Man sold his Singpass details, which scammers used to funnel almost S$1 million through bank accounts

SINGAPORE: A man in need of money took up a stranger’s offer on Telegram to sell his Singpass details for S$8,000 (US$5,960) to S$15,000.
While he never received the money, his information was used to create a sole proprietorship and bank accounts that scammers used to funnel almost S$1 million in criminal proceeds.
Goh Hai Shan, a 29-year-old Singaporean, was sentenced to 11 months and two weeks’ jail on Jul 23.
In a judgment released over the weekend explaining the decision, District Judge Paul Quan noted that this case stands out in the “staggering sum of nearly S$50,000 shy of S$1 million in criminal proceeds”.
“The sheer number of transactions passing through the account within one of the shortest time periods overwhelmingly points to syndicated activity, for which a deterrent sentence is warranted,” he said.
Goh pleaded guilty to two charges of unauthorised disclosure of his access code under the Computer Misuse Act and abetting cheating. A third similar charge was taken into consideration.
According to the judgment, Goh fell on “hard times” and was lured by a lucrative offer of money from a stranger known only as K on chat application Telegram.
He handed over his Singpass credentials and password to K. The information was used to create a sole proprietorship and three bank accounts.
Goh also acted on K’s instructions to open a corporate bank account under the sole proprietorship that had been created in Goh’s name.
He then handed over control of the bank account to K. Over a matter of days, the corporate bank account and two of the other bank accounts in Goh’s name registered high volumes of transactions with total debit and credit entries of “staggering” and “astronomical” values, Judge Quan said.
Of the amounts, S$953,893 are verified criminal proceeds. The bank accounts were later linked to multiple scam reports lodged with the police.
The prosecution sought 10 to 11-and-a-half months’ jail for Goh, while defence lawyer Mr Krishna R Sharma from Fleet Street Law asking for five months.
Mr Krishna said Goh was a first-time offender who was and still is in financial difficulty. He said Goh did not have control over the corporate bank account and did not know of its eventual transactions.
Judge Quan said it was entirely fortuitous that the third bank account in Goh’s name was not used for any transactions, and that Goh cannot be given credit for this, as it was the “sheer efforts of the police to freeze all the other accounts in time”.
“Mr Goh only took the belated step of resetting his Singpass password when police investigations (had) already commenced,” said the judge.
He said Goh might not have known exactly what the bank accounts would be used for, but he “did not care” and instead “turned a blind eye to the obvious risk” that the accounts would be used for scams.
“The promise of reward incentivised his ostrich mentality,” said Judge Quan.
He added that Goh’s income remains unstable, and he is still the sole breadwinner for his family and caregiver for his sick mother.
He now intends to get married, but he committed the offences because of financial difficulty, said the judge.
“Given his present commitments and his financial circumstances remaining status quo, I am less confident in saying there is no residual need to specifically deter him from re-offending to alleviate any financial challenged ahead,” he said.
In mitigation, the defence cited Goh’s genuine remorse, financial circumstances, good character and his contribution to lion dance in Singapore.
However, the judge said Goh was lured by the handsome promise of a substantial sum of money to commit the offences, and those who “act out of pure self-interest and greed will rarely be treated with much sympathy” by the court.
Judge Quan said there is a need for general deterrence because peddling Singpass and bank accounts has “deleterious effects that are hard to detect and difficult to prevent”.
“The extent of the harm caused by Mr Goh’s offences are significant both in terms of magnitude and reach. He ought to have known that his Singpass account and the corporate account he opened would be used for nefarious purposes,” said Judge Quan. 
“He played a critical role in both offences because it would otherwise have been impossible to open the bank accounts in question.”
He cited the Singapore Police Force’s Annual Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2023 which noted that the number of scams increased by 46.8 per cent from 31,728 cases in 2022 to 46,563 in 2023.
A total of S$651.8 million was lost in 2023.
Between 2020 and 2022, scammers exploited more than 38,000 bank accounts to launder proceeds from local victims, added Judge Quan.
In the same period, more than 19,000 money mules were investigated by the police.
For disclosing his Singpass details, Goh could have been jailed up to three years, fined up to S$10,000, or both.
For abetting the offence of cheating, he could have been jailed up to three years, fined, or both.