What must the Prosecution prove?
The money mule offences are found in the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (“CDSA”) and the Computer Misuse Act 1993 (“CMA”). There are several money mule offences. See our page on money mule offences and their punishment for a full breakdown and explanation of these offences and their punishment.
Each offence has its own elements:
| Offence | What the Prosecution must prove | What this means in plain terms |
|---|---|---|
| Handing over a payment account Section 55A(1)(b)(ii) of the CDSA | (i) that the accused was concerned in an arrangement that made it easier for another person to control the proceeds of crime; (ii) that the accused gave that person access to or control of a payment account, which includes a bank account and a debit or credit card; and (iii) that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to find out the other person’s purpose. The question is whether reasonable steps were taken at the time the accused entered into the arrangement. The Prosecution does not need to prove that the accused knew the money was criminal. | You let someone else use your bank account (or debit card, credit card or other payment account), and it was then used to move criminal money, without first making reasonable checks on why they wanted it (e.g., selling or “renting out” your bank account for quick cash, without checking what your account is being used for). |
| Moving money through one’s own account Section 55A(1)(b)(iii) of the CDSA | (i) that the accused was concerned in an arrangement that made it easier for another person to control the proceeds of crime; (ii) that the accused received or transferred the money through an account he or she operated; and (iii) that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to find out the source or destination of the money, at the time the accused entered into the arrangement. | You kept control of your account, but let money pass through it on someone else’s instructions without making reasonable checks on where it came from or where it was going (e.g., receiving “payments” for an online job and transferring them on). |
| Disclosing one’s own Singpass credentials Section 8A of the CMA | The Prosecution must prove that the accused disclosed his or her Singpass credentials, and that the accused knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that the purpose of the disclosure was the commission or facilitation of an offence. A person who discloses Singpass credentials for a genuine purpose, without such grounds, does not commit this offence. | You gave someone your Singpass login details when you knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that they would be used for a crime. If you did so for payment or any other gain, or without taking reasonable steps to find out who and where the other person was, you are presumed to have had such grounds unless you prove otherwise (section 8A(3) of the CMA). |
| Obtaining, retaining or supplying another person’s Singpass credentials Section 8B of the CMA | The Prosecution must prove that the accused obtained, retained or supplied the Singpass credentials of another person, subject to the exceptions described below. | You obtained, kept or passed on someone else’s Singpass login details, unless you did so for a purpose that had nothing to do with committing a crime (see the exceptions below). |
What defences are available?
The following may provide a defence, or an answer to the charge:
- No knowledge and no reasonable grounds (section 55A(3) of the CDSA). It is a defence for the accused to prove that he or she did not know and had no reasonable ground to believe that the arrangement related to anyone’s proceeds of crime.
- Is section 55A a strict liability offence? A strict liability offence is one for which the Prosecution does not have to prove a guilty mind. The High Court has left open whether the offence of moving money through one’s own account (section 55A(1)(b)(iii)) is such an offence (Galvez Mary Joe Blanco v Public Prosecutor [2026] 3 SLR 1427). In any case, if it is, the general defence in section 26H(4) of the Penal Code 1871, that the accused exercised reasonable care, applies. And an accused who did exercise reasonable care will in any event have taken the reasonable steps that the Prosecution must prove were not taken, so the charge would fail on its elements.
- Exceptions for Singpass credentials (section 8B of the CMA). Section 8B does not apply where the credentials were obtained, retained or supplied for a purpose other than the commission of an offence and (for supply) the person did not know or have reason to believe that they would be so used.
- Challenging the elements. The Prosecution must prove each element. If any element is not proven, the accused cannot be convicted.