Singapore to Enforce Mandatory Caning for Fraud Offenders

Header Ads Widget

Singapore to Enforce Mandatory Caning for Fraud Offenders

 



Singapore is set to implement mandatory caning for individuals convicted of scam-related offences under a newly proposed amendment bill aimed at tackling the country’s rising financial fraud cases.

During the second reading of the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill on Tuesday, November 5, Senior Minister of State for Home and Foreign Affairs, Sim Ann, disclosed that Singapore had lost over $2.8 billion to scams from 2020 to the first half of 2025, with about 190,000 cases recorded.

“We will introduce mandatory caning for scammers. Anyone found guilty of scams—defined as cheating primarily through remote communication—will face a minimum of six strokes,” Sim stated. She added that the measure targets criminal syndicates that “deploy extensive resources to execute and profit from scams” and bear the “highest level of culpability.”

Under the proposed law, scammers and those who recruit or operate within scam syndicates will receive between six and 24 strokes of the cane. “Mules” who facilitate scams by carrying out illicit transactions may face up to 12 strokes, at the court’s discretion.

These penalties will be imposed alongside existing punishments for scam-related crimes. Individuals who supply tools such as SIM cards, Singpass credentials, or bank accounts to fraudsters will also be liable for caning if they intended misuse, knew they would be misused, or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such misuse.

Singapore currently applies caning for more than 90 offences, with 65 of them requiring mandatory caning. Sim noted that while some amendments will shift certain offences from mandatory to discretionary caning, “more serious cases should still attract caning.”

The bill also seeks to toughen laws on the mass distribution of sexual images or videos, enhance protections for minors and vulnerable individuals, and criminalise the doxxing of public servants by publicly disclosing their private information without consent.


Post a Comment

0 Comments