# Adapting Shared Responsibility Principles Framework to Authorised-transfer Scams

- Date: 2026-09-10
- Added: 2026-09-26
- Who: Dr Hamid Razak · Mr Chee Hong Tat
- Source: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-4215
- sgai: https://sgai.md/debates/oral-answer-4215/
- License: sgai-authored content (summaries, translations, analysis) is CC BY 4.0 — attribute and link to sgai.md. Verbatim source text (Hansard, speeches, transcripts, policy documents) remains © its original rights holders and is reproduced for reference only. Terms: https://github.com/meltflake/sgai/blob/main/DATA-LICENSE.md

## Why it matters

The Government ruled out applying the Shared Responsibility Framework to self-effected transfers, leaving victims of AI deepfake investment scams to rely on discretionary goodwill payments from banks.

## Summary

Dr Hamid Razak asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether, given that investment scams recorded the highest losses in the first half of 2026, MAS is reviewing whether shared responsibility principles can be adapted to authorised-transfer scams such as investment scams, and what criteria would guide such a review. Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat replied that the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) focuses on phishing scams involving unauthorised transactions and is not suitable for self-effected transfers; messaging platforms will be required to make it harder for unknown contacts to reach users and to display warnings, and major retail banks have introduced cooling periods for higher-risk activities. Dr Hamid asked whether the framework could be changed to cover victims who transact themselves because AI and deepfakes make them think the transaction is valid. Mr Chee said measures will keep being reviewed, the MHA scam Bill passed the previous day will strengthen deterrence, penalties should target scammers rather than financial institutions, and FIs make discretionary goodwill payments outside the SRF on a case-by-case basis.

## Key points

- Scam cases and losses fell in 2025 and the first half of 2026, but investment scams recorded the highest losses among all scam types
- The Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) focuses on phishing scams involving unauthorised transactions and the Government considers it unsuitable for self-effected transfers
- Online messaging platforms will be required to make it harder for unknown contacts to engage users without consent and to display scam-risk warnings
- Major retail banks have progressively implemented cooling periods for higher-risk activities such as adding payees, raising transaction limits and large transfers that drain accounts
- The MHA scam countermeasures Bill passed the previous day will strengthen deterrence against scammers and protection for consumers
- Outside the SRF, financial institutions make discretionary goodwill payments case by case based on victims' financial situation, especially for those from more vulnerable backgrounds

## Full text

© Parliament of Singapore — reproduced for reference only.

14 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given that investment scams recorded the highest losses among scam types in the first half of 2026 (a) whether MAS is reviewing if shared responsibility principles can be adapted to authorised-transfer scams such as investment scams; and (b) if so, what criteria would guide such a review.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat) : Mr Speaker, the number of scam cases and amounts lost have decreased in 2025 and in the first half of 2026. Nevertheless, scams are still a concern and as noted by the Member, investment scams recorded the highest losses among all scam types.

The Government has stepped up efforts to combat scams involving self-effected transfers, including investment scams. For example, online messaging platforms will be required to implement measures that make it more difficult for unknown contacts to engage users without the end-users' consent, and to display warnings alerting users to the potential scam risks posed by such contacts.

Major retail banks have progressively implemented cooling periods for higher-risk activities, such as adding of payees, raising of transaction limits and making large transfers that result in draining of accounts, to give consumers an opportunity to re-consider whether the transfer they intend to make is legitimate. The Government will also continue to drive public education efforts to help the public better protect themselves against investment scams and make more informed financial decisions.

Sir, the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) focuses on phishing scams involving unauthorised transactions. It is not suitable for scams involving self-effected transfers. Defeating such scams requires all parties to exercise vigilance: the messaging platforms to make it more difficult for scammers to engage victims; and the banks putting in place cognitive breaks to give time for victims to reconsider.

And importantly, individuals can take practical steps to protect themselves and approach every investment opportunity with care and caution. For example, please check whether it is indeed a Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)-regulated financial institution offering the investment product and contact the financial institution directly through its official contact channels.

Mr Speaker : Dr Hamid Razak.

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West) : Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response. I do appreciate the preventative strategy that MAS is taking in educating our residents.

I thought to ask this question particular with respect to SRF, because, today, it hinges on the fact that a scammer acquires the credentials through a fabricated platform and therefore, investment scam victims would not get the benefit of being protected through this framework. But today we have artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake platforms that then allow victims to do the transaction themselves because they think they are making an authorised or a valid transaction. So, I am wondering whether MAS will review this framework to see whether some changes can be made so that scam victims that are affected by investment scams through this sort of AI-generated deepfake images and platforms can also get the claims seen through this framework.

Mr Chee Hong Tat : Mr Speaker, I addressed this question about impersonation scams yesterday during Question Time, and I shared several measures in which the stakeholders, from the regulators to the messaging platforms to the banks to consumers, should all take to protect consumers against such risks and to reduce the risk of the deepfakes and the AIs succeeding in these impersonation scams.

So, we will certainly keep on reviewing our measures, because as I mentioned yesterday as well, this is a cat and mouse game. Whatever countermeasures we put in place, the scammers will find new ways of trying to break through these safeguards. So, we have to continuously review our systems and to be vigilant.

The Bill that was passed yesterday, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Bill that deals with countermeasures against scams would also help, I think, to strengthen the deterrence against scammers and also to enhance the protection for consumers.

Sir, I would also like to just briefly mention that in this regard, the bad guys that we are dealing with here are the scammers. Therefore, we should really point the attention of our deterrence measures and our penalties towards this group of individuals – the scammers. The financial institutions (FIs) are our partners. We work closely with them and in fact, I want to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the FIs and, in particular, the many employees working in the FIs who are a very key part of this overall defence against scams.

Members would have read reports from the media about how some of the staff in our FIs have been on their guard and sometimes, taking measures to try and protect consumers, at the risk of being scolded sometimes by the consumers, because they will block what they think are suspicious transactions and the consumers are not happy. They would vent their frustrations toward the staff, but the staff helped to prevent some of these scams from happening. Afterwards, of course, the consumers are appreciative. But during that time when they were trying to get the transaction through, there was some unhappiness.

I think it is important to recognise this: that the FIs and the staff working in the FIs are trying their best to work together with us to try and reduce the risk of scams.

I must also add that the FIs have also leaned forward to try and help on a discretionary basis to provide goodwill payment. That means this is not part of the SRF. This is what they do on their own – goodwill payment – on a case-by-case basis, based on the financial situation of the victims, especially those who come from more vulnerable backgrounds. The banks, the FIs will try to do more to help them.