在新加坡冒充政府官员诈骗后果很严重！最高面临10年监禁

2025年1月8日，新加坡内政高级政务次长孙雪玲代表内政部长在国会口头答复丹戎巴葛集选区议员祖安清心关于提议对冒充政府机构的诈骗行为实施更严厉惩罚相关问题。

以下内容为新加坡眼根据国会英文资料翻译整理：

祖安清心（丹戎巴葛集选区议员）女士询问内政部长：

政府是否会考虑对涉及冒充政府部门和机构进行诈骗的罪犯，包括允许他人使用其银行账户的个人，施加更严厉的刑罚和更长的监禁期？

孙雪玲女士（内政部高级政务次长，代表内政部长）：

我们评估认为，现有的处罚已足够。根据案件的具体情况，诈骗者和钱骡（Money mule），包括那些冒充政府官员的诈骗案件中的人员，可能会面临最高10年的监禁。

然而，许多诈骗者以海外为基地，因此很难识别和起诉他们。因此，我们将重点放在惩罚和威慑在新加坡境内协助诈骗的人员。例如，在2023年，我们修订了《贪污、贩毒和严重罪案（没收利益）法令》，以便警方能够对钱骡采取更强有力的执法行动。这些钱骡的银行账户被用来进行诈骗和其他犯罪活动。

此外，我们还与跨机构判刑咨询团（Sentencing Advisory Panel）合作，于去年发布了关于某些与诈骗相关罪行的量刑指导方针。指导方针建议，对与诈骗相关的罪行应以严厉的监禁刑罚为常态。例如，建议起始刑期为：因疏忽而将自己的银行账户交由他人控制的，判处六个月监禁；而明知或有理由相信将账户交由他人控制会帮助对方保留犯罪收益的，判处18个月监禁。

内政部会定期审查刑罚的适当性，并会对与诈骗相关的罪行采取类似的审查措施。

议长：有请祖安清心女士。

祖安清心（丹戎巴葛集选区议员）：谢谢议长。我有一个补充问题：鉴于最近有报道显示，一些诈骗受害者本身也被牵连参与实施诈骗，那么在判刑时会有哪些考量？是否可以明确，这些受害者在法律下不会获得任何宽大处理？

孙雪玲女士：

感谢议员的提问。根据既定判例法，仅仅因为犯罪者是由于经济需要或希望通过参与诈骗弥补自己的损失而犯罪，本身并不具有减轻刑责的价值，除非是在最特殊或极端的情况下。

但我也想指出，可能会存在一些具有减轻刑责因素的案例。例如，若一名政府官员冒充诈骗的受害者从事了钱骡的工作，但他确实相信自己是受政府官员的授权，并对自己从事的钱骡工作性质被误导，那么这一点会被法院纳入考量。

以下是英文质询内容：

Ms Joan Pereiraaskedthe Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider more severe penalties and longer jail sentences for criminals involved in scams using the impersonation of Ministries and Government agencies including those who allow the use of their bank accounts.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs):Our assessment is that the existing penalties are currently adequate. Depending on the facts of the case, scammers and money mules, including those involved in scams that impersonate government officials may face charges which carry imprisonment terms of up to 10 years.

However, many scammers are based overseas, making it difficult to identify and prosecute them. We have hence focused on punishing and deterring those in Singapore who facilitate scams. For example, in 2023, we amended theCorruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Actto allow the Police to take firmer enforcement action against money mules, whose bank accounts are used to perpetrate scams and other crimes.

We have also worked with the Inter-agency Sentencing Advisory Panel to publish sentencing guidelines for certain scams related offences last year. The guidelines recommend that significant imprisonment terms should be the norm for scam related offences. For example, the recommended starting sentence is six months' imprisonment for negligently handing over control of one's bank account to another person; and 18 months' imprisonment for handing over control of his bank account to another person, knowing or having reason to believe that this would assist the person in retaining criminal proceeds.

The Ministry of Home Affairs regularly reviews the adequacy of our criminal penalties and will likewise do so for scams-related offences.

Mr Speaker: Ms Pereira.

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar):Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question. In view of the recent reports of scam victims themselves who become involved in carrying out the scams, what would be the sentencing considerations, and if it can be made clear that such victims would not face any leniency under the law?

Ms Sun Xueling:I thank the Member for her question. In line with established case law, the fact that an offender has committed an offence, whether it is out of financial need or in the hope of recouping his losses due to being a scam victim, in and of itself does not have any mitigating value, save in the most exceptional or extreme circumstances.

But I would say that there might be other cases which may contain mitigating factors. For example, if it is a government official impersonation scam victim, and he went and he did money mule-related work, thinking that he was truly authorised by a government official, and he was deceived as to the nature of the money mule work that he was doing, then this would be taken into consideration by the courts.