Scam.SG Research Note
A demographic risk profile of Singapore’s scam landscape · H1 2025 vs H1 2026
Segment 1: Overview
SourceSPF Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025 & 2026
The age profile also changes depending on the type of scam. In H1 2026, government officials’ impersonation scams had the highest share of elderly victims aged 65 and above, at 40.8%, compared with 34.8% of victims aged 50 to 64 in H1 2025. E-commerce scams showed a different pattern, with younger victims making up a substantial share: 45.6% of youths and 36.1% of young adults fell prey to them.
Segment 2: Full Age-Band Scam Profile
Before zooming in on the elderly, here is how every age group compares: their share of victims, their average loss, and their top scam type and contact channels, in H1 2025 and H1 2026.
Youths
(0–19)
Average loss
Top scam type
Young Adults
(20–29)
Average loss
Top scam type
Adults
(30–49)
Average loss
Top scam type
Young Seniors
(50–64)
Average loss
Top scam type
Elderly (65+)
Critical Severity Focus Cohort
Smallest share of victims, but disproportionately drains total monetary losses.
Average loss
YoY Escalationvs. Youths cohort average loss: 18.1x higher
Top scam type
Government officials impersonation
Victim concentration (23%)
Key analytical takeaway
The elderly lose more per case than any other age group, in both halves, even though they make up the smallest share of victims. The rest of this note focuses on why: which scam type targets them, how it works, and what has changed.
Segment 3: Age, Scam Type & Channel
Each combination below pairs a scam type with its dominant victim age band and leading contact channel, for the three scam types this note tracks across both halves.
Baseline window
H1 2025: Top combinations
# Rank • Type • Dominant age band • Channels
Government officials impersonation
E-commerce
Not separately profiled in the H1 2025 release
Reporting periodCurrent
H1 2026: Top 3
# Rank • Type • Dominant age band • Channels
Government officials impersonation
E-commerce
Social media impersonation
Key shift observed
SourceSPF Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025, Annex C & D; SPF Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2026, Annex B & C (397 H1 2025 social media impersonation cases per the 2026 brief’s retrospective count)
Segment 4: Volume vs. Severity
Elderly people accounted for 14.4% of scam victims in H1 2026, a smaller share than other age groups, yet recorded the highest average loss when scammed.
Elderly avg. loss per victim
Elderly (65+) victims
S$42,347
Up from S$33,672 in H1 2025
Overall median loss per case
All victims, all scam types
S$1,350
Down from S$1,500 in H1 2025
Moving in opposite directions
Elderly losses are going up while the typical loss is going down
Why the gap is growing
The elderly’s average loss per case rose 25.8% year-on-year, while the overall median fell roughly 10%, pulled down by broad declines in high-volume, low-value scam types such as e-commerce and fake-friend-call scams.
Their main scam type
Government-officials impersonation, the scam type elderly victims fall for most, is one of the costliest scam types in Singapore, almost as costly as investment scams, the single most expensive type.
Gov-officials impersonation
~S$66,643
Investment scams (highest)
~S$75,267
How the scam works
Victims of this scam type usually get a long, personal phone call, not a single rushed transaction. Scammers build trust over time instead of pushing for a quick decision.
Government officials will never ask for transfers, banking log-in details, or call you via a messaging app.
SourceSPF Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025 (paras. 6, 18e); SPF Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2026 (paras. 7, 17). See Methodology for a figure discrepancy between the two briefs’ own year-on-year comparisons.
Segment 5: What’s Driving the Pattern
These are likely explanations based on the data below, though none has been officially confirmed yet.
Victims transfer the money themselves, at every age
80.8% of all reported scams in H1 2026 involved victims transferring funds themselves (up from 78.8%). This means scammers are talking victims into paying, not hacking into their accounts. A long phone call from a fake "police officer" persuades a 68-year-old differently than a rushed Carousell deposit persuades a 35-year-old.
Phone calls are used less overall, but persists against the elderly
Phone-based scam cases nearly halved, from 3,204 in H1 2025 to about 1,631 in H1 2026, yet phone calls remain the top channel where scammers reach victims for government-officials-impersonation scams specifically.
New rules are already targeting these exact scams
The Protection from Scams Act (1 July 2025) lets banks restrict a suspected victim’s transactions, PayNow’s nickname feature was discontinued (6 June 2026) to curb impersonation, and GovTech’s Singpass passkey rollout (1 July 2026) targets phishing-driven account takeover. Whether these show up in H2 2026 data is the natural follow-up for a subsequent edition.
SourceSPF Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025 & 2026; MHA/GovTech public regulatory announcements
Segment 6: Segment-Specific Recommendations
Most at Risk
Elderly (65+) and their families
Primary exposure
Recommended action
Family members should know the two-stage script (bank/telco caller → transfer to "government officer");
Remember this: Real government agencies and banks never ask for transfers to a "safety account" or demand cash/valuables handover.
Online Shopping Risk
Adults 30–49
Primary exposure
Recommended action
Verify seller history and avoid full upfront payment on pre-order or collectible listings with delivery dates months out.
Fake Friend or Family Messages
Young Seniors 50–64
Primary exposure
Recommended action
Verify unusual money requests from contacts through a separate channel (a call, not a reply in the same chat) before transferring.
How to check: Call the person directly. Do not reply inside the same chat, since that message may be from the scammer, not your contact.
Workplace Scams
Businesses / employers
Primary exposure
Recommended action
See the Quarterly Scam-Type Risk Report’s job-scam section for more detail.
Quarterly Scam-Type Risk ReportRecommendations are Scam.SG editorial guidance derived from the patterns above and are not government or regulatory advisories.
Segment 7: Household Safeguards
Actionable protocol: “If in doubt”
Immediate verification rules and active defenses for residents, caregivers, and families.
Call the ScamShield Helpline at 1799
Free, 24/7, most calls are just people checking if something is a scam.
Download the ScamShield app
It now automatically flags known scam numbers and messages.
Never act without independent verification
Never act on a request from someone claiming to be a government official, bank, or relative without verifying independently first.
Family and trusted contact check-in
Check with a family member or trusted contact before making any transfer you weren’t expecting to make.
Source: SPF Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2026, paras. 1, 6, 22-23
Segment 8: Methodology & Sources
Data Period
Primary Sources
Data Reconciliation
Terminology
Exclusions