Public Access on Investment Schemes Promoters' Directorships, Bankruptcy and Regulatory Alerts

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for promoters of investment schemes (a) whether ScamShield will let the public check, for free, a promoter's directorships, bankruptcy, involvement in wound up companies and foreign regulators' alerts before investing; and (b) whether the Government will warn the public of promoters that its registers show as undischarged bankrupts or directors of companies wound up with unpaid debts, before victims report losses.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Sir, ScamShield is not a suitable tool for consumers to perform due diligence on persons offering investment schemes. Rather, it serves as an anti-scam tool for consumers to check, block and report messages, websites and phone numbers suspected to be scam related.

An information on a person's directorships and other business involvements, as well as bankruptcy status, is publicly available for a fee on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's (ACRA's) Bizfile website and the Ministry of Law Insolvency Office's website. Consumers should approach every investment opportunity with caution and deal only with entities licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and their appointed representatives.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Four supplementary questions.

Supplementary question one: of the 11,582 undischarged bankrupts at the end of July, how many are listed today as directors of active companies? If the Ministry does not know today, will it provide the figure to the House?

Supplementary question two: I am concerned with a type of corporate scheme whose losses can be prevented with information we already have on national registers. It was reported in June that a Singapore company borrowed from individuals at 16% per year and paid interest for years. A lender who wanted their principal repaid had to sue and won, and around the same time, a bankruptcy order was made against the director. In June 2026, nine months on, the director was still listed on 15 active companies.

ACRA's own guidance tells the public to "avoid dealing with anyone who is bankrupt but still appears to be involved in running a business". Since the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) sends its records to ACRA directly, but the Official Assignee does not, will the Government do so and provide bankruptcy information for free in the spirit of protecting our local investors?

Supplementary question three: another type of scheme was reported in August, about self-styled wealth gurus who have been declared bankrupt with investors' money tied up in schemes promising returns of up to 15% a year. Schemes of this type are sold at wealth seminars and on social media. Will the Government, on receiving a pattern of such reports about possible investment fraud, proactively put up public information, so as to prevent other investors from falling into the same trap?

Supplementary question four: in cases like these – some would call them "schemes", but I would call them "scams" – is warning the prospective investor being pitched as any agency's job, or does the Government see its duty to local investors as beginning mainly when they make a police report?

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for his s upplementary questions . I think on the first one, on bankruptcy figures, and on the third one on ICA, passport investment fraud, I would ask that he file separate Parliamentary Questions for the relevant agencies. The relevant agencies can go into those details.

He also mentioned about bankruptcy information for free. That is on the ACRA website, and I have a response from ACRA. It says that the fee for an ACRA business profile currently has been kept at $5.50 per copy for the past 14 years. But ACRA periodically reviews its fees to ensure that they remain appropriate, taking into account factors, such as cost recovery service provision and accessibility.

But I wanted to zoom out a little bit. I understand where the Member is coming from in terms of helping to address scams and investment schemes that might be detrimental, of course, to consumers. There are a few things we can do collectively and where Government can also play an important part. If a consumer comes across an investment opportunity that could be a potential scam or if you do not know if it is a potential scam, please do call the ScamShield hotline because it has the latest information on scam trends, including fraudulent investment schemes. You have that agency and onus to do so.

Second, if you are also unsure, please verify licensed entities and appointed representatives by checking the Financial Institutions Directory and the Financial Institution Representatives Register on the MAS website. So, that is what you can immediately do if you are a potential investor that have some concerns or want to find out about whether an investment opportunity is too good to be true.

At the same time, MAS and the Government also have a lot of initiatives to push through and to raise awareness about investment scams. For example, MoneySense, which is MAS' national financial education programme, reminds consumers of the importance of understanding the features and the risks of products and opportunities that potential investors might consider. And specific to investment scams, the MAS works with the police force and the financial industry to educate customers and consumers on red flags. What kind of red flags? For example, the promise of high return with very low or no risk, pressure tactics, unverifiable track records. And it also teaches consumers how to verify if an entity or person is regulated by MAS.

So, yes, Government has its role to play. We also raise awareness. And I also ask for potential investors and consumers to also take that agency to find out and to exercise due caution when entering into investment products or services.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong. Last supplementary question.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you. I understand the principle of caveat emptor. But for the two cases these investment schemes were advertised at about 5% to 16% a year; especially in the first case, it was advertised at 16% per year.

That is why I would ask the Minister of State whether he would not agree that there is actually much more that can be done in terms of making information more widely available so that our investors can do their due diligence much more easily.

Mr Alvin Tan: So, in these kinds of schemes where there could be outsized returns, if you are unsure, please call ScamShield, the scam hotline. If you still want to go check and see whether these companies are verified and they are licensed by MAS, please go to the website. And if you are unsure, also, please make a police report.

So, yes, there is caveat emptor, but the Government also provides platforms for those who are potential investors to go find out more. At the same time, I think all of us can raise our resilience against investment scams by being even more alert to many of these too "good to be true" scams or schemes that are out there.

Mr Speaker: As everyone says, when it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true.