What can reduce a money mule’s sentence in Singapore?

For a full explanation of sentencing in money mule offences, see our page on how the courts decide the sentence.

What can reduce the sentence?

The following have been given weight in decided cases:

• Being misled, and late awareness. In Galvez Mary Joe Blanco v Public Prosecutor [2026] 3 SLR 1427, the offender’s culpability was assessed as low because she had been misled by an older co-worker and the illegality became obvious only in the last six of the 15 days covered by the charge.
• Giving up the gain, and co-operation. In Galvez, these together reduced the starting point by one month.
• Money that is not properly attributable to theoffender. Transfers shown to have been made for innocent reasons, and money that passed through a different account whose opening was not foreseeable to the offender, may be excluded, as the High Court held in Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2026] SGHC 183 (“Erzan”).
• A mental condition linked to the offending. An intellectual or psychiatric condition carries weight only if it is a recognised condition causally linked to the offending. In one of the appeals in Erzan, a report of borderline intelligence and a trusting disposition was given no weight because it disclosed no mental condition and no causal link.
• Rehabilitative progress (for young offenders). For an offender aged 21 or under at the time of the offence, the court may take into account how he or she has lived between the offence and the sentence: whether there has been further offending, and evidence of a settled life such as employment, national service, study and family support. Such progress can change the type of sentence, for example from reformative training (a custodial programme) to probation (supervision in the community) (Erzan).
• A plea of guilty (see below).

As the cases show, the outcome depends heavily on identifying the mitigating factors that are relevant and carry real weight on the particular facts, supporting them with evidence, and presenting them at the right stage of the framework.

How does a plea of guilty affect the sentence?

A plea of guilty can have a significant effect on the sentence, and its timing matters. The Sentencing Advisory Panel has issued Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas, which suggest that an earlier plea may attract a larger reduction. The guidelines are guidance only: they are not binding on the courts, and whether a reduction is given, and how much, is for the sentencing court to decide in the circumstances of each case.

In Galvez, and in one of the appeals in Erzan, an early plea attracted a reduction of 30%.

A plea of guilty admits the offence and gives up any defence. In Galvez, the court held that by pleading guilty, and acknowledging that the section 55A(3) defence could not be invoked, the offender had conceded that neither that defence nor the defence of reasonable care under section 26H(4) of the Penal Code 1871 was available. It is therefore very important that the decision whether, and when, to plead guilty is made only after the evidence, the available defences and the mitigating factors have been properly assessed.

How are sentences combined when there are multiple charges?

Money mule cases often involve several charges, for example charges for different accounts, or for both handing over an account and disclosing Singpass credentials. Each charge receives its own sentence, and the court then decides which sentences run consecutively (one after another) and which run concurrently (at the same time). Where an offender is convicted at one trial and sentenced to imprisonment for three or more distinct offences, at least two of the sentences must run consecutively (section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010).

The overriding principle is proportionality: the total sentence must fit the offender’s overall criminality. The High Court has explained the main tools in Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 998:

• The one-transaction rule. This is a common law principle, developed by the courts rather than set out in legislation: offences that form part of a single transaction should generally not attract consecutive sentences. Whether offences form part of a single transaction is decided as a matter of common sense, having regard to factors such as how close the offences were in time, place and purpose, and whether they invaded the same legally protected interest.
• The totality principle. The court takes a “last look” at the total. It asks whether the total is substantially above the normal level of sentence for the most serious offence, and whether it would be crushing and out of keeping with the offender’s record and prospects. If so, the court may change which sentences run consecutively, or adjust individual sentences.
• No double counting. The same aggravating factor must not be counted against the offender twice.

Parity and consistency with past cases

Proportionality is also measured against the sentences imposed on others:

• Parity between co-offenders. Where several people took part in the same criminal enterprise, their sentences should generally be in line with each other, allowing for relevant differences in their roles and personal circumstances. The High Court has held (Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor [2015] 4 SLR 1120) that this applies even where co-offenders are charged with different offences, and that where co-offenders are sentenced separately, the Prosecution should place their sentences and the relevant facts before the court. In Galvez, the co-worker who drew the offender in received five months on each of two charges; the court indicated that the offender’s own sentence should properly have been slightly more than four months, although her sentence of 40 days was left in place.
• Consistency with past cases. Courts compare the case with sentences imposed in similar cases, but the comparison must be with the offence actually charged and the law that applied. In a 2026 High Court decision (Nur Diyanah bte Mohamed Ramdan v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGHC 174), a sentence for an offence under the Payment Services Act 2019 was reduced because the lower court had calibrated it against a precedent for a different and more serious offence under section 55A of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992.

Other choices also affect the total, such as whether some charges are taken into consideration (i.e., further charges which the offender admits and agrees may be taken into account in sentencing, instead of being tried separately) rather than proceeded with. These questions involve a number of factors and judgments, and are frequently the subject of submissions on sentence.