FB pixel

Singapore considers an AML law for ‘victims’ of cybercrime

Singapore considers an AML law for ‘victims’ of cybercrime
 

It’s human to feel for someone who reports their digital identity was stolen for financial crimes but sometimes the supposed victim was in on the scam.

Singapore is writing legislation that that would treat those people like cybercriminals the same as people organizing online fraud that misuses Singpass digital IDs.

There already are at least two anti-money laundering (AML) laws on the books that address witting accomplices, but they require the government to prove the little fish in the police net knew what they were doing was wrong.

A person might agree to let someone use their bank account, turning a blind eye to the harms that ensue. The person might get a small sum from the ringleaders as a reward.

Such cases are the flip side of the kind of cases most consumers hear about – the times when through software or social engineering, someone loses control of their biometric identifiers or other credentials.

A pair of proposed laws are being debated in Singapore to curb the 660.7 million Singaporean dollars (US$486.8 million) that the Singaporean Today news publisher says was lost to cyber scams in 2022.

Some fraction of that total, apparently unknown, involves people who took actions that they knew might enrich them but would almost certainly financially harm others.

Analysis of the AML bills by legal trade publication JD Supra, shows that they are intended to make it harder for someone to disingenuously contend they are a victim, too.

One of the new bills would hold responsible anyone who “rashly” agrees to get involved in a criminal enterprise, according to JD Supra. Singapore’s penal code, says the publisher, defines rashly as when someone acts despite knowing there is a risk that they will be participating in a criminal act.

The other legislation holds people responsible for negligence. A reasonable person would know that they should take an action to stop an apparent crime but did not. In this case, the law would require individual to act more like a bank complying with KYC and AML regulations.

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Imprivata CEO tells Biometric Update Podcast why identity must evolve faster

A lot of people will tell you how fast the tech industry moves. Fran Rosch, the CEO of Imprivata, has…

 

Passenger growth, AI fraud push digital travel credentials toward tipping point

Digital travel credentials (DTCs) are at a crucial moment in their adoption as the travel industry undergoes profound structural changes,…

 

Thales makes strong debut in NIST’s FRIF fingerprint biometrics benchmark

New entries to NIST’s benchmark for large-scale fingerprint biometric capture and comparison software from Thales and Innovatrics show significant gains…

 

CCIA entreats US Supreme Court to intervene in Texas app store age check law

In the present historical moment, it is borderline comical to see advocacy groups for the technology industry insist that age…

 

The US counter-cartel fight is becoming an identity intelligence war

The creation of the Joint Interagency Task Force-Counter Cartel (JIATF-CC) under the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) marks more than another…

 

Bangladesh positions digital ID and wallets as economic infrastructure

Bangladesh is advancing a “One Citizen-One ID-One Digital Wallet” strategy that aims to link identity, payments and government services through…

Comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Biometric Market Analysis and Buyer's Guides

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events