.svg)
Lawmakers in Singapore have enacted a first-of-its-kind bill that empowers the police to freeze the bank accounts of scam victims without their consent.
On Tuesday (January 7), the Protection From Scams Act 2024 was passed following its second reading in parliament, marking a major escalation in Singapore’s fight against scams.
The law aims to protect individuals from scams by empowering specified officers to issue “restriction orders” to banks that will temporarily prohibit the victim's ability to transact.
A restriction order, if imposed, will prevent the account owner from transferring or withdrawing money from the account, and from drawing on any credit facility from the bank.
Officers may issue a restriction order to one or more banks if they have “reason to believe” that a customer will transfer money to a scammer, or will withdraw or borrow money to send to a scammer.
A restriction order will be in force for up to 30 days, or any shorter period that may be specified in the order, and an officer may at any time cancel the order.
However, each restriction order may be extended by another 30 days up to five times.
Officers may also vary the restriction order to allow certain transactions, such as bill payments, to leave the victim's account.
Banks that fail to comply with restriction orders will commit an offence and will be liable to a fine of up to S$3,000 ($2,191).
The act also includes provisions that allow account holders to appeal against restriction orders.
All appeals will be addressed to the Commissioner of Police, whose decision on whether to lift the restriction order will be “final”.
The act comes into effect on the date specified by a ministerial notification in the Singapore Government Gazette.
Ong-Ang Ai Boon, director of the Association of Banks in Singapore (ASB), told Vixio that financial institutions support the restriction order approach, seeing it as a vital tool to help the victim break the spell of the scammer..
“We have seen how scammers prey on and deeply entrap victims in their deceptions through social engineering techniques," she said.
"In some cases, victims are so emotionally invested that they want to proceed with the transaction despite obvious signs and advice by their bank and the police.
"This measure will provide more time for them to come out of the hold of the fraudsters, and protect them from financial loss to the perpetrators."
Allaying lawmakers’ concerns
Although the bill’s passage was relatively quick — it was introduced in November 2024 and amended only slightly — it was not without major concerns among lawmakers.
Sue Xueling, head of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which authored and introduced the bill, had to respond to extensive questioning from lawmakers during the bill’s second reading.
Chief among their concerns was ensuring that the power to issue restriction orders is not overused by the Singapore Police Force (SPF).
Neil Parekh, one of Singapore’s nine nominated (i.e., unelected) MPs, asked the minister to explain what the minimum threshold will be for a “reasonable belief” that a restriction order is warranted.
Not only must the police believe that the customer will transfer money to the scammer, Xueling said, but they must also believe that a restriction order is “necessary” to protect the victim, in lieu of other types of intervention.
“Our policy intent is for restriction orders to be issued as a last resort,” she added. “By extension, this means that wherever feasible, we intend to explore other interventions first, and to only issue a restriction order if these other interventions fail.”
In cases where a restriction order is pursued, the minister said that trained officers will assess each case based on its specific facts and circumstances.
They will consider, for example, factors such as whether the victim is still in communication with the scammer, whether the victim still believes the scammer and whether the victim has previously transferred money to the scammer.
Time considerations will also be key. For example, the more previous payments the victim has made, and the larger the size of each payment, the more likely it is that the police will issue a restriction order.
As noted by Xueling, the policy aims to minimise losses, which in a worst-case scenario can amount to the victim’s entire life savings.
Is there an opt out?
Hazel Poa, MP, suggested that it should be possible for individuals to opt out of the restriction order regime.
This suggestion was rejected, with Xueling noting that the policy is intended to strike a balance between protecting the individual from harm and respecting their personal autonomy.
This is why restriction orders will be temporary, she added, and will eventually lapse, even if subsequently extended.
“We cannot handhold the victim indefinitely,” said Xueling. “But we will do all that we can, while the restriction order is in force, to bring the individual to his senses.”
The minister also clarified that, in a worst-case scenario, an individual who is subject to a restriction order may continue to make payments to a scammer, after the restriction order lapses.
Expanding restriction orders beyond banks
Other lawmakers asked whether the government has plans to expand the scope of restriction orders to firms such as e-wallet providers, remittance companies and crypto exchanges.
Xueling said this is something that the government may consider in future, based on its continuous monitoring of scam typologies and fund flows.
However, for the time being, it believes that limiting restriction orders to banks and credit facilities will address a “significant” number of scams.
Prasad Thandapani, senior analyst at Vixio, said it is possible that scammers will simply switch to other conduits that cannot be subject to restriction orders to solicit payments from victims.
“Singapore is well-known for its vibrant fintech scene and its prevalence of e-wallet usage, so it remains to be seen whether scams targeting bank accounts will shift focus towards these apps instead,” he said.
“The act could eventually include these firms as well, similar to the expansion that we have seen in other of Singapore’s anti-scam measures.”
Social media companies, for example, were previously outside anti-scam regulations, but are now squarely targeted under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA).
Telcos, likewise, must uphold standards to prevent phishing scams, and can even be liable for reimbursing victims, under the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF).
