Give your bank account and get $1,500: Why 16-year-old became a money mule for scammers

SINGAPORE – Give your bank account and get $1,500 – this advertisement prompted 16-year-old Ethan (not his real name) to sell three bank accounts between 2023 and 2024.

Subsequently, he got a call from the police saying he had committed a crime.

Over $100,000 of criminal proceeds, including from scam victims, had flowed through his bank accounts. Ethan, now 18, had become a money mule.

Ethan claimed he was never paid for the bank accounts, which he had set up for the crooks.

He was sentenced to undergo six months’ reformative training (RT) in 2025, where he was detained in a centre with other youth offenders to undergo a strict regimen that can include foot drills and counselling.

Many money mules may be

young people like Ethan.

In Parliament in August 2024, Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said the police do not track the age of money mules, but added that a good number are young people.

In Parliament in 2022, Mr Shanmugam had said young people form about half of all scam-related offenders arrested in Singapore.

The Government has enhanced laws against money mules, in the light of staggering losses to scams.

Between 2020 and the first nine months of 2025, there were more than 190,000 scam cases reported, with losses amounting to over $3.8 billion.

On Nov 4, Parliament passed a law to

cane scammers and money mules,

with the latter who provide their bank accounts, SIM cards or Singpass credentials facing discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes.

In August 2024, the Sentencing Advisory Panel (SAP)

recommended that money mules should be jailed for at least six months instead of just being fined.

And jail time should apply to offenders below 21, except for those dealt with in the Youth Court. 

While lawyers agree with the need for deterrence, some raised concerns about what the harsher punishments would mean for young, first-time offenders.

Blanket approach

Judges are not bound by the SAP guidelines, but lawyers said prosecutors and judges rarely deviate from them.

According to the guidelines, fines, probation and community sentences are generally not appropriate for scam-related offences, and imprisonment or RT should be considered.

RT leaves a criminal record, unlike probation and other community-based sentences.

Mr Anil Singh from Kertar & Sandhu said he has seen more young money mules being sentenced to RT.

Cautioning against a blanket approach to punishment which risks overlooking the circumstances of young offenders, he added that some young people are driven by financial circumstances or peer influence, or are deceived into giving up their bank accounts.

He said: “They are often unaware of the seriousness of these offences, or what even constitutes a scam-related offence.”

Harsher sentences with a deterrence effect, such as RT, take the young offender away from their family and the community and, in some cases, disrupt their education, he added.

Mr James Gomez from Edmond Pereira Law Corporation questioned the equity of young offenders who commit violent offences, like voluntarily causing hurt, being eligible for probation, while money mules are likely to be sentenced to RT.

He said rigid sentencing guidelines may displace the traditional principle of rehabilitation for youth offenders.

Mr Gomez added: “I think you are gearing society... right towards a culture where youth offenders no longer get that level of humanity from the courts that they ought to get.”

Ms Tanaya Shekhar Kinjavdekar of Trident Law said caning would not be imposed against young offenders sentenced to RT. But she added that the new laws essentially signal that Parliament is taking a firmer stance against scam-related offences, and the courts and prosecution would likely align themselves to this policy shift.

She said: “This could make it more challenging for young money mules to seek leniency from the prosecution at the investigations and charging stage, and before the court during sentencing.”

‘No risk’

Two young money mules told ST in October they were swayed by the promise of easy money for a seemingly innocuous transaction involving banking details.

In 2023, Ethan hung out frequently with his friends as he had a strained relationship with his parents. He heard about selling bank accounts from a close friend.

His friend’s contact did not say what the accounts would be used for, but promised him $1,500 per account.

Ethan said at the time he had not heard news stories of money mules being caught and punished.

He added: “They said there was no risk, and I thought ‘free money, sure’.”

But the contact did not pay him and became uncontactable.

Kiran (not his real name), 20, came from a single-parent family, and wanted to pay his own bills to ease his mother’s burden while he was studying at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE).

In 2024, he saw a message about the chance to earn fast money in a group chat with other ITE students, and decided to set up and sell two bank accounts for $2,000.

Kiran believed he may have flouted the law but said he was willing to risk being jailed, adding: “I really needed the money, so I didn’t think twice.”

He was handed five criminal charges. He will next appear in court in end-November.

Ms Victoria Ting, associate director at Setia Law, said RT still allows for rehabilitation within a structured setting, and the guidelines accommodate both the seriousness of the crime and the offender’s capacity for reform.

She added: “The reality is that scams have become endemic and syndicated. The tough stance reflects society’s frustration with how pervasive these crimes have become, and the need to stamp them out decisively.”

Mr John Lim, managing director at LIMN Law Corporation, said public sentiment should not be at the expense of the rule of law, and young offenders should not think their age is a “get-out-of-jail-free card”.

“If you are 16 and old enough to open a bank account but decided to relinquish control to money mules, you are old enough to face the consequences of your actions,” he added.

Youthful folly

But Mr Singh disagreed, and called for a greater emphasis on preventive education for young people, and a more measured approach in sentencing young offenders, such as imposing community-based sentencing options.

In June, District Judge Kessler Soh ordered an 18-year-old money mule to undergo a day reporting order, perform community service, and to be detained in prison for seven days instead of RT.

The girl handed two bank accounts to her friend for $500, and more than $64,000 in scam proceeds were transferred through the accounts.

Judge Soh wrote in his judgment: “I accepted that it could be attributed to her youthful folly and naivete in being induced by her friend’s offer of fast cash.”

He noted that she had good prospects at rehabilitation in the community and did not require a rigorous and structured environment for her rehabilitation. He described RT as a relatively harsh sentence which would scar her for life with a criminal record.

Both Ethan and Kiran said more education on money mule crimes and knowledge of the severity of the consequences would have helped to stop them from selling their bank accounts.

During the Parliament debate on Nov 4, Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Sim Ann said introducing stiff penalties is not the only anti-scam measure the Government employs.

She added that it takes a whole-of-society approach that includes using technology and running public education programmes to teach youth about the consequences of facilitating scams.

Ethan and Kiran are currently undergoing therapy to understand the causes of their offending behaviour and reconcile with their families.

Their parents were shocked by their involvement in crime but have decided to support them.

Kiran now juggles two jobs while studying, while Ethan regularly helps out at his father’s hawker stall.

When asked what he would tell others tempted by the promise of easy money, Ethan said: “If you are going to (RTC), it is not worth it. Think carefully before making the choice.”