The \u201cpolice\u201d gave her a choice: Surrender her savings for investigation or spend two months in lock-up.<\/p>\n
Marilyn, who declined to share her real name due to privacy concerns, panicked. The 29-year-old Singaporean was unemployed then, with a job interview the following week in February 2025.<\/p>\n
Desperate, she transferred $19,500 to an unknown bank account.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf I didn\u2019t have a job interview that week, I probably wouldn\u2019t have been scammed,\u201d says Marilyn, who now works in finance.<\/p>\n
That morning she was jolted awake by an 8am phone call on her mobile phone. The caller, who sounded Filipino, introduced herself as a DBS bank officer. There was a suspicious transaction on Marilyn\u2019s account, she claimed.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Marilyn does not use her DBS account, and had emptied it years ago. She shared her details \u2013 including her NRIC number \u2013 with the \u201cbank officer\u201d, hoping to close the inactive account. But she was transferred to the \u201cpolice\u201d to report the suspicious transaction.<\/p>\n
She recalls: \u201cIt was early in the morning. I was tired and I just thought if I could file a police (report) over the phone, why not?\u201d<\/p>\n
What followed was two hours across two WhatsApp calls with police impersonators who sounded Singaporean, using names like Lee Kok Fai and Foo Shi Hao. They told Marilyn her name and NRIC were linked to a money laundering case.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A fake arrest warrant, bearing the logo of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), was sent to her over WhatsApp.<\/p>\n
To avoid detention, the scammers said she had to apply for a \u201cfinancial assessments probe\u201d, which involved the transfer of her money into a \u201csecurity account\u201d set up by them, for checks by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. She complied.<\/p>\n
Marilyn was one of 3,363 cases of government officials impersonation scams (GOIS) in 2025.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Though the overall number of scam cases and amount lost fell in 2025 compared with the year before, GOIS bucked the trend. SPF\u2019s annual scam statistics show that the number of GOIS cases more than doubled from 1,504 cases in 2024. GOIS victims lost $242.9 million in 2025 \u2013 the second-highest loss among all scam types, behind investment scams.<\/p>\n
Government official impersonators \u201cprey on victims\u2019 trust and tendency to comply with authority figures\u201d, says Police Superintendent Rosie Ann McIntyre, assistant director of the Scam Public Education Office\u2019s operations department. They \u201cundermine victims\u2019 ability to process the situation by evoking fear and a sense of urgency to resolve the situation\u201d.<\/p>\n
Urgency and fear \u2013 that her personal details were stolen and used illegally \u2013 were what kept Marilyn on the call.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen I first received the call, I thought it was a scam,\u201d says Marilyn. \u201cBut they sounded so professional; the longer I stayed on the call, the more I fell for it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even as the authorities have put in place anti-scam measures, scammers continue to adapt. They exploit vulnerabilities of victims and local infrastructure such as mobile lines, bank accounts and shell companies through local mules to perpetrate their scams, says Supt McInytre.<\/p>\n
In Marilyn\u2019s case, the scammers asked for screengrabs of her bank account and had her transfer an amount that was lower than her previous highest transaction. This suggests that they were cautious to stay under certain thresholds to avoid immediate detection, say the police.<\/p>\n
They also instructed her to label the recipient account with her own name, likely to create a false sense of security that she would get her money back.<\/p>\n
Only after Marilyn told her younger sister what had happened did she realise she had been scammed. She filed a police report. But the money was lost.<\/p>\n
Now, Marilyn keeps minimal sums in her bank account, locking funds in investment products to prevent immediate withdrawals. She also checks in with her sister before making any transactions above $1,000.<\/p>\n
\u201cShe\u2019s my real-life two-factor authentication,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n
Youths (19 and below), young adults (20-29), and adults (30-49)<\/b><\/p>\n E-commerce scams<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Phishing scams<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Job scams<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n Young seniors (50-64) and seniors (65 and above)<\/b><\/p>\n Phishing scams<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Investment scams<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Government officials impersonation scams<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n Police figures show that seniors aged 65 and above lost the most to scams in 2025 \u2013 with an average of $37,053 per victim \u2013 despite collectively making up 14.8 per cent of victims.<\/p>\n Retired bus fleet owner Roger Shin, 73, says he received fraudulent calls from scammers claiming to be from NTUC Income and delivery service DHL over the past year.<\/p>\n \u201cI seldom pick up phone calls from unknown numbers, and I use the block and report function on WhatsApp when I receive such calls,\u201d says Mr Shin, who also has the ScamShield App downloaded on his phone. The app helps to block scam calls and filter SMSes.<\/p>\n Mr Shin adds that he does not click on unexpected links, share his personal details or transfer money to someone he does not know.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The police will also never identify themselves with the Singapore Police Force warrant card online.<\/p>\n How can you tell if the warrant card is real in person? Look out for these security features:\u00a0<\/p>\n When the card is tilted at an angle, the holographic word \u201cPOLICE\u201d appears below the officer\u2019s photograph<\/p>\n<\/li>\n On the right side of the card, there is a vertical row of five holographic police crests<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n This is part of a series titled \u201c<\/i>Act against scams<\/i><\/span><\/a>\u201d, in partnership with the Singapore Police Force and the National Crime Prevention Council.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
\n