The High Court has clarified that imprisonment or reformative training (RT) should not be the default sentencing options for young offenders convicted of scam-related offences, overturning recent guideline recommendations. The ruling, delivered on September 10 by a three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and including Justices Ang Cheng Hock and Hoo Sheau Peng, emphasized a more nuanced approach that takes into account the individual circumstances and rehabilitation prospects of young money mules.

The panel reviewed seven separate appeals involving individuals who committed offences related to scams, such as opening bank accounts and providing electronic banking details to scammers. Six appellants were under the age of 21 at the time of their offences, while one was over 20. The offences included handing over Singpass credentials, which enabled scammers to open and use multiple bank accounts in the offenders’ names for laundering illicit funds.

Of the seven cases, six individuals had received sentences ranging from reformative training to imprisonment in the State Courts and had appealed on grounds that their sentences were excessively harsh. The seventh appellant, a 16-year-old who was originally sentenced to a short detention order of seven days, a community service requirement, and a reporting order, faced a prosecution appeal that sought reformative training, which was ultimately dismissed.

The court allowed the appeals of four young offenders aged between 16 and 19 who had been sentenced to reformative training, substituting their sentences with probation periods ranging from 12 to 18 months. The appeals of the two older offenders, aged between 20 and 27 at the time of their crimes, were dismissed, with jail sentences and fines upheld.

The judgments were issued in the context of legislative amendments that took effect in February 2024 criminalizing the surrender of bank accounts and disclosure of Singpass credentials by money mules, along with new sentencing guidelines released by the Sentencing Advisory Panel in August. These guidelines had recommended that young offenders in scam-related cases typically receive reformative training or imprisonment, even when probation or other community-based sentences might otherwise be appropriate.

The court rejected this categorical sentencing approach, stating that it was inconsistent with established principles that prioritize rehabilitation for young offenders. It observed that scam-related offences vary widely in severity and culpability and that a sentencing framework must recognize this diversity. The panel also noted the inconsistency in requiring presumptive RT or imprisonment for young scammers, while offenders of other serious crimes might still be eligible for probation or community sentences.

During the hearings, the prosecution argued that reformative training was generally appropriate and that community-based sentences were unsuitable for these offenders. In contrast, the Public Defender’s Office and other defense lawyers contended that a blanket policy against probation would undermine established legal precedents and fail to reflect individual rehabilitative needs. An independent young counsel appointed by the court also affirmed that short detention orders should remain a viable sentencing option alongside reformative training and imprisonment.

The High Court ruling underscores a commitment to individualized sentencing that carefully balances public protection with the rehabilitation and future prospects of young people involved in scam-related offences.