Mandatory training on scam awareness, financial literacy and consequences of facilitating scams for youths on conditional warnings for scam-related offences

Question:

Ms Cassandra Lee: To ask the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether youths issued with conditional warnings for involvement in scam-related offences, particularly those assessed to have been unwitting or less culpable participants, should undergo mandatory structured training on scam awareness, financial literacy and the consequences of facilitating scams during the warning period, to reduce the risk of reoffending.

Answer:

Mr K Shanmugam, Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs:

1. My response will also address related questions on young offenders committing scams-related offences filed by Ms Cassandra Lee for today’s sitting and Dr Wan Rizal for a subsequent sitting. If Dr Wan Rizal is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw his question.

2. Members of this House would be aware that scams are now the most prevalent crime type in Singapore. In the first half of 2026, the Police received, on average, about 90 reported scam cases every day – involving about $2 million lost, every day.

3. My Ministry is particularly concerned that many young people are getting involved in scams-related offences. In 2025, more than 1,000 youths were investigated in connection with scam reports. Each time we have such a case, it is understandable that we look at the age of the offender and feel sympathetic.

4. But spare a thought also for the victims, including elderly victims. In 2025, there were more than 5,000 elderly victims of scams. The majority are retired and unemployed. Losses from these cases amounted to around $200 million. Think of senior citizens losing their life savings and not knowing how they can eke out a living for the rest of their lives. Members would have come across these elderly couples, who bring their bank statements and show the withdrawals made by scammers – sometimes up to few hundred thousand dollars, or even more. They have worked hard, and saved carefully. Then one day, a scammer takes it all away. The couple will be in distress because they have lost their savings – and stressed, because they have no money for their future expenses. Who is responsible? The scammers. Who helped them? The person who gave up his or her bank account – including young persons who do it to earn a few hundred dollars.

5. Let me give you one actual example. In March 2024, the Police received a report from a 68-year-old victim who had been scammed. He had transferred more than $217,000 to a bank account belonging to a 16-year-old. This 16-year-old young person had allowed the use of his account for the purpose of quick cash – for $1,000.

6. In another scam case in February 2024, an 18-year-old gave up her Singpass account after being offered at least $1,000. The Singpass account was used to open three bank accounts, which were used to launder more than $217,000 from seven scam victims, two of whom were above 65 years old. The oldest victim was 74 years old.

7. You can see the consequences that can flow from the actions of a money mule, regardless of how young or old the mule is. I had considered showing you the photos and names of some of these victims. But the victims were concerned – they didn’t want the stigma of being identified as a scam victim. Being a scam victim carries more than just financial consequences.

8. Our task is to decide how best we can prevent these offences from being perpetrated. I have previously said: our approach for the penalties to be imposed for an offence has four aspects: (1) deterrence, (2) prevention, (3) retribution, and (4) rehabilitation of the offender. Which is the predominant consideration would depend on the facts, though generally we have placed weight on rehabilitation, deterrence, and prevention. In the context of scams, to me, the most important principle is deterrence. There are two aspects to this – first, to deter the person from doing it again, and second, to deter everyone else from doing it. Then fewer people will lose their life savings.

9. Young people do deserve sympathy in general. Over the years, we have changed our legislation to bring in rehabilitative justice, including through community-based sentences, probation, and reformative training. Young people are generally dealt with within that framework. In 2025, we further expanded the jurisdiction of the Youth Court from youths aged below 16 to youths aged below 18. The Youth Court mainly dispenses rehabilitative sentences.

10. Generally, young offenders who require more intensive and structured rehabilitation are sent by the Courts to the Reformative Training Centre, where they are engaged in various psychology-based correctional programmes, complemented where necessary by education, skills training, family programmes and reintegration support. We take rehabilitation seriously. Young people should be given guidance, and we should try and rehabilitate them as much as possible, rather than to immediately treat them as hardened criminals.

11. But for scam-related offences, the Government has made a deliberate policy judgment that deterrence and prevention must carry greater weight. That is because rehabilitation of the individual offender has to be balanced against the need to deter others from facilitating scams, and thereby prevent many more people from becoming victims.

12. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had therefore put before this House, new legislation in the last three years to tighten the penalties for scams-related offences, including through the introduction of caning. When these laws were debated, Parliament deliberately made no distinction between young and not so young offenders.

13. We then worked with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to develop sentencing guidelines. The Panel includes members from the Judiciary such as its then-Chairman – Justice of the Court of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang and other Judges as well as members from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Public Defender’s Office, the Bar, and my Ministry.

14. The Sentencing Advisory Panel worked intensively on the sentencing guidelines for scam offences. The Guidelines recommend imprisonment or reformative training when sentencing scams-related offenders, including those below the age of 21, except those dealt with in the Youth Court. Of course, on the actual sentence to be imposed on any individual case, the Courts retain the final discretion.

15. The total figure lost to scams reached a peak of S$1.1 billion dollars in 2024. After we put in place these measures progressively over three years, scam losses have decreased slightly, but scammers have continued to adapt and attempt to overcome our measures. So, this is certainly not the time to go soft.

16. On 10 September 2026, a three-judge coram of the High Court decided, in Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2026] SGHC 183 ("Erzan"), to allow several Magistrate’s Appeals by youth offenders who were involved in scams related offences.

17. The Court sentenced them to probation and community sentences instead of more deterrent sentences. One of the appeals relates to one Seyfqan. At the age of 18, he was offered $800 to open and give up a bank account. This account was then used to open a second bank account. A 66-year-old victim transferred almost $ 200,000 to this second account after being scammed. The High Court decided, for a number of reasons, that probation was appropriate.

18. This was, among other things, because (I quote) “the primary sentencing consideration for young offenders will generally, or presumptively, be rehabilitation” (close quote).

19. This rationale contradicts the approach set out in the sentencing guidelines. The Guidelines say: “Fines, probation, and community sentences are generally not appropriate.” “Imprisonment or reformative training, whichever is more appropriate, should be considered given the need for deterrence and the public interest in suppressing scams.”

20. It is understandable for the Court looking at the individual young offenders in front of them to feel sympathy for those individuals, and be inclined to impose rehabilitative sentences on youth offenders. However, the Court did not have before it the policy perspectives that I have just laid out, nor the data on the scale of the problem of scams and scammers – the huge amount of losses through scams, and the full human cost of such scams.

21. But the Government has to consider the wider consequences. If we are lenient towards scammers and those who facilitate scams, many more Singaporeans will fall victim, including senior citizens who may lose their entire life savings. And if young offenders are being treated more leniently simply because of their age, scam syndicates will have every incentive to recruit more young people as mules. We cannot allow this to happen.

22. This was why Parliament took a tough approach in our recent rounds of amendments to the relevant legislation. We wanted this message to go out that every offender, young or old, will be very seriously dealt with. If a number of cases are dealt with in this way, many other would-be offenders would take reference. Word will get around, and people, including young people, will be much more careful. That will make it harder for scammers to operate, and help reduce the number of victims and the losses they suffer.

23. The High Court said that legislation must be clear. We had proceeded on the basis that the legislation was clear. The Guidelines were also clear.

24. However, the Court has expressed a different view on the legislation. We respect the Court’s views.

25. To give effect to the policy position I have outlined, we will table legislation in Parliament soon, which will be quite express and will make clear that the position in Erzan is not to be followed. We will reinforce through the law the approach of imposing deterrent sentences on all scammers and those who facilitate scams, including those who are young.

26. Young people may be attracted by the promise of quick money, misled by purported job offers, influenced by peers, or approached through social media. Some may not fully appreciate that their actions can enable serious criminal activity. Criminal syndicates exploit precisely this combination of inexperience, financial temptation and digital exposure.

27. That is why education is another key strategy to prevent youth offending. To Dr Wan Rizal’s question, the Police work with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to conduct crime prevention talks in schools and to disseminate anti-scam advisories through the Parents Gateway platform. In April 2026, we launched a youth-centric anti-scam campaign to warn young people against selling or providing access to their bank accounts, SIM cards, and Singpass credentials. We will also study Ms Cassandra Lee’s suggestion, including whether structured scam-awareness and financial-literacy training would be appropriate and effective for youths who are issued with conditional warnings.