Singapore empowers police to freeze bank accounts in suspected scam cases

Singapore has introduced a controversial new law allowing police to seize control of a person’s bank account and block transactions if they believe the individual is falling victim to a scam.

Taking effect on Tuesday, the Protection from Scams Act gives authorities sweeping powers to intervene in financial activities without the account holder’s consent, even if the individual insists they are not being deceived. 

The move is part of a broader government push to tackle the country’s escalating scam epidemic, which hit a record S$1.1 billion in losses in 2024 alone.

Lawmakers passed the legislation earlier this year, though it has drawn criticism from some Members of Parliament who view it as overly invasive. Still, officials argue the law is necessary to protect victims—many of whom dismiss warnings and proceed with transactions despite red flags.

Under the law, police can:

Instruct banks to block outgoing transfers

Suspend ATM and credit card access

Restrict account activity for up to 30 days at a time, with possible extensions

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), affected individuals can still use their accounts for essential daily expenses—but only with police approval. The ministry stresses that such restrictions will only be imposed as a last resort, and after attempts to persuade the potential victim have failed.

Despite concerns about abuse of power and lack of personal control, supporters say the urgency and scale of financial scams in Singapore justify firm action. Scam reports have surged from 15,600 cases in 2020 to over 50,000 in 2024, with fraudsters using increasingly sophisticated methods, including fake job offers, online shopping cons, and romance scams that involve months of grooming.

The new law complements existing measures such as voluntary account locks and emergency “kill switches” that allow users to freeze their accounts immediately if they suspect suspicious activity.

Authorities say their focus remains on prevention, protection, and minimizing harm, even as critics call for safeguards and more personal autonomy in deciding how to manage suspected scams.