An employer applying for a migrant domestic worker declared that she would work at his parents’ flat, where his mother lived. In fact she worked for him alone at his rented apartment from her first day. A month later he claimed a levy concession on the basis that she was caring for his aged parents. The case shows how seriously the courts treat false declarations to the Ministry of Manpower.
The facts
The accused pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the Controller of Work Passes, an offence under s 22(1)(d) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act 1990 (EFMA). A second charge, for falsely declaring that the worker was employed to care for his aged parents to obtain a levy concession, was taken into consideration. The concession saved him $2,528.09 in levy, which he later repaid (at [1]–[2]).
Whether an employer needs a domestic worker for caregiving, for example for young children or elderly relatives, is one of the criteria MOM assesses. MOM confirmed that, had it known the truth, it would have asked for more information instead of approving the permit outright.
The sentencing framework
The court applied the two-stage framework in Chiew Kok Chai v PP [2019] 5 SLR 713. Deterrence is the predominant consideration for these offences, and a custodial sentence is the norm unless there are substantial mitigating factors (at [41]).
- Stage one. The case fell within Band 1 (under five months’ imprisonment). The falsehood was material and induced the permit; the deception was planned and deliberate, if unsophisticated; and it lasted about a year. The indicative starting point was six weeks (at [42]–[46]).
- Stage two. The court added two weeks for aggravating factors: a continuing pattern of deception to obtain the levy concession, and the fact that he was an employment agent who knew MOM’s criteria (at [47]–[50]).
- Mitigation. His guilty plea, full restitution and lack of similar antecedents brought the sentence to five weeks’ imprisonment (at [50]).
The court rejected the argument that the deception was less serious than in earlier cases where six weeks had been imposed (at [51]–[52]). The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence on 3 July 2025.
Why it matters
Employers and agencies should treat every MOM form as a statement of fact. If circumstances change, such as a change of address, update MOM before the form is submitted. Anyone contacted by MOM investigators should take advice early, because the starting point for these offences is imprisonment.
Common questions
Can a false declaration to MOM be dealt with by a fine?
Rarely. Following Chiew Kok Chai, a custodial sentence is the norm for offences under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA, and a fine is generally insufficient unless there are substantial mitigating factors.
What makes a false statement material?
Whether it could affect MOM’s decision. Here MOM confirmed it would have asked for more information about the employer’s caregiving needs rather than approving the permit outright.
Akesh Abhilash is a Singapore disputes lawyer with eleven years in practice, acting in commercial, cross-border and criminal matters before the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the State Courts and international tribunals. Read his profile.