2025年1月8日，新加坡內政高級政務次長孫雪玲代表內政部長在國會口頭答覆丹戎巴葛集選區議員祖安清心關於提議對冒充政府機構的詐騙行為實施更嚴厲懲罰相關問題。
以下內容為新加坡眼根據國會英文資料翻譯整理：
祖安清心（丹戎巴葛集選區議員）女士詢問內政部長：
政府是否會考慮對涉及冒充政府部門和機構進行詐騙的罪犯，包括允許他人使用其銀行帳戶的個人，施加更嚴厲的刑罰和更長的監禁期？
孫雪玲女士（內政部高級政務次長，代表內政部長）：
我們評估認為，現有的處罰已足夠。根據案件的具體情況，詐騙者和錢騾（Money mule），包括那些冒充政府官員的詐騙案件中的人員，可能會面臨最高10年的監禁。
然而，許多詐騙者以海外為基地，因此很難識別和起訴他們。因此，我們將重點放在懲罰和威懾在新加坡境內協助詐騙的人員。例如，在2023年，我們修訂了《貪污、販毒和嚴重罪案（沒收利益）法令》，以便警方能夠對錢騾採取更強有力的執法行動。這些錢騾的銀行帳戶被用來進行詐騙和其他犯罪活動。
此外，我們還與跨機構判刑諮詢團（Sentencing Advisory Panel）合作，於去年發布了關於某些與詐騙相關罪行的量刑指導方針。指導方針建議，對與詐騙相關的罪行應以嚴厲的監禁刑罰為常態。例如，建議起始刑期為：因疏忽而將自己的銀行帳戶交由他人控制的，判處六個月監禁；而明知或有理由相信將帳戶交由他人控制會幫助對方保留犯罪收益的，判處18個月監禁。
內政部會定期審查刑罰的適當性，並會對與詐騙相關的罪行採取類似的審查措施。
議長：有請祖安清心女士。
祖安清心（丹戎巴葛集選區議員）：謝謝議長。我有一個補充問題：鑒於最近有報道顯示，一些詐騙受害者本身也被牽連參與實施詐騙，那麼在判刑時會有哪些考量？是否可以明確，這些受害者在法律下不會獲得任何寬大處理？
孫雪玲女士：
感謝議員的提問。根據既定判例法，僅僅因為犯罪者是由於經濟需要或希望通過參與詐騙彌補自己的損失而犯罪，本身並不具有減輕刑責的價值，除非是在最特殊或極端的情況下。
但我也想指出，可能會存在一些具有減輕刑責因素的案例。例如，若一名政府官員冒充詐騙的受害者從事了錢騾的工作，但他確實相信自己是受政府官員的授權，並對自己從事的錢騾工作性質被誤導，那麼這一點會被法院納入考量。
以下是英文質詢內容：
Ms Joan Pereira asked the 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 the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to 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.
CF丨翻譯
HQ丨編審
國會丨來源
國會丨圖源
