ÂÜÀòžž

New frameworks aimed at disrupting scam syndicates, while limiting disruption to legitimate users, will place added compliance and operational burdens on banks and payment providers.

The Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) have  plans to implement a facility-restriction framework from October 2025. 

This framework will target individuals previously warned, fined, prosecuted or convicted for facilitating scams, as well as those under investigation and assessed as posing a risk of reoffending.

Restrictions may be placed on digital banking, card transactions and ATM withdrawals, as well as the opening of new mobile lines and the use of Singpass and Corppass accounts to register for high-risk services such as opening bank accounts. 

The scope and duration of the restrictions will be calibrated to the risk posed by each individual, while preserving basic financial and communication needs. The SPF will notify affected persons and handle appeals.

Singapore recorded 19,665 scam cases in the first half of 2025, with losses amounting to S$456.4m ($356.1m). 

Nearly 15 percent of mobile subscribers linked to scam activity this year are repeat offenders, using more than 11,000 lines. Authorities have also noted increased use of corporate-registered numbers and cryptocurrencies to move illicit funds.

Enhanced sentencing guidelines recommending tougher penalties, including imprisonment, have been issued for scam-related offences.

Accelerated reviews

Thailand is also adjusting its mule-account , aiming to reduce unintended harm to legitimate account holders. 

The Bank of Thailand (BOT), working with the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) and the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD), has unveiled plans to shorten the lifting of transaction suspensions from up to 72 hours to no more than four hours once clearance information is received. 

The authorities also aim to standardise and clarify suspension notifications and accelerate reviews of transactions frozen on suspicion of fraud, so that victims can be repaid faster.

The BOT has stated that account seizures in financial fraud cases will occur only when guilt has been proven by the AMLO and a police warrant issued.

No implementation date for the new procedures has yet been announced.

Muling in the firing line

Both countries are seeking to balance the need to disrupt scam operations with maintaining essential services for the public. 

Singapore’s approach focuses on preventing repeat misuse of local facilities, whereas Thailand’s centres on minimising the impact of anti-mule measures on legitimate customers.

The main driver in both countries is the surge in scam-related losses and public concern over the misuse of local infrastructure. 

Authorities in both jurisdictions have faced pressure to protect legitimate users from being inadvertently caught up in anti-scam measures, and the two approaches share several features. 

Each involves multi-agency coordination and focuses on key conduits for fraud — namely bank accounts, payment services and phone lines.

In addition, both stress the importance of balancing fraud disruption with preserving basic financial and communication needs for legitimate users.

New compliance challenges

Both jurisdictions’ measures will increase compliance and operational burdens for banks and payment providers. 

Firms will need to invest in systems, staff training and inter-agency communication to meet tighter expectations, while managing the reputational risk of mistakenly restricting legitimate customers.

In Singapore, banks and payment firms will have to integrate the police’s restriction lists into their onboarding and transaction systems, flagging or blocking digital banking, card, PayNow and ATM access for individuals subject to restrictions. 

They may need to build new controls to stop restricted persons opening accounts, activating cards or linking payment apps. They will also need to ensure that call-centre and branch staff can handle related queries. 

Because the SPF will notify affected individuals but banks will implement the restrictions, banks are likely to face more customer complaints and must coordinate closely with the police on appeals and error correction.

Being seen as lax in enforcement could draw criticism from regulators, but overly broad blocking could risk provoking a public backlash if innocent customers are inconvenienced.

In Thailand, banks will have to shorten the time to lift transaction suspensions. This will require system changes, tighter coordination with the TCSD and the AMLO, and potentially round-the-clock operations. 

Payment firms and banks will need to issue clear, standardised messages to customers whose transactions are frozen or under review, explaining what steps they must take.

Given the explicit focus on minimising harm to innocent parties, banks will be expected to differentiate more quickly between fraudulent and legitimate activity. This may require better analytics and risk-scoring tools, requiring greater investment and placing additional pressure on budgets. 

For banks and payment providers operating in Singapore and Thailand, the challenge will be to meet rising regulatory expectations while preserving customer trust in systems that must remain both secure and accessible.