Samlit Moneychanger will be charged on Thursday, July 9, for failing to comply with a Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) direction to handle customer complaints regarding frozen remittances in China, according to a joint news release from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and MAS.
Why is Samlit Moneychanger being charged?
The charges stem from the company’s refusal to follow a Feb 22, 2024, MAS direction. This order required the firm to assist remitters by providing information necessary for appeals to Chinese law enforcement agencies after beneficiaries in China had funds frozen or confiscated, according to the SPF and MAS.
The joint investigation began on Feb 23, 2024. Authorities noted that Samlit abruptly surrendered its payment services licence and intended to discontinue business while MAS was conducting an inspection.
Who is facing legal action and what are the penalties?
The company’s director, a 45-year-old woman, and its compliance manager, a 36-year-old man, will both be charged. They face 17 counts under Section 61(3) read with Section 174(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022, the SPF and MAS stated.
The compliance manager faces additional charges for obstruction of justice and failing to comply with police orders. He allegedly interfered with SPF access to two company email accounts and ignored 20 orders to provide passwords and authentication for seized devices.
Penalties for failing to comply with an MAS direction can reach a maximum fine of S$1 million (US$770,000) per offence. Obstruction of justice carries a potential sentence of up to seven years’ jail, a fine, or both. Failure to comply with a police order may result in up to six months’ jail and a fine of up to S$5,000.
What happened with the fraudulent trading investigation?
The SPF and MAS also investigated the firm for possible fraudulent trading. However, they stated that findings to date did not reveal sufficient evidence for criminal charges.
The police, after consulting with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, will take no further action on that specific matter for now. The SPF noted that this does not prevent further investigations if new evidence or material information emerges.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific information did MAS want Samlit to provide to customers?
MAS required the moneychanger to provide remitters with relevant remittance information to help them appeal the freezing of funds with law enforcement agencies in China.
Why did the compliance manager face additional charges?
According to the SPF, the compliance manager obstructed investigations by interfering with access to two email accounts and failing to comply with 20 orders to provide passwords for seized devices.
Will there be more charges regarding fraudulent trading?
Current findings did not show sufficient evidence for charges, and the police are taking no further action at this point, though they may reopen the matter if new evidence is found.
Do you believe stricter penalties for license surrender during inspections would prevent similar remittance issues?