Worker says he was just helping colleagues send money home. Was he operating an illegal business or simply assisting desperate colleagues?
The Singapore Magistrates Court recently dealt with a case involving a Bangladeshi construction worker who faced charges under both the Payment Services Act 2019 and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
The charges stemmed from his involvement in transferring money for fellow workers during the circuit breaker lockdown period between June and October 2020, when his POSB bank account received at least S$196,123 from various depositors.
The worker argued that he was not operating any payment services but was assisting colleagues during the COVID-19 pandemic to send their earnings to their families back home.
He said he acted without receiving any payment, fee, or commission, purely to help fellow workers who could not access traditional remittance services during the lockdown restrictions.
The prosecution argued that the frequency and magnitude of transactions showed the worker had carried on a business of providing domestic payment services, maintaining that profitability was irrelevant.
Circuit breaker period disrupted money transfers
The events took place during Singapore's circuit breaker lockdown from 7 April to 1 June 2020, though the charged conduct extended to October 2020. The court noted that it was "a particularly difficult period for the foreign workers staying in the dormitories".
Workers faced severe restrictions on their movements and could not access traditional remittance agencies to send money home to their families.
The construction worker had been employed in Singapore since 2012 and held a work permit issued by the Ministry of Manpower. He maintained a POSB savings bank account, which was originally opened to receive his salary.
During the pandemic period, he became involved in a money transfer arrangement organised by another individual who ran an unlicensed remittance business transferring money from Singapore to Bangladesh.
The construction worker's role was to accept money from fellow Bangladeshi workers into his POSB account, then transfer these funds onwards based on instructions from the person running the remittance operation.
Between June and October 2020, the construction worker's account received at least S$196,123 from various depositors. He would then transfer the money to another worker's account, who also acted under the remittance operator's directions.
The person running the remittance operation remained at large and was never arrested.
Prosecution argued business operation occurred
The first charge alleged that the construction worker "carried on the business of providing a payment service in Singapore, to wit, a domestic money transfer service by accepting monies amounting to a total of at least S$196,123" without the required licence under Section 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019.
The second charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act alleged that he was "a self-employed foreigner when [he] did not have a valid work pass to do so, to wit, [he] carried on a business of providing a domestic money transfer service to several individuals".
The court noted that "it was accepted by the Prosecution and the Defence that if the PSA charge was not made out against [the construction worker], the EFMA charge would also not be made out, as both the charges under the different Acts were based on the common alleged act" of carrying on a business of providing domestic money transfer services. This meant both charges stood or fell together.
The prosecution submitted that "the frequency and magnitude of these transactions showed [the construction worker] had carried on a business of providing a domestic payment service".
They argued it was "immaterial that a profit was not made by [the construction worker]" and that business can be inferred if transactions have been "undertaken with 'some degree of system and continuity'".
Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, a "self-employed foreigner" is defined as any foreigner who, not being employed under a contract of service, seeks to engage in "any trade, vocation or profession; whether for the purpose of gain or otherwise" or "any other activity in Singapore for the purpose of gain".
The prosecution argued that the construction worker was "engaged in a trade of money transfer" and that this definition made profit irrelevant to establishing the charge.
Defence raised gratuitous assistance argument
The defence argued that the construction worker "was not operating any payment services" but was instead "assisting fellow workers during the Covid-19 pandemic to send their earnings to their families in Bangladesh".
The defence emphasised that workers "were confined to dormitories and their routine activities were severely hampered. They could not go to remittance agencies to remit monies to their families".
The defence said the worker "was acting gratuitously out of empathy for fellow workers" and "had not derived any profit or benefit from doing so. He did not earn any fee or commission".
The defence raised an exclusion provision in the Payment Services Act 2019, where Paragraph 2(g) of Part 2 of the First Schedule excludes "the service of collecting and delivering currency, where no fee is collected for the service, and the service is provided as a not-for-profit or charitable activity".
At trial, the construction worker testified that "he had agreed to accepting and transferring monies from fellow Bangladeshi workers on the instructions of [the remittance operator], to help them send money back home to Bangladesh" without asking for any monetary reward or charging any fee.
The prosecution accepted in their submissions that the construction worker "did not receive any commissions or remuneration" for the transfers.
Court examined who operated remittance business
The court accepted that "the evidence presented had clearly established that there was a remittance business in operation and that there was no licence in force under the PSA to conduct that business".
However, the key question was whether the construction worker himself had carried on this business.
The court found that the actual operator was the person who organised the arrangement, noting that this individual "is at large and was not arrested for the remittance business that he was carrying out in Singapore for Bangladeshi workers".
The prosecution accepted that this person "was forthright with [the construction worker]" and others, and that they "understood [him] to be asking the three of them for their assistance to their fellow workers".
Based on this, the court concluded: "Therefore, [the construction worker] did not operate the business which was carried out by [the remittance operator]. At worst, [the construction worker] might have been aiding and abetting [the remittance operator] in the unlicensed remittance business."
However, this was not how the charges were written. The charges alleged that the construction worker himself had carried on the business, not that he had helped someone else in doing so.
Translation nuances affected intent determination
The court found the construction worker to be "a credible witness" whose "testimony in court was corroborated by his statements given to the police and his evidence ought to be given full weight".
An issue arose about translation in the construction worker's police statements. He said he used the phrase "sending money" in Bengali during the recording, not the term "remittance" which appeared in the English transcript.
The court found this distinction significant, noting that "the use of the word 'remittance' by the Bengali interpreter in the recording of the statement was not necessarily and unequivocally referring to the business of providing 'remittance' or payment services".
The construction worker maintained throughout that whilst he agreed "the purpose of accepting monies was for helping his fellow workers send money to Bangladesh", this did not mean he was running a business.
The court stated: "It is my finding that [the construction worker] did not admit to carrying on the business of remittance. The whole tenor of the statements and throughout his testimony in court, it was clear that he did not run any business and he had only gotten involved in order to help his fellow countrymen during the difficult period of the COVID-19 pandemic."
The court applied the criminal standard of proof, noting that "at the very least, it is open to interpretation and not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he had confessed to operating a payment service". The court emphasised that "any reasonable doubt ought to be resolved in favour of [the construction worker] in a criminal case".
Employment charge failed with payment services charge
Having found that the construction worker was not operating a business of payment services, the court stated:
"Finally, since it had been found that [the construction worker] was not operating a business of payment services, the charge under the EFMA was not made out."
Because both charges were based on the same alleged activity, the failure of one charge meant the failure of the other.
The court said the prosecution was "doing violence to the meaning of 'self-employed' by suggesting that one can be employed even when there was no remuneration or profit to be had, and the efforts were those of assisting his fellow countrymen or when the acts were done gratuitously".
This statement highlighted the court's view that unpaid assistance does not constitute self-employment under the Act.
The construction worker was one of four individuals who faced charges in a joint trial. The prosecution accepted that "these four persons did not know and did not have communications with each other".
At the conclusion, "only one of the four persons was convicted of the charges against him". The construction worker "and the other two persons were acquitted".
Only one worker, who had received commissions from the remittance operator, was convicted and later sentenced on 28 August 2025 to 20 weeks' imprisonment for the Payment Services Act 2019 charge, a fine of S$800 to return his illegal profit, and a fine of S$5,000 for the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act charge.
Acquittal issued based on charge framing
On 26 June 2025, the court stated: "I was satisfied that an Acquittal for [the construction worker] on both charges as framed was in order."
The court acknowledged that "it is clear from the evidence that [the construction worker] had helped his fellow countrymen and workers in being a conduit for [the remittance operator] in his unlicensed remittance business, and could possibly have been charged with aiding [the remittance operator]".
However, the court said: "However, that is not the nature of the charge under the PSA against [the construction worker] as framed by the Prosecution for the trial."
The court noted that "the possibility of an abetment charge would have required the Prosecution to prove different elements of an abetment charge for intentional aiding the commission of an offence".
An abetment charge would have required proving that the worker intentionally helped another person commit an offence, which involves different legal elements.
The court concluded by stating it "would also be patently unfair at this stage to amend the PSA charge to one of abetment".
The prosecution had charged the construction worker with carrying on the business himself, rather than helping someone else who was running it.
The evidence showed that another person operated the business whilst the construction worker served as an unpaid intermediary who followed instructions. The Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against the acquittal.
