New law to grant police power to block financial transfers in suspected scam cases

The Singapore government has proposed new legislation allowing the police to block financial transfers by individuals suspected to be scam victims if they persist in proceeding with transactions, despite warnings from authorities.

This step is intended to help protect potential scam victims who refuse to acknowledge the risks involved.

The proposed Protection from Scams Bill was introduced in Parliament by Minister of State for Home Affairs and for Social and Family Development, Sun Xueling.

According to a recent press release by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on 11 November, this bill comes in response to situations where scam victims, despite repeated warnings from police, banks, or family members, continue to transfer money to fraudsters.

Currently, the police lack the authority to prevent such transfers if the victim insists on proceeding. The proposed law would empower the police to intervene by issuing restriction orders (ROs) that would instruct banks to restrict the financial transactions of suspected scam victims.

These restrictions could apply to various services, including online banking, ATM withdrawals, PayNow, and in-person bank transactions.

According to the MHA, 86 per cent of reported scams in Singapore during the first half of this year involved self-effected transfers, where the victims were persuaded by scammers to voluntarily transfer funds rather than losing direct access to their bank accounts.

This high percentage highlights the need for more robust intervention measures to prevent further financial loss among vulnerable individuals.

The restriction orders would target the seven Domestic Systemically Important Banks (DSIB) in Singapore: DBS, OCBC, UOB, Citibank, HSBC, Maybank, and Standard Chartered Bank, which manage the majority of consumer deposits in the country.

The MHA clarified that these restriction orders would only be issued as a last resort and after all other attempts to dissuade the victim have been exhausted.

Each RO would be issued based on an assessment by a police officer, who would evaluate the facts and circumstances of the case, considering input from the individual or their family members.

The ministry emphasised that a balance between protecting the public from scams and respecting personal responsibility will be sought. Those subjected to a restriction order will have the right to appeal, with the Commissioner of Police overseeing the final decision on each case.

MHA claims that safeguards have been incorporated into the proposed measure to limit its use to appropriate cases.

For example, ROs would not cover in-person cases of fraud involving transfers to family members, friends, or service providers, such as renovation contractors, where the risk of scam involvement is less direct.

Further, individuals placed under a restriction order will still be able to access funds for essential living expenses and other legitimate purposes, assessed case-by-case by authorities.

Each restriction order would be valid for up to 30 days but could be renewed up to five times, depending on the assessment of the threat.

This timeframe would allow police to gather further evidence, reach out to next-of-kin, or engage with the individual to ensure they fully understand the scam risk. Should authorities determine that the victim is no longer at risk, the restriction order may be lifted before the 30-day expiration.

The MHA launched a public consultation on the bill through the REACH website, running from 30 August to 30 September, alongside focus group discussions that engaged representatives from various age demographics.

According to MHA, feedback received was generally supportive of the proposed law, with respondents offering constructive suggestions that the ministry has incorporated where relevant.

The MHA stated that the bill forms part of a larger strategy to counteract scams in Singapore, which continues to see high volumes of cases despite extensive public education campaigns.