What Singapore’s proposed Account Disabling Orders may mean for bank, phone, crypto, and online accounts
The Singapore Police could soon get a direct power to require service providers to switch off accounts linked to suspected scam activity. This proposal appears in the Scams (Countermeasures) and Other Matters Bill, introduced in Parliament on 4 August 2026.
The headline number is 30 days, but there is an important detail. An Account Disabling Order can be extended once for up to another 30 days. So an affected account could stay disabled for up to 60 days in total, under one order plus one extension.
At the time of writing, on 13 August 2026, the Bill had received its First Reading and was not yet in force. The new power cannot be treated as law until the Bill finishes going through Parliament and the relevant parts take effect on a date set by the Minister.
Why a temporary disabling power is being proposed
Scams move fast. Once money reaches a mule account, it can be pushed through several other accounts or turned into digital assets within minutes. Scam adverts and messaging accounts can also be swapped out quickly after a platform takes one down.
Existing investigation and platform processes cannot always move at the same speed. A temporary disabling order is designed to interrupt the activity while the Police and providers check the links. It can stop further transfers, prevent more victims from being contacted, or hold the position steady while information is verified.
The power is preventive. An account does not need to have completed a scam before action can be considered. The proposed test covers accounts suspected of having been used, or likely to be used, to prepare for or carry out a scam offence.
Which accounts could be disabled
This is much wider than freezing an ordinary savings account. It covers five broad account types:
- A bank account
- A payment account
- A digital token (crypto) account
- A phone line account
- An online account
An online account can include a free or prepaid account on an online service. In everyday terms, this may cover accounts used for social media, chat, marketplaces, or other online services, depending on how the law and its detailed rules apply.
The Bill also recognises that different accounts need different kinds of restriction. A money account holds or moves value. A phone or online account is usually used to communicate. The order can be tailored to the function that creates the risk.
When the Police could issue an order
An authorised officer could issue an Account Disabling Order in two main ways.
First, the officer can name a specific account. The officer must suspect, or have reason to believe, that the account has been used, or will be used, to prepare for or carry out a scam offence.
Second, the officer can set out “disabling conditions” instead of listing every account one by one. This is useful when a scam operation controls many accounts that share the same suspicious features. The officer must have reason to believe that accounts meeting the conditions are, or are likely to be, used for scam activity.
Conditions might involve transaction patterns, amounts, links with certain accounts or users, or contact with certain people or accounts. This allows action at scale, but it also makes the accuracy of those conditions very important.
What “disable” would mean in practice
Disabling does not necessarily mean closing the account for good, taking the money, or deleting the account. The provider would be required to block the specific uses stated in the order for the stated period.
Money and digital token accounts
For a bank, payment, or digital token account, the order can block one or more of these:
- Depositing money or property
- Holding money or property
- Transferring money or property
- Receiving money or property
- Withdrawing money or property
The order should state which uses to block. So one account might be completely unusable, while another has only certain functions frozen. What a customer actually experiences would depend on the terms of the order and how the provider carries it out.
Phone line and online accounts
For a phone line or online account, disabling is about communication. The provider can be told to stop contact with named people, groups of people, or users of certain accounts.
This matters when a scammer is using a phone line, chat account, or social media profile to reach potential victims. Blocking the communication route can stop the scam even before any money changes hands.
How long an order could last
The first period cannot be longer than 30 days. An authorised officer can later change the order and extend the disabling period once, but that extra period also cannot be longer than 30 days.
The time limit is an important safeguard, because disabling a real person’s account can have serious knock-on effects. A person may rely on a bank account for salary and household bills. A business may rely on an online account to answer customers or make sales.
At the same time, 30 days gives investigators and providers room to check links, confirm ownership, and decide what other legal or operational steps are needed. The Bill also lets an officer cancel or change an order before the stated period ends.
Can an affected person appeal?
Yes. A person whose account has been disabled can appeal the decision to the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner can appoint an officer of at least Superintendent rank, or equivalent, to decide the appeal.
However, the order stays in force while the appeal is being considered. Do not expect access to be restored just because you have filed an appeal. So back the appeal with clear information that helps the decision-maker spot an error or understand your legitimate use.
Useful material might include proof of identity, proof of account ownership, an explanation of any unusual transactions, contracts or invoices, messages showing that your access was hacked, and the reference number of any earlier report you made to the provider or Police.
What happens to the money or content in the account
An Account Disabling Order is about the use of an account. The Bill does not say that ownership of money, crypto-assets, phone numbers, messages, or online content automatically passes to the Government.
Even so, a restriction can stop an owner from reaching or moving value while the order lasts. Separate investigation powers or court processes may apply if property is suspected of being linked to an offence. So it helps to keep two things apart in your mind: temporary disabling under this proposal, and other actions such as seizure, confiscation, or a bank’s own contractual freeze.
Duties of service providers
A provider that receives an order would need to identify the affected account, or apply the stated conditions, and block the required uses. Failing to comply without a reasonable excuse would be an offence under the proposed framework.
The Bill protects providers from being sued or charged for what they do while following an order, as long as they act in good faith and with reasonable care. This lowers the risk that a provider will delay urgent action for fear of being sued by the account holder.
That protection is not unlimited. Good faith and reasonable care still matter. Providers will need reliable matching, controlled access to orders, accurate action, and records showing what they did.
Risks of mistakes or overly broad restrictions
Any rules-based system can produce false alarms. A small business may receive many payments from new customers. A family may make several large transfers during a property purchase. A content creator may suddenly get messages from many unfamiliar accounts. This kind of activity can look unusual without being criminal.
That is why disabling conditions should be tied to genuine scam warning signs, not ordinary behaviour on its own. Human review, clear audit trails, and a quick appeal route can reduce the harm caused by mistakes.
The confidentiality rules also matter here. Information in the order, and information shared under related Disclosure Orders, generally cannot be used for unrelated business or personal purposes. The required security steps must be followed.
What an account holder should do if access is blocked
Start with the provider’s official contact details. Do not trust a number or link in an unexpected message that claims to explain the restriction. A scammer may take advantage of the situation by offering a fake “account release” service.
Next, secure the account. Change passwords where you can, review connected devices, protect your recovery email, and report any unauthorised access. If the provider says the restriction is due to an official order, ask for any reference details and information about the appeal process.
Finally, prepare a short, factual timeline. Point out the important transactions or messages, explain their legitimate purpose, and attach evidence. Do not delete messages or records that could help show what happened.
How to reduce the risk of an account being misused
Many scam-linked accounts start with careless sharing. Someone lends a payment account to a friend, hands over a social media login for easy money, or lets another person register accounts using their identity details.
Protect all your account credentials, not just banking passwords. Do not share one-time passwords, verification codes, recovery links, or identity-verification videos. Review your devices and login sessions regularly. Businesses should give each worker an individual account instead of sharing one password across a team.
If a stranger asks to route money, messages, or adverts through your account, refuse and report the approach. A small fee is not worth losing access to essential services, or getting caught up in an investigation.
The key point
The proposed 30-day power is a temporary disruption tool, not an automatic finding of guilt. It could apply to money, phone, and online accounts, and it can be tailored to block specific uses. One extension of up to 30 days is possible.
The aim is to give the Police enough time to stop fast-moving scam activity. Whether it stays fair will depend on careful choice of disabling conditions, accurate action by providers, and quick review when a genuine account is caught by mistake.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Will interest keep building up on money in a disabled bank account?
The Bill does not set a general rule on interest. This may depend on the account terms, the type of restriction, and how the bank treats the account. Ask the bank for written confirmation.
2. What happens to GIRO payments and card bills during the disabling period?
It depends on which uses the order blocks. Contact the provider straight away and make backup arrangements for essential bills rather than assume scheduled payments will still go through.
3. Can a person appoint a lawyer to make the appeal?
The Bill sets up a right of appeal, but the public First Reading material does not spell out every step. You may want legal advice, especially if the account runs a business or holds significant funds.
4. Will an Account Disabling Order affect a person’s credit score?
The Bill does not say an order must be reported as a credit default. But missed repayments caused by the restriction can create separate problems. Contact your lenders early and keep evidence of the restriction.
5. Can essential living expenses be released from a disabled joint account?
The Bill does not announce a standard living-expenses exception for these orders. If you are a joint holder, raise the issue with the provider urgently and include evidence of your essential needs in any appeal or request for a change.
Thank you for sharing this article...
About the Author: Randy Alta
