Vietnamese Man to Be Charged in Singapore Over Jewellery Collection for Government Official Impersonation Scam

Singapore Police said a 29-year-old Vietnamese man will be charged on 4 September 2026 over his suspected role in a Government Official Impersonation Scam in which a victim handed over about S$20,000 worth of jewellery.

According to the Singapore Police Force, the victim reported the case on 28 August after receiving an unsolicited call from a person claiming to represent YouTrip. The caller provided a purported insurance policy bearing the victim’s full name and NRIC number. When the victim sought to cancel the supposed policy, she was subsequently contacted by someone claiming to be an officer from the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

The victim was falsely told that her personal details had been misused and that she was implicated in a criminal case. She was then instructed to surrender jewellery for purported “forensic examination”. Police said she handed jewellery worth about S$20,000 to the 29-year-old man on the same day.

Alleged collection role linked to transnational scam syndicate

SPF’s Cyber Command, with assistance from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, identified the man and arrested him on 2 September. Preliminary investigations indicated that he had allegedly been tasked by unknown persons believed to be members of a transnational scam syndicate to collect cash and valuables from scam victims before passing them to other unknown persons.

The man is due to be charged with assisting another to retain benefits from criminal conduct under Section 51 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to S$500,000, or both.

Police also noted that scam mules who facilitate scams by laundering scam proceeds may face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes for certain money-laundering offences under the same Act. The present case remains at the charge stage; the allegations have not been proven in court.

This case falls within an AML and illicit-finance context because the alleged role was not merely communication with a victim, but the physical collection and onward transfer of valuables obtained through criminal deception. It illustrates how scam networks can use intermediaries to move and retain proceeds outside conventional bank-transfer channels.