News

FDW Withdrew $20K from Elderly Employer’s Bank Account, Borrowed $10k from Loan Shark & Went MIA

2023-04-23 , 5:22 pm

Last Updated on 2023-05-05 , 3:51 pm

Ms Xie Wenfeng, a 52-year-old human resources manager, has since reported her former 31-year-old maid to authorities for withdrawing $20,000 from her mother’s bank account on 22 April 2023.

The foreign domestic worker (FDW) also borrowed $10,000 illegally from loan sharks and has since lost contact with Ms Xie after the deed.

According to Lianhe Zaobao, Ms Xie and her family had hired a maid to care for their parents for about a year before the incident occurred. Unexpectedly, the maid borrowed money from loan sharks and has since disappeared.

Maid Was Hired a Year Ago

Ms Xie shared that the maid had been caring for her parents at her younger brother’s residence for approximately a year in 2022 before the crimes occurred.

However, all communication with the maid was severed after she informed Ms Xie about her mother’s phone needing repair on 17 April 2023.

Two hours after the call was placed, Ms Xie’s sister-in-law attempted to contact the maid, but there was no response. Subsequently, her sister-in-law received threatening phone calls and messages from an unknown loan shark.

The loan shark informed her sister-in-law that the maid had taken a $10,000 loan from him, and if the debt were not paid, he would set their house on fire.

He even sent a video of a fire he started to prove his point.

As a result of this incident, Ms Xie reported the matter to the authorities, only to find out that the maid had already left the country and returned to Indonesia.

Maid Withdrew $20,000 from Mother’s Account

Ms Xie expressed disbelief that the maid could engage in such behaviour and was even more taken aback to discover that the maid had not only borrowed money from illegal lenders but also committed further transgressions.

Approximately three days later, on 20 April 2023, Ms Xie’s younger brother discovered that $20,000 had been withdrawn from their mother’s bank account, leaving only around $700.

Ms Xie stressed that neither her mother, younger brother, nor sister-in-law would intentionally withdraw funds from the account. Therefore, she strongly suspected the maid of being responsible for the hefty sum’s withdrawal.

Thankfully, her mother’s savings were kept separately; otherwise, being left with only $700 would have been catastrophic.

Recovery of Funds Unlikely

Technology has not only facilitated faster money transfers but has also enabled fraudulent transactions.

Authorities, including banks, the police, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Association of Banks in Singapore, have explained that in cases of unauthorised transactions, an investigation will be conducted by the respective bank if a report is made.

For straightforward cases, the bank should complete the investigation within 21 business days; for complex cases, it could take up to 45 business days.

In Ms Xie’s case, where it is likely that the funds were transferred to a foreign account, the police will work with international partners to trace the money. However, the chances of recovery are slim.

If the funds were transferred to a local beneficiary bank account, the police could freeze the account to prevent any dissipation of funds.

Meanwhile, under MAS’s E-Payment Guidelines, banks are expected to provide real-time transaction notifications and a reporting channel for individuals to report any unauthorised transactions.

It is unclear whether Ms Xie received an alert regarding the $20,000 withdrawal.

Apart from measures to be taken by banks, the MAS emphasised that customers must also take reasonable steps to protect their devices, login credentials, and access codes.

As such, if it is determined that the primary cause was recklessness, Ms Xie is unlikely to recover the money for her case.

However, if the security breach is on the bank’s part, the bank would usually bear the losses.

Despite this, MAS shared that consumers are generally liable for losses from authorised transactions, even if they were tricked into it.

Not the First Case of FDWs Stealing Money From Employers

An FDW was convicted of stealing up to $12,000 from her employer in 2022 and was sentenced to seven months in jail after pleading guilty to theft.

Although the employer’s ATM card was secured in a safe in her closet, the FDW still managed to access it as she was given the password to the safe.

Her employer also gave her the bank account details to withdraw funds occasionally.

As such, the FDW began her illegal transactions with just $500 and continued withdrawing funds of up to $12,000. These transactions were undetected until 8 September 2022.

In another case, a different FDW went to extremes by cutting her throat to stage a break-in and stole valuables worth up to $11,000 from her employer.

Consequences for FDW

Ms Xie informed that she had notified the Ministry of Manpower and the Maid Agency about the crimes committed by the FDW.

Since investigations are ongoing, it remains unclear how the FDW will be charged, considering she has already fled to her home country, Indonesia.

However, if charged, she could be convicted of theft and criminal breach of trust for dishonestly misusing property and funds entrusted to her.

Section 378 of the penal code states that a person charged with theft should have the dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain or loss.

Wrongful gain refers to the acquisition of property to which the accused is not legally entitled. In contrast, wrongful loss occurs when the victim loses property to which they are legally entitled.

If found guilty of theft, the offender may face a maximum sentence of three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both.

In Singapore, an individual can be charged with criminal breach of trust if they have dishonestly misappropriated the property for their use or converted it for their use.

The penalties for the dishonest misappropriation of property include imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.