Police orders to restrict bank transfers will be ‘last resort’ after engaging with scam victims: Sun Xueling
The new law expands beyond its original digital scope to traditional cheating cases
SINGAPORE’S police will issue orders for banks to limit scam victims’ transactions only as a last resort, after exhausting all other means to protect them, said Minister of State for Home Affairs Sun Xueling in Parliament.
This is provided for under an anti-scam law passed on Tuesday (Jan 7), which has been expanded beyond its original digital scope to apply to traditional cheating cases as well.
In the debate on the Protection from Scams Bill, Sun addressed concerns about the intrusiveness of restriction orders, which can be issued by specified officers such as the police and commercial affairs officers.
These orders can be issued if there is “reasonable belief” that the person will transfer funds to a scammer. However, the issuing officer must first explore other interventions, and issue the restriction order only if these other attempts fail, she said in her closing speech.
“These interventions could include engaging the relatives of the victims or other persons,” she said in response to Nominated MPs Usha Chandradas and Razwana Begum, who asked about other scam risk mitigation measures.
For example, an officer may get a scam victim’s sibling to agree to monitor the victim’s bank transactions via a joint account, and advise the victim against further transfers to scammers. In this case, the officer may not have to issue a restriction order.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sun acknowledged that in public consultations, a minority of respondents highlighted the need to respect individual autonomy.
But the police “have a duty to protect the public from harm, and to prevent crime”, she added, noting that scams affect not just the victims, but their family members and even public finances.
The new law enables decisive action and closes a gap in Singapore’s arsenal against scammers, she said.
“Where appropriate, we have drafted the legal provision broadly to empower the police to take into account the specific circumstances of the case, which can vary significantly, when making their assessments.”
Expanding the scope
After being tabled in November, the Bill was updated with an amendment suggested by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Previously, it defined a scammer as someone who has interacted with the victim “substantially via remote communication” to commit or facilitate a scam offence. As a result, it only covered scams conducted substantially over digital or telecommunication channels, such as phone calls.
The MHA amendment removes the word “substantially”, to make it clear that the law can apply even when scammers interact physically with victims.
This means that restriction orders may be issued in more traditional cheating cases, which involve mostly physical interactions between parties who know each other in real life.
But the threshold to issue orders in these types of cases will be higher, said Sun. This is because such cases often require deeper investigation to establish if an offence has been committed.
“For example, in a case of cheating alleged to be committed by a real friend or lover, it is not always clear at the outset whether a criminal offence is disclosed, unlike in remote scams,” she said.
A restriction order will be issued only if there is “clear and incontrovertible evidence” that a relevant offence has occurred, and such an order is necessary to protect the victim.
Bank limitations
MPs also worried that restriction orders may inconvenience scam victims, as they limit all bank transactions, including recurring bill payments.
Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency MP Hazel Poa suggested that restriction orders should not block certain facilities with legitimate organisations, such as recurring Giro bill payments.
Sun said that MHA agreed with this suggestion, but had been told by banks that it was not feasible to exempt selected transactions without “significant system changes”.
Poa raised a similar concern over joint bank accounts, as a restriction order on one account owner will inconvenience the other ones.
Sun replied that MHA had considered only restricting joint accounts where each account holder can make transactions without approval from the other holders. Joint accounts that require the consent of all holders for transactions are at a lower risk of being depleted through scams.
However, the ministry was informed by the banks that it would be “operationally challenging to implement such a proposal”.
“This is not ideal, but we have decided to go ahead with the Bill at this juncture, given the importance of providing victims with the necessary protection at the soonest,” she said.
“But we hear your feedback, and we will continue to work with banks towards allowing for these exemptions,” she added. For example, for recurring facilities, the police will work with banks to arrange for affected individuals to make necessary withdrawals at a bank branch.
The new law intends to strike a balance between protecting an individual from harm, and respecting the individual’s autonomy and personal responsibility, Sun said.
“This is why the restriction order is meant to be a measure of last resort, and is only issued temporarily,” she added.
The order will initially last 30 days, and can be renewed up to five times for a maximum of 180 days. After this period, it will lapse, even if the individual remains set on transferring monies to the scammer.
She said: ”We cannot hand-hold the victim indefinitely, but we will do all that we can, while the restriction order is enforced, to bring the individual to his senses...
“If the individual persists in making transfers to scammers after the maximum restriction order period, the responsibility must lie with the individual.”
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
