Nominee director services are part of the everyday business of many Corporate Service Providers (CSPs) in Singapore. Yet poorly managed arrangements can expose CSP directors, employees and nominee directors to criminal liability.
In 2026, the Singapore Police Force announced several cases involving company directorships, failures of supervision and the misuse of corporate bank accounts. Some resulted in prison sentences; others involved charges announced by the Police.
The cases involve different offences, but a recurring concern is clear: appointing a local director without meaningful oversight creates serious risks. CSPs must also ensure that their own services do not facilitate dishonest conduct or undermine the director’s ability to discharge their duties.
The following five cases were announced by the Police in 2026. The underlying conduct occurred in earlier years.
1. CSP Director and Employee Jailed Over Arrangements Involving 108 Companies
Police release date: 8 October 2026
Status: Sentenced
Chen Lu, a director of Union International Consultancy Pte Ltd, and employee Li Xuan recruited Li’s then-69-year-old mother-in-law as a nominee director. The CSP incorporated 108 companies for foreign clients in 2020.
The nominee director was not informed when companies were incorporated, given information about the clients or their businesses, or provided with means to contact the foreign directors. Police stated that Chen and Li knowingly created arrangements that caused her to breach her supervisory duties.
Chen received three months and three weeks’ imprisonment on 10 September 2026. Li received two months’ imprisonment on 21 September 2026. Both were disqualified from acting as directors for five years. Two companies received approximately US$540,000 in business email compromise scam proceeds.
Source: Singapore Police Force, “Director And Employee Of Corporate Service Provider Sentenced For Companies Act Offences”, 8 October 2026.
2. Former CSP Director Jailed for Dishonest Conduct and False Financial Representations
Police release date: 16 July 2026
Status: Sentenced
Wang Junjie, a former director of LW Business Consultancy Pte Ltd, was sentenced to 32 weeks’ imprisonment on 16 July 2026 and disqualified from acting as a director for five years.
His firm provided corporate secretarial services to companies belonging to Su Haijin and Su Baolin, who were convicted in Singapore’s major money laundering case.
Wang pleaded guilty to conspiring with Su Haijin to make false representations to IRAS about Yihao Cyber Technologies Pte Ltd’s financials, and to failing to act honestly as its director. Thirteen other charges were taken into consideration.
This case involved active dishonesty and false representations, extending beyond a failure to supervise.
Source: Singapore Police Force, “Former Director Of Former Corporate Service Provider Sentenced And Conveyancing Lawyer Charged For Offences Linked To Major Money Laundering Case”, 16 July 2026.
3. Nominee Director Sentenced to 21 Months’ Imprisonment
Police release date: 6 February 2026
Status: Sentenced
Gladys Lim Shi Hui responded to a Telegram advertisement offering payment to act as a company director. She disclosed her personal particulars and Singpass login credentials to an unknown individual.
She became the sole director and sole authorised bank signatory of three companies, receiving S$2,000 in total. One company subsequently received CAD400,000 in criminal proceeds from an unauthorised overseas bank transaction.
Despite her suspicions about the arrangement, she exercised no supervision over the companies. She was convicted on 5 February 2026 and received a total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment for a money laundering offence and a director-duty offence, with a five-year director disqualification following her release.
The Police did not identify her as a CSP operator.
Source: Singapore Police Force, “Woman Sentenced To 21 Months Imprisonment For Money Laundering Offences And Failing To Exercise Reasonable Diligence As Director Of A Company”, 6 February 2026.
4. CSP Owner and Resident Director Face Charges Over Alleged Failures of Supervision
Police release date: 19 March 2026
Status: Police announced charges to be brought
A 36-year-old CSP owner helped incorporate two companies, served as their company secretary and engaged a 35-year-old man as their resident director.
The companies’ accounts received approximately US$1.08 million and €44,808 in alleged investment and inheritance scam proceeds.
Police alleged that the director failed to adequately supervise the companies and that the company secretary abetted his failure of supervision. The release announced that both men would be charged on 20 March 2026 under the Companies Act and money laundering legislation.
The allegations described in the release should not be treated as findings of guilt.
Source: Singapore Police Force, “Director And Company Secretary To Be Charged For Suspected Involvement In Money Laundering Activities”, 19 March 2026.
5. CSP Operator Allegedly Told Local Directors They Did Not Need to Supervise
Police release date: 8 October 2026
Status: Police announced charges to be brought
A 35-year-old Russian man operated a CSP and recruited local individuals to act as directors of client companies.
Police stated that he told two local directors they did not need to supervise the companies or bank accounts. One was asked to open a corporate account, while another was asked to relinquish account control.
The release also described alleged arrangements involving the man and a 42-year-old Singaporean woman that allowed unidentified persons to control company accounts receiving suspected scam proceeds.
Police announced that both would be charged on 9 October 2026 with money laundering and other related offences. The release did not establish their guilt.
Source: Singapore Police Force, “Russian Man And Singaporean Woman To Be Charged For Their Involvement In Money Laundering And Related Activities”, 8 October 2026.
What Should CSPs Take Away?
These cases illustrate different forms of misconduct and alleged misconduct. They should not all be described as convictions for the same compliance failure.
Nevertheless, they highlight a practical concern for CSPs: nominee director arrangements must enable directors to understand and supervise the companies they serve. Completing an appointment and collecting signatures are only the beginning.
Support Directors in Discharging Their Duties
Provide nominee directors with relevant company information, business records and reliable communication channels. Establish how directors can request explanations, raise concerns and respond when clients become uncontactable or fail to cooperate.
CSPs should never knowingly create arrangements that prevent directors from exercising meaningful oversight.
Ensure Appointments Are Properly Authorised and Documented
Obtain the individual’s consent to each appointment, confirm that they understand the responsibilities involved, and retain the required documentation.
Although the five cases above do not establish an offence of appointment without consent, proper appointment procedures remain an essential control. A general agreement to provide nominee director services should not be treated as blanket authorisation for additional appointments.
Coordinate Customer Due Diligence
CSPs should work with nominee directors to obtain and assess relevant information about customers, beneficial owners, business activities and risks.
Make information needed for oversight available through appropriate arrangements. Where documents, explanations or financial information appear inconsistent, investigate and resolve those concerns rather than treating document collection as sufficient.
Maintain Cooperation Throughout the Appointment
Keep customer information current, support risk-based ongoing monitoring, and establish procedures for addressing unusual transactions, unexplained changes in business activities and failures to provide information.
CSPs and nominee directors should coordinate their work while each fulfils their respective legal obligations. Neither should assume that the other party’s involvement removes their own responsibilities.
Strengthening Nominee Director Management
CSPs providing nominee director services need clear appointment procedures, meaningful cooperation with directors, and practical arrangements for customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring.
The 2026 cases show how failures of oversight—and dishonest assistance to clients—can lead to serious consequences, including personal criminal liability.
Join AlgoCandy’s CSP compliance training to explore practical approaches to nominee director arrangements, customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring.