contractor, or to a family member or friend).

11. Individuals issued with a RO can expect the following banking facilities to be restricted:

(a) Money transfers out of the bank accounts and into other accounts (including via online banking, mobile banking, PayNow, and in person over the counter);

(b) ATM facilities ; and

(c) All credit facilities (e.g., credit card transactions, access to personal loan facilities).

12. If the RO is to be issued, it will be issued by default to the seven Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) in Singapore. ³ These are the major retail banks which manage most of the consumer deposits in Singapore. The RO can also be issued to a non-DSIB, should there be reasonable suspicion that a non-DSIB account is directly involved, i.e. the individual will be effecting transfers from a non-DSIB account to a scammer.

Measures To Minimise Inconvenience From RO

13. We will put in place a mechanism for an individual (who is the subject of a RO) to have access to his monies for legitimate reasons (e.g., sustain daily living, pay bills). These cases will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, upon the individual’s application to the Police.

Duration of RO

14. An RO will be in effect for a maximum of 30 days at a time. If more time is required to put in place the necessary intervention measures, ⁴ the Police can extend the RO for up to 30 days at a time, up to a maximum of five extensions.

15. Where it is assessed that the individual is no longer at risk of being scammed, the Police can cancel each RO ahead of the 30-day limit.

Appeal Mechanism

16. An individual can appeal to the Commissioner of Police against the Police officer’s decision to issue a RO. Given that the RO will remain active pending the assessment of the appeal, MHA will ensure that the appeal process is conducted expeditiously. The decision of the Commissioner of Police is final.

Public Consultation

17. MHA conducted a public consultation on the Bill via the REACH website from 30 August 2024 to 30 September 2024, as well as focus group discussions with representatives from various age groups. Overall, respondents were supportive of the Bill and provided their suggestions and feedback on the proposals, which we have taken on board where appropriate.

18. The public consultation paper can be found at https://go.gov.sg/feedbackscamsbill , and a summary of the feedback received can be found at the Annex .

[1] In 1H 2024, GOIS and investment scams were the scam types with the highest average losses, at about $116,534 and $40,080 per case respectively.

[2] These include both Police officers and Commercial Affairs officers appointed under Section 64 of the Police Force Act.

[3] The seven D-SIBs are: (a) DBS Bank, (b) Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation, (c) United Overseas Bank, (d) Citibank, (e) Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, (f) Malayan Banking Berhad, and (g) Standard Chartered Bank.

[4] For example, the Police may need more time to gather evidence to persuade the individual, engage the individual’s next-of-kin for assistance to persuade the individual, persuade the individual to adopt the necessary banking safeguards, amongst others.

Annex

1.

Summary and Response to Feedback Received from the Public Consultation on the Protection from Scams Bill

[PDF, 122 KB]