S’pore money changer charged after beneficiaries in China could not access money remitted through it
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
The Monetary Authority of Singapore had asked Samlit Moneychanger to address the affected remitters’ complaints but the company allegedly failed to do so.
PHOTO: SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS
- Samlit Moneychanger, Malik Sameer and Novianti were charged on July 9 after beneficiaries in China could not access funds that were remitted through the company.
- According to a joint statement from the police and the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the money had been frozen or confiscated by the authorities in China.
- The case involving the company, Malik and Novianti has been adjourned to August.
AI generated
SINGAPORE – A money-changing firm and two people linked to it were charged on July 9 after beneficiaries in China could not access funds that were remitted through the company.
In February 2024, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) asked Samlit Moneychanger, which had an outlet in Chinatown, to address the affected remitters’ complaints but the company allegedly failed to do so.
The company; Malik Sameer, 36, who was the company’s compliance manager; and Novianti, 45, a Singaporean who goes by only one name and was its director; were charged with failing to comply with a direction involving the complaints.
This is an offence under the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA).
Samlit, Novianti and Malik face 17 charges each under the Act.
Malik, who is an Indian national, was handed 39 charges in total, including two counts of performing acts that could obstruct the course of justice.
He is also accused of multiple counts of failing to comply with orders to help the Singapore Police Force (SPF) access some computers.
In a joint statement on July 9, SPF and MAS said that the beneficiaries in China could not access funds that were remitted through Samlit because the money had been frozen or confiscated by the authorities there.
However, the two local agencies did not disclose the reasons behind such a move, or the total amount involved.
Investigations also involved what the agencies described as Samlit’s “abrupt surrender” of its payment services licence to discontinue its business during an ongoing inspection by MAS.
After multiple parties made reports against Samlit, MAS in February 2024 asked it to address the affected remitters’ complaints.
This included providing them with relevant remittance information to facilitate their appeals to law enforcement agencies in China about the freezing of funds in their beneficiaries’ accounts.
However, Samlit allegedly failed to comply with such a direction.
Separately, Malik allegedly interfered with SPF’s access to two e-mail accounts which Samlit had used, obstructing the agency’s investigation efforts.
Between Feb 24 and Aug 30, 2024, SPF also issued him with 20 orders, requiring him to provide passwords and authentication access to seized devices and e-mail accounts.
He purportedly failed to comply with the orders.
According to the joint statement, MAS took steps in 2024 to secure the funds in Samlit’s corporate bank accounts, given the circumstances surrounding the sudden surrender of its licence.
The two agencies said: “MAS’ direction remains in force until, among other conditions, Samlit obtains a certificate by an external auditor confirming that it has made sufficient provisions for liabilities.”
The Straits Times reported in February 2024 that two unnamed people linked to Samlit were investigated for allegedly running a fraudulent business.
But in their statement on July 9, SPF and MAS said that, to date, investigation findings did not reveal sufficient evidence for criminal charges on the matter.
The police, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, will be taking no further action for now.
However, this does not preclude further investigation if the authorities receive new material information or evidence on the matter.
The cases involving Samlit, Malik and Novianti have been adjourned to Aug 6.
For each charge under the FSMA, an offender can be fined up to $1 million.
