SINGAPORE — Some stubborn scam victims lost so much money to scams — despite advice from banks, police, friends and family members — that they asked the Government for financial assistance.
But with the passing of the Protection from Scams Bill, the police will be able to control the bank accounts of such victims to prevent them from transferring money to scammers.
The new law will give the police powers to issue restriction orders (ROs) to banks, which will then restrict the banking transactions of an individual's accounts.
These include money transfers, the use of ATM facilities and all credit facilities, affecting even PayNow and in-person, over-the-counter transactions.
The law was initially intended to deal with remote scams, such as overseas syndicates targeting victims through calls, social media and messaging channels.
When the Bill was introduced in Parliament on Nov 11, 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had said the laws would not cover traditional cheating cases, such as those involving in-person interactions with errant renovation contractors or family members and friends.
But to illustrate how fast the landscape had changed in two months, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sun Xueling revealed in her speech on Jan 7 that the powers will be extended to traditional cheating cases. This is because the police noticed cases where victims met accomplices in person, she said.
By default, ROs will be issued to the seven major retail banks here — OCBC Bank, DBS Bank, UOB, Maybank, Standard Chartered, Citibank and HSBC — but can also be issued to other banks.
It is the police who have the final say on whether an RO is issued. This is done after consulting the scam victim and his family members.
Sun said there are four safeguards put in place for an RO to be issued.
First, it is issued only as a last resort to protect the victim.
Second, ROs will take effect for up to 30 days at a time and can be extended up to five times, which means they can last for up to six months.
The police can cancel an RO ahead of the 30-day limit if the individual is assessed to be no longer at risk of being scammed.
If, after six months, the victim still insists on transferring money to scammers, the RO will not be extended.
Said Sun: "MHA takes a practical approach to this — we cannot handhold the victim indefinitely, nor do we have the resources to do so. But we will do all that we can, while the RO is in force, to bring the individual to his senses."
Third, those subjected to an RO will still have access to money for legitimate reasons such as paying bills and buying daily essentials like groceries. They can ask the police for access to a fixed amount of money, and for more money by showing proof, such as their bills.
Finally, appeals against the RO can be made to the Commissioner of Police, whose decision will be final.
Scam numbers hit record highs in the first half of 2024, with more than $385.6 million lost in 26,587 reported cases.
Sun said that from January to September 2024, 86 per cent of scams and 94 per cent of scam losses involved victims willingly transferring money to scammers.
Many of these scams, such as government official impersonation scams, investment scams and internet love scams, rely on social engineering, and prey on respect for authority, greed, and the human desire for companionship and love.
Sun said in one case, a 64-year-old woman was tricked into believing she was in a relationship with someone working on an offshore oil rig project outside Singapore. The scammer claimed he was going to complete the project and come to Singapore to marry her.
Over two years, he got her to send him about $400,000 to purportedly buy equipment for the project or to pay his workers' salaries.
Despite attempts by the police and her family to convince her she was being scammed, she continued to send money to the scammer.
In another case, a 33-year-old man fell for a love and investment scam, transferring $200,000 on the scammer's instructions. He refused to listen to the banks and police when told that it was a scam, and tried to borrow money from his parents to fund the "investment".
About five to 10 ROs are expected to be issued monthly, based on past cases involving stubborn scam victims.
Sun said that because the banks and police could not stop such victims from making further transactions, they continued to lose more money and, in some cases, asked the Government for financial assistance.
More than 90 per cent of respondents to a public consultation on the Bill were supportive, with a minority raising concerns that such powers would be intrusive.
Eleven MPs spoke during the debate on the Bill, with many raising concerns about the scam scourge. They said their residents who were scam victims had been approaching them for help during their Meet-the-People Sessions.
Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) said a 60-year-old woman in his constituency fell for a love scam, and transferred more than $50,000 to the scammer.
He said: "Shockingly, this sum included loans which she had taken from her own family members.
"Despite the family's repeated efforts to intervene and persuade her to stop, she remained resolute in her actions, believing in the legitimacy of the relationship."
He said family members had approached him to try and talk some sense into her.
Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC) said some victims in his constituency had sought his help to recover their money, but there was little he could do.
He said: "Sadly, in most cases I've seen, recovery has been minimal as the funds have been transferred out of Singapore and the burden of preventing scams still rests heavily on the shoulders of end users."
Sun said the cost of scams does not affect only the victim, and that fighting scams is everyone's responsibility. "Combating scams requires the whole of society, and we must all continue to work together to protect ourselves and our loved ones from scams."
This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.
