SINGAPORE — November 3, 2026
Singapore is moving to tighten sentencing for young people convicted of scam-related offences, with the Government proposing legislation that would make imprisonment or reformative training the primary and default sentencing options for offenders aged 21 and below, except in exceptional circumstances.
The proposed Sentencing (Scams) Bill, introduced in Parliament on Nov. 3, comes less than two months after the High Court ruled that young offenders involved in scam-enabling offences should not automatically be presumed to require imprisonment or reformative training.
The Government says the new legislation is necessary to restore what it considers Parliament’s intended deterrent approach to scams.
But the proposal also raises a difficult question: How should Singapore punish young people who help scam networks while still recognising that age, maturity and rehabilitation matter?
A direct response to the High Court
The proposed Bill follows a September High Court decision involving seven appeals concerning young money mules.
In Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, a three-judge panel allowed four appeals and substituted reformative-training sentences with probation in those cases.
The court held that imprisonment or reformative training should not be treated as the default for young offenders involved in scam-related offences. Instead, sentencing should consider the individual circumstances of each young offender, including the importance of rehabilitation.
The Government disagreed with that approach.
On Oct. 6, Senior Minister K Shanmugam said Parliament would introduce legislation to reinforce deterrent sentencing for scammers and people who facilitate scams, including young offenders.
The proposed Bill now gives that policy position a statutory basis.
What the proposed Bill would change
Under the proposed legislation, courts other than the Youth Court would have to treat reformative training or imprisonment as the primary and default sentencing options for offenders aged 21 or below who are convicted of scam or scam-enabling offences.
A different sentence could still be imposed where there are exceptional circumstances.
The Bill would also provide that the September High Court decision does not have to be followed when courts consider sentences for scam-related offences or appeals involving such sentences.
Importantly, the proposal does not mean every young offender will automatically receive a prison sentence.
The court would still retain sentencing discretion, with reformative training and imprisonment positioned as the default starting point unless exceptional circumstances justify another outcome.
Why the Government wants tougher sentencing
Singapore says scams remain its most prevalent crime type.
During the first half of 2026, police received an average of about 90 scam reports every day, involving roughly S$2 million in reported losses each day, according to MHA.
The Government is particularly concerned about young people becoming involved as money mules or other facilitators.
More than 1,000 young people were investigated in connection with scam reports in 2025, according to MHA.
MHA has also highlighted the impact on older victims.
In 2025, more than 5,000 elderly people were victims of scams, with losses from those cases amounting to around S$200 million.
The Government’s argument is therefore broader than punishing an individual offender.
It believes the sentence imposed on one young money mule can send a message to other young people who might be considering similar offers — and potentially make scam syndicates less willing to recruit them.
Young people are increasingly being recruited as money mules
The concern is partly driven by the way scam networks recruit.
Young people can be approached through social media, messaging platforms, online advertisements, purported job offers or people they already know.
The offer can appear simple: provide an account, phone line or digital credentials in exchange for quick cash.
But those facilities can then be used to move or conceal money obtained from victims.
Singapore’s official ScamShield guidance warns that people can be held criminally liable when their bank accounts, SIM cards or Singpass accounts are used by others for criminal activity.
The authorities have repeatedly warned that what appears to be an easy-money opportunity can leave the account holder facing serious consequences.
The scale of the problem became clear in recent police operations
The Government’s concern is not based only on individual cases.
In a September 2026 islandwide operation, Singapore Police investigated 254 people aged between 15 and 79 for suspected involvement as scammers or money mules.
Police said the suspects were linked to more than 652 scam cases in which victims reportedly lost around S$7.5 million.
Another September operation investigated 259 people in connection with more than 648 scam cases involving approximately S$5.2 million in reported losses.
These investigations demonstrate why authorities are increasingly targeting the infrastructure that allows scam syndicates to operate.
That infrastructure can include bank accounts, mobile lines and digital identities.
But the High Court stressed that young offenders are not all the same
This is where the debate becomes more complicated.
The September High Court ruling did not suggest that scam-related offences were harmless.
Instead, the court emphasised that young offenders can have very different levels of culpability.
Some may deliberately participate in criminal activity for money.
Others may have limited understanding of what they are enabling.
Some may be pressured, manipulated or exploited by older criminal networks.
The court therefore rejected an approach that effectively assumed imprisonment or reformative training should be imposed unless there were exceptional reasons to do otherwise.
The judgment emphasised the importance of considering the offender’s individual circumstances and the rehabilitative purpose of youth sentencing.
That creates the central tension now facing Parliament.
Rehabilitation remains part of Singapore’s youth justice system
The Government itself acknowledges that young offenders should not automatically be treated as hardened criminals.
MHA says Singapore’s youth justice framework includes probation, community-based sentences and reformative training.
The Reformative Training Centre provides structured programmes that can include psychological correctional programmes, education, skills training, family programmes and reintegration support.
So the Government’s argument is not that rehabilitation is irrelevant.
Instead, it argues that scams are different because the wider need for deterrence and prevention is unusually strong.
Why scams are being treated differently
Singapore’s position is that scams can generate large numbers of victims through relatively simple acts by people who help criminal networks move money.
A single account can potentially become part of a chain through which scam proceeds are transferred.
That makes money mules strategically important to criminal syndicates.
The High Court’s judgment itself explained that money mules can enable syndicates to move criminal proceeds through multiple accounts, making the funds more difficult to trace and recover.
From the Government’s perspective, removing those channels is therefore essential.
If young people believe they can receive a relatively light sentence because of their age, MHA argues, criminal syndicates could have a greater incentive to recruit them.
Singapore has already been tightening the rules around scam mules
The proposed sentencing changes are part of a much wider crackdown.
In September, Parliament passed legislation allowing authorities to impose restrictions on accounts and services suspected of being used to facilitate scams.
As WWC One Media previously reported in Singapore Passes New Anti-Scam Law Allowing Restrictions on Suspected Mule Accounts, the measures allow police to request restrictions on certain banking, telecommunications and other services associated with suspected scam activity.
The objective is to disrupt scam infrastructure before it can continue operating.
The Government is now adding another layer: stronger sentencing consequences for those convicted.
The legal consequences can already be severe
Singapore has introduced increasingly tough penalties for scam-related offences in recent years.
Depending on the offence, convicted individuals can face imprisonment and substantial fines.
Certain scam-related offences can also attract caning provisions.
Police have said scammers and members or recruiters of scam syndicates can face mandatory caning in specified circumstances, while certain money mules may face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes.
The proposed Sentencing (Scams) Bill therefore sits within a much broader effort to make participation in scam networks increasingly difficult and costly.
But punishment alone may not stop youth recruitment
There is another side to the issue.
Criminal networks do not necessarily recruit young people because they expect them to be hardened criminals.
They may target them precisely because they are inexperienced, financially vulnerable or attracted to apparently easy work.
MHA itself has acknowledged that young people can be drawn in by quick-money offers, misleading job advertisements, peer influence and social media.
That means prevention remains important.
If the recruitment pipeline remains intact, tougher sentences may punish young participants without necessarily eliminating the conditions that made them vulnerable to recruitment in the first place.
Education is becoming another part of the response
The Government says police are working with the Ministry of Education to conduct crime-prevention talks in schools and distribute anti-scam advisories through the Parents Gateway platform.
A youth-focused anti-scam campaign was also launched in April 2026.
Authorities are studying whether structured scam-awareness and financial-literacy training could be appropriate for young people who receive conditional warnings.
That approach recognises a crucial point:
Young people need to understand that handing over access to an account, SIM card or digital identity can have consequences far beyond receiving a quick payment.
The recruitment problem is increasingly digital
The internet has made it easier for criminal networks to reach potential money mules.
MHA has said that scam syndicates typically recruit through online messaging and social media platforms.
Authorities have responded by directing platforms to remove scam-related accounts and advertisements under Singapore’s Online Criminal Harms Act framework.
That means Singapore’s anti-scam strategy increasingly has three layers:
Stop the recruitment.
Disrupt the infrastructure.
Punish those who knowingly facilitate the crime.
The difficulty lies in determining how to apply those principles fairly to young people whose roles and levels of understanding can vary considerably.
The difference between a scammer and a mule matters
One of the most important distinctions in the debate is between someone who directly orchestrates a scam and someone who provides an account or other facility.
They are not necessarily equally culpable.
That does not mean a money mule has no responsibility.
An account can be essential to moving stolen funds.
But sentencing must still consider whether the individual understood what was happening, how much they participated, whether they benefited, whether they were pressured and whether they were vulnerable to manipulation.
The High Court’s September ruling placed significant weight on that individualised approach.
The proposed Bill would shift the legal starting point back toward deterrence.
Authorities are also trying to distinguish the genuinely tricked from deliberate participants
Singapore’s enforcement framework does not simply assume that every person whose account is connected to a scam is a criminal.
MHA said in 2025 that police investigate cases comprehensively and consider whether individuals were genuinely tricked into providing facilities to scammers.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers also assesses whether the evidential threshold for prosecution is met and whether prosecution is in the public interest.
That distinction is important because the same bank account can appear in a criminal investigation for very different reasons.
A person who knowingly sells access to an account is not necessarily in the same position as someone whose identity was compromised without their knowledge.
The Government says the new Bill will not eliminate judicial discretion
Despite the tough language surrounding the legislation, the proposal does not establish an automatic prison sentence for every young person convicted of a scam offence.
The proposed framework identifies imprisonment and reformative training as the primary and default options, while allowing exceptional circumstances to justify other sentences.
That leaves room for courts to consider individual facts.
The bigger change is the starting point.
Instead of rehabilitation being the presumptive priority for young offenders, deterrent sentences would become the default position for scam-related cases outside the Youth Court.
The legislation also raises a constitutional and institutional question
The dispute is unusual because it follows directly from a disagreement between the judiciary and the Government over how existing law should be interpreted.
The High Court said the existing legal framework did not justify a default assumption of imprisonment or reformative training for young scam offenders.
The Government responded by proposing legislation that expressly establishes the policy position it wants courts to apply.
This does not mean the Government is ignoring the judiciary.
MHA explicitly acknowledged that it respects the High Court’s views.
Instead, Parliament is exercising its legislative role to clarify how it wants the law to operate going forward.
The debate is also about victims
For the Government, the issue cannot be separated from the people who lose money.
MHA has repeatedly highlighted elderly victims who lose significant portions — sometimes all — of their savings.
That human cost is central to the argument for deterrence.
The Government’s position is that protecting potential future victims may justify placing greater emphasis on punishment even when dealing with young offenders.
That is the policy judgment Parliament is now being asked to formalise.
But deterrence has to prove that it works
The harder question is whether harsher sentencing actually reduces youth participation in scams.
There is a straightforward theory behind the Government’s approach:
If young people know that helping a scam network could result in reformative training or imprisonment, fewer will accept those offers.
But criminal networks may respond by changing their recruitment tactics.
They could seek different groups of vulnerable people, use more deceptive job advertisements or move recruitment further online.
That means enforcement may need to evolve continuously.
Recent WWC reporting shows how quickly the threat is changing
WWC One Media’s recent coverage of Singapore’s scam problem has highlighted this broader transformation.
A September report, Singapore Police Probe 259 People Over S$5.2 Million in Scam Losses, showed how enforcement increasingly focuses on entire networks of alleged scammers and money mules rather than only the person who communicates directly with a victim.
Another WWC report, Fraud Risks Push Singapore to Tighten Identity Checks Across Digital Services as Scams Grow More Sophisticated, examined why compromised digital identities have become an increasingly important part of fraud prevention.
Together, these developments show why the sentencing debate is happening alongside wider changes to Singapore’s financial and digital-security systems.
The challenge is finding the right balance
Singapore’s proposed approach reflects a clear policy priority: make scam participation sufficiently risky that young people think twice before becoming involved.
But the September High Court ruling highlights an equally important principle: young offenders should not automatically be treated as though they have the same maturity, culpability or prospects for rehabilitation as adults.
Both concerns are legitimate.
A teenager or young adult who deliberately participates in a scam network should be held accountable.
But the justice system also needs to distinguish between deliberate participation, reckless behaviour, manipulation and genuine deception.
That distinction could become increasingly important as criminal networks become more sophisticated at recruiting people online.
What happens next?
The Sentencing (Scams) Bill has been introduced for first reading.
If enacted, it would apply to scam and scam-enabling offences committed before, on or after the law’s commencement date, according to the Government’s proposal.
The legislation would therefore represent a significant change in how Singapore approaches young people convicted of scam-related offences.
It would also send a clear message to potential recruits: age alone should not be expected to protect someone from a serious deterrent sentence.
At the same time, the Government says education, prevention and rehabilitation remain important parts of its broader youth-justice framework.
The Bigger Question: Can Singapore Deter Young Scam Offenders Without Giving Up on Rehabilitation?
Singapore is confronting a genuine dilemma.
Scams cause enormous financial and emotional harm, and criminal networks increasingly rely on other people to provide the accounts, identities and services needed to move stolen money.
Young people can become part of that infrastructure.
The Government believes strong sentencing is necessary to prevent recruitment and protect victims.
The High Court, meanwhile, has emphasised that young offenders are individuals whose maturity, circumstances and prospects for rehabilitation must be considered.
The proposed law now places those competing principles directly before Parliament.
The central question is no longer whether young people involved in scams should be held accountable — it is whether Singapore can make deterrence strong enough to disrupt scam networks while still ensuring that young offenders who can be rehabilitated are not permanently defined by one serious mistake.
