Criminal Law: The Moneylenders’ Act and the Lending of ATM Cards

Under the Moneylenders’ Act (Revised Edition 2010)(Cap. 188) of Singapore (the “Act”), when a bank account or ATM card of any person is used to facilitate moneylending by an unlicensed moneylender, that person is presumed to have assisted in the carrying on the business of unlicensed moneylending.

– First-time offenders found guilty of assisting in the business of unlicensed moneylending may be fined not less than $30,000 and not more $300,000, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding four years and shall also be liable to be punished with caning not more than 6 strokes.

– First-time offenders found guilty of acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender, committing or attempting to commit any acts of harassment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $50,000, and shall also be liable to caning of not less than 3 and not more than 6 strokes.

Our criminal lawyers have successfully represented the following accused persons who were charged under the Moneylenders’ Act:

• In June 2018, Mr L was under serious criminal investigations for lending his ATM card to unlicensed moneylenders, not just once but many times. We were instructed on the matter and we communicated with the Police on behalf of Mr T
• Result: Less than a month later, the Police decided to stop their investigations.

• In late 2017, Ms L was under investigation for providing her bank account to overseas criminals. We intervened and communicated with the Police on behalf of Ms L.
• Result: Less than a month later, the Police decided to stop their investigations.

• In early 2017, Mr P was charged with 3 charges in assisting in the contravention of section 5(1) of the Act and committing an offence punishable under Section 14(1)(b)(i) read with Section 14(1A)(a) of the Act. This meant that the accused would on conviction be punished with a fine of not less than S$30,000 and not more than S$300,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years. We advised Mr P to claim trial and not plead guilty to the charges. We worked with him to strategise and prepare for criminal defence.
• Result: In October 2017, the charges against Mr P were withdrawn by the prosecution. Mr P was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal and given a conditional warning.

• In 2015, Mdm K was charged with 3 charges in assisting in the contravention of section 5(1) of the Act and committing an offence punishable under Section 14(1)(b)(i) read with Section 14(1A)(a) of the Act. This meant that the accused would on conviction be punished with a fine of not less than S$30,000 and not more than S$300,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years. We advised Mdm K to claim trial and not plead guilty to the charges.
• Result: In May 2015, the charges against Mdm K were withdrawn by the prosecution. Mdm K was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal and given a conditional warning.

• Mr F was charged with assisting in the contravention of section 5(1) of the Act and committing an offence punishable under Section 14(1)(b)(i) read with Section 14(1A)(a) of the Act. This meant that the accused would on conviction be punished with a fine of not less than S$30,000 and not more than S$300,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years. We advised Mr F to claim trial and not plead guilty to the charge.
• Result: In June 2015, the charge against Mr F was withdrawn by the prosecution. Mr F was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal and given a conditional warning.

• Mr Tan was charged with assisting in the contravention of section 5(1) of the Act and committing an offence punishable under Section 14(1)(b)(i) read with Section 14(1A)(a) of the Act. This meant that the accused would on conviction be punished with a fine of not less than S$30,000 and not more than S$300,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years. We advised Mr Tan to claim trial and not plead guilty to the charge.
• Result: Trial was fixed for 2 days. The day before the first day of trial in August 2015, the charges against Mr Tan were withdrawn by the prosecution. Mr Tan was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal and given a conditional warning.

• The accused was charged with 7 charges, each under section 28(2)(a) of the Act read with sections 28(3)(b)(i) and 28A(1)(a) of the Act and punishable under section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008). This meant that for each charge the accused would on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, a fine of not less than S$5,000 and not more than S$50,000, and caning of between 3 and 6 strokes. We advised the accused to plead guilty to the charges.
• Result: In June 2015, the accused was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

Contact us Now for assistance with your case and for a no-obligation discussion.

Please do not wait until it’s too late!