Jail or reformative training not default sentence for young money mules: High Court

Published Sep 10, 2026, 10:16 PM

Updated Sep 10, 2026, 10:16 PM

The High Court ruled that imprisonment and reformative training should not be the default sentences for young offenders involved in scams-related offences, emphasising rehabilitation and individual circumstances.

Seven appeals from young money mules were heard, leading to some sentences being reduced to probation, while adult offenders’ jail sentences were upheld.

The court rejected the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s guideline recommending imprisonment or RT as the norm, stressing diverse culpability and the importance of tailored sentencing for young offenders.

SINGAPORE – Contrary to recommendations issued in 2024, the courts should not treat imprisonment or reformative training (RT) as the default sentence for youth convicted of scams-related offences, the High Court clarified on Sept 10.

Such a sentencing approach is “too blunt”, given the courts’ longstanding recognition of young offenders’ lack of maturity, the prospects of a long and productive life ahead of them, and the importance of securing their rehabilitation wherever possible.

The ruling was issued by a three-judge panel comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Ang Cheng Hock and Justice Hoo Sheau Peng.

The judges had heard seven unrelated appeals involving young money mules, six of whom were below the age of 21 when they committed their respective offences.

The offenders were convicted of various scams-related offences which involved the opening of bank accounts and handing over of electronic banking details to scammers.

In one case, the offender handed over his Singpass credentials, allowing several bank accounts to be opened in his name and later used in connection with the laundering of scam proceeds.

Six of the offenders were sentenced to reformative training or jail terms in the State Courts. They appealed on the ground that their sentences were manifestly excessive.

The remaining offender, who was 16 years old when she handed over two bank accounts, was given a short detention order (SDO) of seven days, a community service order of 60 hours, and a day reporting order for three months.

The prosecution had appealed against her sentence on the ground that the community-based sentences imposed on her were manifestly inadequate, and pushed for reformative training.

This appeal was dismissed on Sept 10.

The judges allowed the appeals of four offenders who had been given RT, and instead ordered them to be placed on probation ranging from a year to 18 months.

These four committed their respective offences when they were between the ages of 16 and 19.

The appeals of the other two offenders, who were treated as adults, were dismissed.

One was between 20 and 22 years old when he surrendered his bank account and committed cheating. His sentence of 14 weeks’ jail was upheld.

The other was 27 years old when she committed three scams-related offences. Her sentence of seven months and two weeks’ jail and a $500 fine was upheld.

All seven appeals were considered against the backdrop of laws introduced in 2023 to combat the rise in scams.

Among these were amendments that specifically criminalised the relinquishment of bank accounts and the disclosure of Singpass credentials by money mules to scammers.

These amendments came into force on Feb 8, 2024.

On Aug 21 that year, the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2022 to promote greater consistency and transparency in sentencing, published a set of guidelines for scams-related offences.

In particular, the guidelines recommended that, in cases involving young offenders, the sentence to be imposed should usually be RT or imprisonment, even if the offender would otherwise be suitable for probation or community-based sentences such as SDOs.

One of the broad issues raised in the appeals was whether the courts should adopt this recommendation.

The prosecution contended that RT would generally be an appropriate sentencing option, and that SDOs and probation are generally unsuitable.

The Public Defender’s Office (PDO), which acted for four offenders, argued that a blanket prohibition against probation and community-based sentences would overturn established jurisprudence on sentencing young offenders.

Such an approach would also fail to account for the vast spectrum of culpability, circumstances and rehabilitative needs among young offenders in scams-related cases, the PDO argued.

Lawyers for the remaining offenders aligned themselves with the PDO’s arguments.

Given the novelty of the issues, lawyer Iris Ng was appointed as a young independent counsel to assist the court in providing another perspective . She submitted that SDOs should be recognised as an appropriate sentencing option alongside RT and imprisonment.

The court ruled that the recommendation of imprisonment or RT as the norm was inconsistent with the established framework that presumes rehabilitation as the primary sentencing consideration for young offenders.

Scams-related offences could be committed in many varying ways resulting in clear differences in culpability, and different sentencing options might be appropriate for different young offenders, said the court.

For example, a young offender who commits an offence for the first time because he misjudged the situation is clearly different from another who is recalcitrant and has a few similar antecedents.

The court also found it unprincipled that young offenders in scams-related cases should presumptively face imprisonment or RT, when those who commit other serious offences may be considered for probation or community-based sentences.

Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times.

发布于 2026 年 9 月 10 日晚上 10:16

更新于2026年9月10日晚上10:16

高等法院裁定，对于涉及诈骗相关犯罪的年轻罪犯，不应默认判处监禁和改造训练，而是强调改造和个人情况。

七名年轻的洗钱者提出的上诉被受理，导致一些刑罚被减为缓刑，而成年罪犯的监禁刑罚则维持不变。

法院驳回了量刑咨询小组关于监禁或缓刑作为常态的指导意见，强调了不同罪犯的罪责以及对年轻罪犯量身定制量刑的重要性。

新加坡——高等法院于9月10日澄清，与2024年发布的建议相反，法院不应将监禁或改造训练（RT）作为对犯有诈骗相关罪行的青少年的默认刑罚。

鉴于法院长期以来都认识到年轻罪犯缺乏成熟度，他们未来还有可能拥有漫长而富有成效的人生，以及尽可能确保他们得到改造的重要性，这种量刑方式“过于粗暴”。

该裁决由首席大法官 Sundaresh Menon、法官 Ang Cheng Hock 和法官 Hoo Sheau Peng 组成的三人法官小组作出。

法官们审理了七起互不相关的上诉案件，这些案件都涉及年轻的洗钱者，其中六人在犯罪时未满 21 岁。

这些罪犯因各种诈骗相关罪行被定罪，其中包括开设银行账户和将电子银行详细信息交给诈骗分子。

其中一起案件中，犯罪分子交出了他的 Singpass 凭证，允许以他的名义开设多个银行账户，这些账户后来被用于洗钱诈骗所得。

六名罪犯在州法院被判处改造训练或监禁。他们以刑罚明显过重为由提出上诉。

剩下的那名罪犯在交出两个银行账户时年仅 16 岁，被判处 7 天短期拘留令、60 小时社区服务令以及 3 个月每日报到令。

检方对她的判决提出上诉，理由是判处的社区矫正明显不足，并力主对她进行改造培训。

该上诉于9月10日被驳回。

法官准许了四名被判处缓刑的罪犯的上诉，并下令对他们处以一年至一年半的缓刑。

这四人犯罪时年龄在 16 岁至 19 岁之间。

另外两名罪犯（按成年人处理）的上诉被驳回。

其中一人在20至22岁之间，交出银行账户并犯有诈骗罪。他被判处14周监禁，原判维持不变。

另一名被告在犯下三项诈骗相关罪行时年仅27岁。她被判处七个月零两周监禁并处罚金500美元，该判决维持原判。

所有七起上诉都是在 2023 年出台的打击诈骗活动日益猖獗的法律背景下进行审议的。

其中包括一些修正案，这些修正案明确规定，洗钱者放弃银行账户和向诈骗分子泄露 Singpass 凭证的行为属于犯罪行为。

这些修正案于 2024 年 2 月 8 日生效。

同年 8 月 21 日，为促进量刑的一致性和透明度而于 2022 年成立的量刑咨询小组发布了一套与诈骗相关的犯罪指导方针。

特别是，该指南建议，在涉及年轻罪犯的案件中，即使罪犯在其他方面适合缓刑或社区矫正（如社会保障令），通常也应判处缓刑或监禁。

上诉中提出的一个广泛问题是法院是否应该采纳这项建议。

检方认为，RT（监禁刑罚）通常是一种合适的量刑选择，而SDO（社会保障令）和缓刑通常不适用。

代表四名罪犯的公共辩护律师办公室 (PDO) 认为，全面禁止缓刑和社区矫正将推翻对年轻罪犯量刑的既定判例。

PDO认为，这种做法也无法解释诈骗案件中年轻罪犯的罪责、情况和改造需求的巨大差异。

其余罪犯的律师也认同了PDO的论点。

鉴于问题的新颖性，律师吴怡玲（Iris Ng）被委任为年轻的独立律师，协助法庭提供另一种视角。她认为，应将特殊教育需求令（SDO）与康复治疗和监禁一起，视为合适的量刑选择。

法院裁定，建议以监禁或康复治疗作为常态，与既定的框架不符，该框架假定改造是年轻罪犯量刑的主要考虑因素。

法院表示，诈骗相关犯罪的实施方式多种多样，导致罪责程度存在明显差异，因此对不同的青少年罪犯，可能适用不同的量刑选择。

例如，一个初犯是因为误判形势而犯罪的年轻罪犯，显然与另一个屡教不改且有一些类似前科的年轻罪犯不同。

法院还认为，对于诈骗案件中的年轻罪犯，推定其将面临监禁或缓刑，而对于犯有其他严重罪行的人，则可以考虑缓刑或社区矫正，这种做法是不合原则的。

Selina Lum是《海峡时报》的资深法律记者。