Probe into 49 for suspected money laundering involving crypto accounts, over US$156,000 seized
SINGAPORE: The police are investigating 49 people for suspected money laundering activities involving the use of cryptocurrency accounts.
The suspects – 35 men and 14 women – are aged between 18 and 58, the police said on June 12.
They were nabbed during an islandwide operation carried out between May 13 and 30 by officers from the police's Anti-Scam Command, who worked alongside digital payments firm StraitsX. More than $200,000 (US$156,006) was seized as a result.
Early investigations showed that the suspects allegedly opened and gave up their cryptocurrency accounts or Singpass credentials in exchange for cash, which ranged from $400 to $3,000.
Making use of messaging platforms such as Telegram or WhatsApp, unknown parties had made contact with the suspects, guiding them through the process.
Part of the instructions they received included providing screenshots, personal details, as well as access to their cryptocurrency or Singpass accounts, which were then used to facilitate the laundering of scam proceeds.
The police said the collaboration with StraitsX had 'enhanced capabilities to detect suspicious financial activities', which led to the suspects being identified.
They also stressed that they take a strong stance against people who may be involved in money laundering activities, and will not hesitate to take action.
In order to avoid being implicated in such crimes, the police advised people to always reject requests by others to make use of their bank or cryptocurrency accounts.
Caution should also be exercised if 'seemingly attractive money-making opportunities promising fast and easy pay-outs for the use of their bank or cryptocurrency accounts' are presented.
'Anyone who allows their personal bank accounts or cryptocurrency accounts to be used to receive and transfer money or cryptocurrency for others will be held accountable if these transactions are linked to crimes,' said the police.
Those convicted of assisting another person to retain the benefits from criminal conduct can be fined up to $50,000, jailed for up to three years, or both. - The Straits Times/ANN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
McDonald's settles Byron Allen's US$10 billion lawsuit over ads for Black-owned media
McDonald's has settled a US$10 billion lawsuit by the media entrepreneur Byron Allen accusing the fast-food chain of "racial stereotyping" by excluding Black-owned media from much of its advertising budget. Friday's settlement between McDonald's and two of Allen's companies, Entertainment Studios Networks and the Weather Group, averts a scheduled July 15 trial in Los Angeles federal court. It also resolves claims raised in Allen's related US$100 million lawsuit against McDonald's in Los Angeles Superior Court. McDonald's said it will buy ads "at market value" from Allen's companies "in a manner that aligns with its advertising strategy and commercial objectives." Settlement terms are confidential. McDonald's, based in Chicago, denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. In a statement, Allen's companies said "we acknowledge McDonald's commitment to investing in Black-owned media properties and increasing access to opportunity. Our differences are behind us." Allen accused McDonald's of falsely labeling Entertainment Studios as a media company that produces content solely for Black viewers, consigning it to its "de minimis" ad budget for those viewers instead of its general ad budget. He also accused McDonald's of lying when it pledged in 2021 to boost national ad spending with those media to 5 per cent from 2 per cent by 2024. Allen said he relied on that pledge when seeking business from McDonald's, only to be rebuffed, and that his Allen Media Group represented more than 90 per cent of Black-owned media.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
She got a phone call to deposit her money. The terrifying scam inside bitcoin ATMs in the US
The stories have played out across the country. In New Jersey, it was a 74-year-old retired art restorer contacted by a person purporting to be an Apple representative, advising her that her computer had been hacked and her credentials and accounts with her banks had been compromised. He warned that a number of illegal transactions had been conducted under her name and accounts – including purchases of child pornography. The only way to protect the US$25,800 (RM 109,554) sitting in her bank from the pending charges, he told her, was to withdraw the funds and deposit them into what he called a 'proxy' account through a bitcoin ATM located at a nearby Exxon gas station. There, he claimed, it could be held 'until her name was cleared.' In Iowa, Attorney General Brenna Bird earlier this year filed lawsuits against two bitcoin ATM operators over what she said was their failures that led to residents transferring millions of dollars to scammers. And in Silver Spring, Md, the victim was a 75-year-old woman who lost US$13,000 (RM 55,201) in the same kind of scam. In court filings, her attorneys said she was instructed by a purported Wells Fargo bank representative to take the money out of her account and bring it to a nearby bitcoin ATM, 'where it will be encrypted.' The same kind of high-tech heists have taken tens of millions of dollars in recent years, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Fueled by the Internet, scam tactics are always evolving. The game plan always involves finding a way to transfer money in ways it cannot be recovered. Sometimes it's a demand for a money order, or the use of gift cards that victims are told they must buy to avoid arrest or to secure access to their money. Bitcoin ATMs – generally found at convenience stores, gas stations and other high-traffic areas – have increasingly become the latest tool to separate people from their money. The machines look like a traditional automatic teller machine, but do not distribute cash. Instead, they take bills in various denominations in exchange for cryptocurrency, which is not tied to governments or banks and is untraceable. The bitcoin funds get credited to an anonymous account or 'wallet' controlled by the scammer. Once there, it cannot be easily tracked or recovered. Last month, attorneys for three New Jersey victims filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against Athena Bitcoin, a company that provides the ATMs, as well as the retail stores that hosted the machines, over their use as 'payment portals' to enable the fraud. It charged them with violations of the state's consumer fraud act. 'I can't think of any use for these machines that isn't criminal money laundering or fraud,' said their lawyer, Marc Dann, a former Ohio attorney general who has similar cases pending in Ohio and Colorado. He plans to soon file additional complaints in Florida, Massachusetts and Mississippi. Athena Bitcoin, based in Miami, did not respond to calls and emails to the company, to its marketing director, or to a message left with one of its attorneys. According to its website, it has 3,700 ATMS, operating in 33 US states and territories, and in four countries in Central and South America. At a gas station convenience store in Union County, an Athena ATM was planted near the front entrance, next to a conventional ATM. Its screen last Friday carried a warning: 'Did someone call or email you with instructions on how to 'protect" your money? Has someone reached out to you telling you that you should or must use this or any other ATM machine? IF YES, TO EITHER OF THE ABOVE, STOP NOW. Contact your back to verify the security of your account. ATM scams are real." Dann said there are a number of companies that offer Bitcoin ATMs. Some, he noted, have better security measures in place to prevent or minimise the risk that fraud victims will deposit funds. But the lawsuit alleged that the company does not have safeguards. The complaint sought a class action on behalf of others who may have been victimised, charging Athena with negligence, possession of stolen property, and racketeering. 'They were really scary...' One of those named in last month's lawsuit was Joanne Nebus-Horning of Aberdeen, who is represented by Dann, said she got drawn into the scam when she got an email in March that appeared to be from Apple, informing her that her computer had been hacked. 'They said call this number, which I stupidly did,' she recalled in an interview last week. 'They did all these things to assure me they were legit.' The number for Apple came up on her phone, which scammers are able to do by 'spoofing' the originating number to suggest it is coming from somewhere else. They put her in touch with someone who claimed to be head of security for her bank. And they told her not to let anyone else know what was going on. 'I just accepted it, and it snowballed from there,' said Nebus-Horning, who now operates her own antique appraisal business and is no neophyte to computers or technology. 'They were really convincing and scary. They told me that those who used my credit card or bank account were connected to child porn site.' Afraid of what might happen, she followed their instructions to go to her bank and take out cash to put in a so-called proxy account for safe keeping. She said they started by asking for US$5,000 (RM 21,231) . Then they wanted more. A lot more. She went to another bank branch to withdraw more money, where she was counseled to re-think what she was doing. But she persisted, based on the instructions she had been given. Then she took the stack of bills to a bitcoin ATM at a gas station in Holmdel, as she was told, and started feeding in the bills one by one. 'It took me 15 to 20 minutes,' she said. 'I was told if anyone came up, to tell them I'm talking to the machine and don't bother me.' They kept promising her she would get her money back and they would call her. But by the next day, she realised she had been scammed. She called the police, but there was little they could do. Nebus-Horning is not confused by computers. But she admitted the phone number convinced her the call had been from Apple. 'I didn't research. I didn't do due diligence,' she said. The FTC said there has been 'a massive increase' in the amount of money consumers report lost to scammers involving bitcoin ATM machines. From 2020 to 2023, those losses increased nearly tenfold to over US$110mil (RM467mil). In the first six months of 2024, they topped US$65mil (RM276mil) – the most recent data available. Law enforcement agencies say cryptocurrency ATMs have also been used to launder drug proceeds. A 2021 report by the State Commission of Investigation found the machines largely unregulated with no safeguards against fraud, noting one scheme where cryptocurrency kiosks were utilised to carry out a scam that duped multiple victims into spending a total of more than US$600,000 (RM2.5mil) to buy vehicles advertised for sale on eBay that did not really exist. Here in New Jersey, state Sen. Paul D. Moriarty, D-Gloucester, is now seeking to ban Bitcoin ATMs, similar to those operated by Athena Bitcoin. His bill, S-3694, would make it an unlawful practice to control, install, manage or sell a cryptocurrency ATM in New Jersey. 'I don't believe there is any legitimate purpose for these Bitcoin machines. None,' said Moriarty in an interview. 'Even if someone wanted to buy Bitcoin, no one would buy it from a Bitcoin machine. So what's going on? It's ludicrous that someone would be going to a laundromat or gas station or convenience store to make an investment. It's laughable.' He said the proposed legislation was sparked by a call from a friend who saw a distraught person at a gas station putting money in a bitcoin ATM and was told by an attendant that they see people coming in all the time and depositing large amounts of cash. 'I went to that gas station myself and talked to the owner and asked him why they have that here,' he recalled. 'He told me we try and talk them down, but they pay me US$200 (RM849) to put it here.' Incredulous, he asked, 'Do you feel good about it?' Months later, he says it was still there. Bitcoin ATMS, he said, 'don't dispense anything except fraud. They shouldn't call them ATMS. There's no reason for them to exist.' His bill, introduced in September, and a companion piece of legislation in the Assembly, are both sitting in committee. Nebus-Horning has yet to get any of her money back. – News Service
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Na'imah charge ‘likely retaliation'
Rejection of bid to refer questions to High Court unfair, says lawyer KUALA LUMPUR: The Sessions Court's dismissal of Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid's application to refer questions of law to the High Court was a miscarriage of justice, the High Court heard. Lawyer Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar told High Court judge Justice K. Muniandy that the dismissal had denied his client clarity on her legal position and this should be rectified by the High Court to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. Gurdial was submitting in Na'imah's application for a revision of the Sessions Court's dismissal of her application to refer eight questions regarding the validity of charges she is facing. These are for allegedly failing to declare her assets to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). In his submission, Gurdial said the present charge against Na'imah was an offence that was 'purely technical' and likely made 'in retaliation' by the MACC. He said Na'imah was asked to assist in the investigation against her late husband, Tun Daim Zainuddin, as a witness and she was never a suspect. The MACC issued a Section 36(1)(b) notice on her, requiring disclosure of information in respect of her assets and she had complied with this notice to the best of her ability, Gurdial said. 'Notwithstanding this, the MACC took the view that her compliance was insufficient... insufficient perhaps for them to formulate a charge against the late Daim for any criminal offence. 'Perhaps in retaliation, the MACC commenced the present charge against the applicant,' he said. Gurdial said the dismissal by the Sessions Court showed a clear misconception in law and procedure when the lower court judge made certain findings that misconstrued the true nature of the charge against Na'imah. 'In this case, the Sessions Court's dismissal deprived the applicant of this fundamental right, thereby failing to ensure that the legal questions, which are central to the case, were properly addressed,' he added. Justice Muniandy fixed July 11 for parties to continue their submission. On Jan 23, 2024, Na'imah was charged for failure to comply with a notice to declare her assets, which included Menara Ilham and several other properties in Kuala Lumpur and Penang. She was charged under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009, which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment or a fine of RM100,000, upon conviction. On Feb 29, 2024, Na'imah filed an application to refer questions of law pertaining to Sections 30(5), 36(2) and 62 of the MACC Act 2009, as well as Section 32(3)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 to the High Court. On Feb 18, the application was dismissed by the Sessions Court on grounds that it lacked merit, as there were no constitutional issues raised in the case.
