Singapore to block access to trading platforms Octa and XM over unlicensed activity
The websites of the platforms, Octa and XM, will be inaccessible to users in Singapore from Jun 20. Their services - including leveraged foreign exchange, commodities, indices and equities trading - were offered to Singapore customers without licences under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA).
This is a breach of the Act, the police and MAS said.
The capital markets services licence is required for an entity to carry out business dealing in capital markets products, which include securities and leveraged foreign exchange trading, the authorities said.
Investigations revealed that Octa and XM had also actively offered and marketed their services to customers in Singapore.
The platforms are operated by entities incorporated overseas – Octa by Octa Markets and Uni Fin Invest, purportedly based in the Union of Comoros and Mauritius respectively; and XM by XM Global, purportedly incorporated in Belize.
The authorities stated that these entities do not hold licences to deal in capital markets products and are therefore prohibited from offering such services.
"This prohibition extends to entities operating outside Singapore, when the entities solicit or advertise products or services that are targeted at Singapore persons, or if there is a substantial number of Singaporeans using a foreign entity's products or services," the release said.
The information on their websites constitutes prohibited content under the Internet Code of Practice, the authorities added.
"As such, access to both trading platforms' websites will be blocked for Singapore residents with effect from Jun 20 and consumers with active accounts with Octa and XM will not be able to access their websites through Internet Access Service Providers based in Singapore."
The police and MAS advised the public to deal only with licensed platforms listed in MAS' Financial Institutions Directory.
They added that unregulated online trading platforms, particularly those based outside Singapore, pose a greater risk of fraud since the credibility of their operations cannot be easily verified.
Such platforms also offer limited recourse for consumers in the event of disputes. They may also require payment for trades to be made using credit or debit cards, posing the added risk of unauthorised card transactions, said the authorities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
a minute ago
- CNA
Hyflux trial: Defence accuses ex-corporate communications head of just forwarding emails, changing answers
SINGAPORE: A defence lawyer in the ongoing trial of the former leaders of defunct water treatment company Hyflux on Wednesday (Aug 20) accused the company's former head of corporate communications of merely forwarding emails and ignoring comments, as well as changing her answers in court. The email chain in question, sent in December 2010, is important because it contained drafts of a news release by Hyflux announcing that the company had been awarded a contract by PUB for the Tuaspring desalination plant. Earlier drafts contained mentions of a new electricity business the project was to engage in, but it was later edited out. Who directed the edit is one of the issues under scrutiny, with the former corporate communications head Ms Winnifred Heap Ah Lan stating that it was following input from then-chief executive officer Olivia Lum Ooi Lin and then-chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng. Lum, 64, and Cho, 56, are on trial along with four former independent directors of Hyflux for omitting details about the electricity sales in the Tuaspring project. The project was pitched to the public as Hyflux's second and largest seawater desalination plant in Tuas. However, the prosecution's case is that Hyflux hid the fact that it would fund the sale of water at a very low price with the business of selling electricity from a power plant it would build. The project suffered heavy losses on the back of weak electricity sales and ultimately resulted in Hyflux's liquidation, with 34,000 investors owed S$900 million (US$700 million). Ms Heap was the prosecution's second witness. Lum's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, took the full day on Wednesday cross-examining Ms Heap on various presentations she had given in her capacity as head of corporate communications and investor relations. The cross-examination was halting as Ms Heap often took some time to think, or did not answer Mr Singh's questions directly. At a few points, the judge had to intervene to keep proceedings going. At one point, Ms Heap said: "I'm not sure why we are going round and round." Mr Singh accused her of changing her answers, but she objected to this characterisation and said she was being consistent instead. At another point, she said she was "just wondering" why Mr Singh kept repeating that she could not remember some events because it had been 15 years since the meetings or sessions she was being questioned about. Mr Singh replied: "That's not your role. Your role is to answer my question." For a large part of the day, Mr Singh took Ms Heap through various presentation decks she had led and questioned her on what she remembered but much of the time she said she could not remember. COMPARING TWO NEWS RELEASES Towards the end of the day, Mr Singh showed Ms Heap two news releases Hyflux had prepared under her charge - one was a draft news release in December 2010 for the Tuaspring project, another was in January 2011, about Hyflux being awarded three water projects in Chongqing, China. He compared the two news releases and ran Ms Heap through the differences, if any. In disagreeing with a question by Mr Singh, Ms Heap said any announcement would have to include the relevant details, such as size of the plant, revenue drivers, operating cost and location. However, Mr Singh then showed her the Chongqing announcement and said it did not include anything about revenue drivers, which she had just said would have to be included in any announcement. Ms Heap initially had a lengthy back-and-forth with Mr Singh before eventually agreeing that the parts she had said needed to be in announcements were not in the Hyflux draft announcement about the Tuaspring project. "So the evidence you've given about such information needing to be in the announcement is something you just thought of," said Mr Singh. "No," answered Ms Heap. "I was going to say, in a template, you will need ... what's the value of a contract, the location of a contract, the duration of a contract." She had told the court earlier that the draft news release would have been prepared by Ms Seah Mei Kiang, who was part of her corporate communications team. Ms Seah would have obtained input from the relevant personnel in Hyflux to draft the release, Ms Heap said. Mr Singh questioned her on whether she could remember what was in Ms Seah's first draft, which Ms Heap asked to be amended. Ms Heap said she could not remember. "So I'm asking you now, 15 years ago, do you remember the content of the discussion you had with Mei Kiang on her draft? I'm not asking you to guess, or (say) what typically happens, I'm asking you if you remember what you said and what she said and what was discussed," said Mr Singh. "No, I cannot remember," said Ms Heap. In response to an email containing the draft of the news release on the Tuaspring project, finance personnel Nah Tien Liang replied with some comments asking to place the capacity of the power plant at 411MW instead of 350MW. He also corrected an impression in the news release to say that both the power plant and desalination plant would be owned by the same special purpose company (SPC). THE EMAIL FROM CAMILLE HURN Mr Singh then focused on another reply to the email thread on Dec 20, 2010, this time by Ms Camille Hurn, who was senior vice president on energy and infrastructure development and who was the energy expert. In the email, Ms Hurn wrote: "Dear all. Please see my comments marked up in the document. I agree with Tien Liang that the (SPC) for the generation and the desalination is the same and am not sure if we need to go into detail about our energy retailing arm, so have completely deleted that sentence. With regard to the power plant capacity, I think either 411MW or 350MW is okay, as 350MW is our estimate of actual output with local conditions." Mr Singh asked Ms Heap what she did after receiving Ms Hurn's email. Ms Heap said she could not remember. She said she could have walked over to Ms Hurn to discuss it with her as their offices were close to each other, but said she could not remember. "Looking at Camille's email, she was raising a question right, about whether it's necessary to include that detail. Correct?" asked Mr Singh. "Did you consider it your job to engage her on that question? Or did you consider it your job to take the draft as it had come back with amendments and now pass it on?" Ms Heap kept quiet for some time before saying, "I'm hesitating because I'm trying to recall. But typically, I would engage her to ask why." She eventually said she could not remember what she did. "So what appears to have been done was - you used an amended draft and had it sent on. I'm not criticising you, I'm just looking at the process. Correct?" asked Mr Singh. Ms Heap did not answer directly, instead saying she was "not privy to the electricity power generation part of the discussion". She said she could not recall if she discussed Ms Hurn's comment with anyone. She then locked horns with Mr Singh over a question he posed her: "The last thing you would've wanted to do in an announcement is to give the message to the public that what Hyflux was now going to do was get into the utilities business with earnings over a long period of time. Correct?" After the back-and-forth, Principal District Judge Toh Han Li intervened and said his understanding of Ms Heap's evidence was that it never crossed her mind that this whole project involved utilities, so it never crossed her mind that she had to talk about utilities. Mr Singh later accused her of changing her answer, but Ms Heap said she had not. She repeatedly said that it was an integrated project in "all our minds", with Mr Singh correcting her to say he was concerned only with her mind. She later said she wanted to change her evidence, and stated: "I'm saying that when we were preparing this announcement, like I mentioned several times, it didn't cross our minds that we should try to position this as a utility. For us, it's an integrated project that presents growth." Mr Singh then asked Ms Heap again about the email from Ms Hurn. "Here was a senior management person raising a concern which possibly could have been related to utilities and the IR (Investor Relations) strategy, but you did nothing as far as you can remember," he said. "As far as I can remember, yes," said Ms Heap. "And I also believe you didn't communicate the fact that Camille had concerns to anyone else. Correct?" asked Mr Singh. Ms Heap said she "would have", but Mr Singh said he did not ask if she would have but whether she did or did not. She replied that she could not remember. Mr Singh said: "And Ms Heap, based on all your answers, it would appear that at this stage at least, Mei Kiang did the work in the first draft, she gave (it) to you, utilities didn't cross your mind, so it didn't occur to you that that might be what was said, or anything that was said was inconsistent with the IR strategy, you asked her to circulate the draft after discussion, when mark-ups came in with comments, you ignored the comments and just forwarded the mark-ups. Does that sound about right? Yes or no?" Ms Heap said she could not remember. Mr Singh then said: "I suggest to you - when you say you cannot remember discussing with Mei Kiang, what was discussed with Mei Kiang, you cannot remember if you discussed with Camille and based on what you did on the emails, it would appear that you (gave your role away) without drawing attention to issues that might arise on account of your IR strategy." Ms Heap disagreed and said she could not remember, but she would have "done all that". Mr Singh then showed her how she had replied an email in three minutes. "There was no discussion. Correct? Look at the timing," he said. Ms Heap agreed. Mr Singh then repeatedly questioned Ms Heap on whether she failed to discuss the issue with Ms Hurn. "You can't have so many different answers," said Mr Singh at the end of a line of questioning on this. "Three versions. You said - no discussion, then you said I probably did not discuss, and (then) you say, I do not remember. Looking at the time of the emails, there was no discussion," said Mr Singh. "Looking at the time of the email, there was no discussion, yes," Ms Heap said. The judge then asked Mr Singh if he could wrap up. When asked how much longer he would take to cross-examine Ms Heap, Mr Singh said: "To be honest, I'm not sure, given the way evidence has come out. I can't say I will finish tomorrow." Wednesday's cross-examination ended before Mr Singh could get to the drafts of the news releases, where the crucial portions about the electricity business were edited out. This tranche of the trial ends on Thursday, with further dates in September. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional failure to disclose the electricity sale information to the securities exchange, Lum could be jailed for up to seven years, fined up to S$250,000 or both.
CNA
a minute ago
- CNA
Live, locally-grown shrimp and fish now on sale at 3 Giant supermarkets
SINGAPORE: Supermarket customers will now be able to purchase locally farmed live seafood at three Giant outlets. Giants branches at Tampines North, IMM and Tengah Plantation Plaza will feature in-store aquatic tanks for fish – including grouper, marine tilapia and sea bass – and vannamei shrimp. This is the first time live, locally produced shrimp is being sold at supermarkets. The initiative by farm aggregator Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF) comes amid national efforts to accelerate local food production. The organisation is working with three land-based farms to supply 2 tonnes of live shrimp every month. Depending on sales figures, they hope to bump up the amount by 10 times to 20 tonnes in a few months. 'If the market response is good, we can scale up,' said the federation's CEO Ken Cheong. 'Prawns' growth cycle is much shorter, so we can … pace it together with market demand.' FROM FARM One of the farms supplying the live shrimps is Nippon Koi Farm in Sungei Tengah, which has been breeding fish since the 1970s. Owner Pay Bok Sing said he was initially not keen on shrimp farming as he struggled with procuring healthy shrimp larvae. A single disease-stricken shrimp could infect a whole pond within a day. SAFEF then established a surveillance process to test shrimp larvae for disease the moment they reach Singapore. It takes just an hour to get results, before they reach local aquaculture farms. The federation is casting its net wider for larvae imports – previously only from Malaysia – to include China and Vietnam. It also helps farmers source better feed to grow higher-quality produce, and its consultants provide farms with advice on improving their setup and processes. Mr Pay told CNA that he initially did not really want to conduct prawn farming on a large scale. However, SAFEF later helped establish connections for the procurement of baby shrimp and feed, and advised on how to control disease. 'They've given us a lot of support. Then my mind started to change to want to convert the farm to a shrimp farm,' he said. Decades of fish farming have helped Mr Pay's family business innovate its own aquaculture systems to optimise space and save costs. He designed what he calls 'shrimp condominiums' for his crustaceans – involving perforated plastic crates stacked on top of each other, creating multiple layers that his shrimp can swim in and out of. He said this helps to spread the shrimp out so that they do not end up eating each other. Additionally, the structure gives them ample space to rest, which reduces their consumption of oxygen. The simple invention has allowed the farm to increase the number of shrimp reared by four times – from 200 shrimp per sq m, to more than 800 – in the same space, according to Mr Pay. He also said his farm uses a water management and filtration system that recycles the water used in the ponds, reducing costs while promoting environmental sustainability. TO SUPERMARKET SAFEF already sells locally-sourced seafood and vegetables to other major supermarkets in Singapore including FairPrice and Sheng Siong. Mr Cheong said consumers' response has been positive and demand is growing, allowing local farmers to ramp up output. Production of vegetables by its farm partners has been scaled up by more than five times and fish production by four times since May last year. SAFEF's launch at Giant Tampines Hypermarket on Tuesday (Aug 19) will further increase that demand, kicking off the sale of its aggregated produce at 38 Cold Storage and Giant outlets across the island. Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth Baey Yam Keng called the launch a 'milestone' that will propel Singapore towards its '30 by 30' goal to produce 30 per cent of the nation's nutritional needs by 2030. 'This will reinforce our commitment to champion local farmers and expand the market for local produce,' said Mr Baey, who is MP for Tampines GRC. 'Because they are straight from the farm to the supermarket, they are fresher, and they can last longer. (They also) incur less transport miles to reach shelves, so that is also good for the environment, with lower emissions.' He highlighted challenges Singapore faces when it comes to food, including climate change affecting crop yield, geopolitical tensions affecting trade, as well as the nation's limited land resources for farming. 'Building local production capabilities is a shared responsibility among different stakeholders, including the government, industry players and consumers,' he said. 'More importantly, all these collective efforts will strengthen the Singapore food story and increase our resilience in our food source.'
CNA
31 minutes ago
- CNA
15 people nabbed for vaping in surprise lunchtime operation in Singapore CBD
SINGAPORE: It was noon on Wednesday (Aug 20), as office workers in Singapore's central business district filed out of their company buildings. Unknown to them, several Health Sciences Authority (HSA) officers were in their midst, dressed in casual clothes and blending in with the crowds. They were there for a reason: to nab vape users. Joining them during the enforcement blitz was a small pool of journalists, including this reporter. We were split into two groups, with each following two to four HSA officers. We walked through the CBD area with no set route planned as the officers kept their eyes out for vape users. Several were found among smokers at designated smoking corners, while others were spotted at more random spots, such as a stairway by a car park. In total, 15 people were nabbed during the two-hour enforcement operation in the CBD. Some of those caught were surprised when approached by HSA officers, but were cooperative when asked to hand over their vapes and key in their personal information. They were taken aback to see that they were filmed by the media and asked the HSA officers about it. One woman immediately turned away to hide her face when she spotted the mobile phones pointed in her direction. On Tuesday, three people were caught at Haji Lane during a vape enforcement operation by HSA. All 18 people caught on Tuesday and Wednesday were fined on the spot. A total of 82 vapes and related components, including 62 heatsticks, were seized over the two days. Vaping is a serious concern in Singapore. In the National Day Rally speech last Sunday, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the country will step up enforcement and treat vaping as a "drug issue", with stiffer penalties for sellers of vapes with harmful substances. Currently, those caught for the purchase, use and possession of vapes are referred to the HSA and may be fined up to S$2,000 (US$1,555). It is also an offence to import, distribute, sell or offer for sale vapes and their components. Etomidate-laced vapes, known as Kpods, have been in the spotlight of late. Etomidate is a fast-acting anaesthetic which can be dangerous when used outside a controlled medical environment. Under the Poisons Act, those found guilty of possessing, importing or selling pods containing etomidate face a jail term of up to two years and a maximum fine of S$10,000.
