Reports of Fraudulent or Counterfeit Merchandise Sold on E-commerce Platforms

1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many Police reports have been made in 2023 and 2024 regarding fraudulent or counterfeit merchandise sold on e-commerce platforms where the seller and buyer were both in Singapore; (b) what were the considerations for such cases being deemed as commercial disputes rather than instances of cheating or scams; and (c) what recourse is available for affected buyers.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Police assess whether any criminal offence is disclosed by looking at the full facts and circumstances of each case. For example, the import, sale, or distribution of goods with falsely applied trademarks for the purpose of trade is an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1998. Where deception is involved, the case may also be classified as "cheating" under section 420 of the Penal Code 1871.

Buyers who encounter allegedly counterfeit merchandise can file a Police report. Regardless of whether a criminal offence is disclosed, buyers can seek recourse by lodging a complaint with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), filing a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal, or commencing civil proceedings in the Singapore Courts.

The Police do not track the data requested by the Member.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her answer. One of my Clementi residents contacted me. She said she filed a Police report, having purchased branded merchandise from a seller through the platform Carousell. She says the seller claimed the merchandise was genuine but it turned out the merchandise was counterfeit. My resident filed a Police report and was advised that the case was more of a contractual dispute and was referred to CASE. CASE told my resident it could not assist because the matter was between two private transactors. So, my resident is now wondering what redress might be possible in such situations, especially since she is of limited means and may find it hard to take up a case in the Courts?

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Coming back to the example that he had shared where there was a merchandise that was advertised as genuine but was subsequently found to be counterfeit, there could be an instance whereby the seller either knew in the first place whether the merchandise was genuine or not. So, through Police investigations, if it was found that the seller did not know that the merchandise was actually counterfeit, then, a cheating offence may not be the means in which to charge the individual. If, however, the individual knew it was counterfeit – and this is found out through the course of Police investigations – but the seller still chooses to advertise the merchandise as a genuine product, then, this would be a case under both the Trade Marks Act as well as classified as cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code.

The Member had shared that his resident has faced difficulties seeking remedy through CASE. I would like to reiterate what I shared earlier: the victim can still file a law suit to recover damages under the civil remedies route. If the victim, his resident, find difficulties with the legal fees, she can approach Legal Aid to explore the options.