Promoter of PIC scam jailed 7 months for fraudulent PIC claims

Case and status

Xu Feng Jia received seven months’ imprisonment and S$257,436 penalties over false PIC payouts totalling S$70,130.40. Nine claims were organised during September–December 2012: four by entities he controlled and five by purchasers of his iManage tuition-matching software.

Facts, amounts and outcome

Controlled entities falsely described volunteer tutors as employees and claimed fictitious or personal costs. For customer claims, Xu supplied unrelated people’s details as employees and used proprietors’ Singpass accounts to make CPF payments creating the appearance of employment. Five proprietors were separately convicted in 2016. The historical scheme required genuine qualifying expenditure and local employees; paperwork and CPF contributions did not turn invented employment into real work.

Historical PIC conditions and abuse

The PIC case concerns genuine qualifying productivity expenditure and the applicable local-employee requirement. False invoices, inflated prices, sham purchases or listing people who did not work for the business do not meet those conditions. The release warns that claimants, suppliers, consultants and promoters may each be liable for their own conduct. Its discussion of PIC payouts and bonuses describes a historical scheme rather than an invitation to apply for a current grant.

Disclosure, reporting and rewards

IRAS encourages taxpayers to correct past errors and report suspected tax malpractices. The release says disclosure may be considered when deciding enforcement action; it is not a blanket promise of immunity. Where the release describes informant rewards, qualifying information leading to otherwise lost tax recovery may attract 15% of recovered tax, capped at S$100,000, at IRAS’ discretion. Informant identities are kept confidential. Use the official release links for its reporting and disclosure channels.

More news