Categories: Law & Public Safety

Singapore Proposes Mandatory Caning for Scam Syndicate Members and Mules in Groundbreaking Bill

Singapore Proposes Mandatory Caning for Scam Syndicate Members and Mules in Groundbreaking Bill

New Measures Target Scam Syndicates and Mules

Singapore is advancing a sweeping Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill aimed at tackling the country’s booming scam economy. The proposal would introduce mandatory caning for scammers, including syndicate members and recruiters, with a scale reaching up to 24 strokes for the most serious offences and up to 12 strokes for scam mules who aid wrongdoing by sharing Singpass credentials, SIM cards, or bank accounts.

The bill, introduced in Parliament on October 14, would require discretionary caning in sentencing decisions. This means judges could decide to impose caning where it deems it appropriate within the defined limits. In addition to caning, the amendments overhaul several existing laws and push forward broader revisions to penalties for various crimes.

Why Caning Now—and How It Applies

Officials say the push is a response to billions lost to scams in Singapore in recent years. The city-state has recorded more than S$3.4 billion lost to scams since 2019, with a peak of S$1.1 billion lost in 2024 and more than S$600 million by August of this year. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) emphasises that scam-fighting remains a national priority, underscoring the urgency of stronger deterrents.

Under the proposed law, caning would be mandatory for at least six strokes for scammers and their recruiters. Depending on the offence’s severity, sentencing could reach 24 strokes. Mules—individuals who provide critical support to scammers, such as their Singpass credentials or bank accounts—could receive up to 12 strokes at the court’s discretion. The aim is to widen the range of penalties to reflect different roles within scam operations.

Broader Legal Revisions

The Bill also revises penalties for other forms of cheating and introduces updates to sexual offences, doxxing, and protection for public servants. Notably, it expands penalties for the circulation of obscene material online and strengthens extraterritorial reach for sexual grooming offences if the offender and victim intend to meet overseas.

Key proposed changes include increasing the maximum penalties for the sexual grooming of minors, extending protection against doxxing of public servants, and allowing judiciary discretion in applying caning for certain offences such as extortion and carrying offensive weapons in public.

Sexual Offences and Digital Safety

The Bill clarifies that consensual sexting between adults will not be criminalised. It additionally targets large-scale online circulation of obscene content, raising penalties for those who manage or enable such dissemination. A notable case cited in discussions is the SG Nasi Lemak Telegram group, where obscene material affected thousands and led to multiple penalties. The proposed amendments would lift the current cap of three months’ jail for some offences and set higher ceilings for cases involving minors.

Youth Offenders and Industrial Provisions

Provisions regarding youth offenders would allow certain serious cases and repeat offences to be transferred to higher courts, enabling deterrent sentences such as caning where appropriate. The Bill also updates regulatory requirements for precious metal dealers to ensure compliance and bolster enforcement capabilities.

Government’s Rationale and Next Steps

Ministerial statements emphasize that the criminal justice system should be fair, effective, and responsive to evolving threats. The proposed changes reflect a determination to deter crime and provide authorities with stronger tools to combat sophisticated scams. If passed, the amendments would mark a significant expansion of caning’s role in Singapore’s sentencing framework, alongside broader updates to sexual offences, privacy protections, and youth justice.

As Parliament debates these amendments, observers and stakeholders will watch closely to see how the judiciary interprets and applies discretionary caning in practice, and how these penalties balance deterrence with proportionality and due process.