Corporate Services for Your Business in Singapore
WhatsApp
WeChat⌄
Apex Gateway WeChat QR code

Scan to contact us on WeChat

Mobile: +65 8585 9090Email: info@acggroupsg.com
News directory →

NEWS · IRAS · Tax Crime

Two Individuals Charged for Perpetrating a $55 Million GST Missing Trader Fraud; Another Charged for Breaching Director’s Duties

IRAS publication date:

Case and status

Francis Tan Nuan Seng and Kelvin Yeo Soon Teck were charged on 6 September 2023 over alleged S$55 million fictitious sales. Sia Hock Chuan had separately been charged on 24 August for an alleged failure to exercise director diligence. This was the second prosecution involving missing-trader fraud.

Facts, amounts and outcome

M_Solution Trading allegedly generated false invoices and orders for electronic goods and software during September–December 2015, charging GST before its December registration. Tan and Yeo allegedly ran its operations; Yeo also operated Crescendo Hardware Trading. Tan allegedly transferred around S$5 million of criminal benefits to Hong Kong. The release lists separate fraudulent-trading, forgery, laundering and director-duty charges. Its later conviction follow-up is retained as a distinct dated article.

How the missing-trader arrangement works

The upstream trader invoices a domestic buyer for goods plus GST but does not remit the collected tax. Intermediate businesses provide a chain of invoices, and the final exporter claims purchase input tax while recording a zero-rated export. Where the upstream tax is missing, paying a downstream refund causes a loss to the revenue. Some cases use nonexistent goods; others repeatedly circulate goods through imports and exports. The case amounts above describe this particular release, not every missing-trader arrangement.

Due diligence and input-tax exposure

The release warns businesses to investigate the commercial substance of purchases and respond to suspicious arrangements. For supplies that a business knew or should have known were part of missing-trader fraud, the cited rule denies input tax and adds a 10% surcharge on the amount denied. Supplier paperwork alone should not replace checks on actual goods, delivery and the commercial purpose of a transaction.

Official attachments and further guidance

Official source

This report is independently written from the IRAS release dated above. Case status, policy announcements and historical figures refer to that release.

Read the complete IRAS release ↗

More news

Contact Us