Who was sanctioned, and for what?

On 8 October 2024 Singtel's fixed-line voice service failed for more than four hours for around 500,000 residential and corporate users; customer service lines of government agencies, healthcare organisations and banks as well as emergency call services were also affected. The cause was that the virtualised firewalls of the voice system and of a monitoring system shared the same hardware, so that an overload of the insufficiently filtered monitoring system also disrupted the voice system and the automatic failover did not work cleanly; according to the investigation, there was no cyber-attack. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA, Singapore's telecoms and media regulator) imposed a penalty of SGD 1 million under the Telecommunications Act because the incident had been within Singtel's control to prevent.

Authority / court

Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA)

Area of law

Information security and cyber · Critical infrastructure

Legal basis

Telecommunications Act

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

11 Dec 2025

Original amount 1,000,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The provider of cloud-based HR software received an extortion email in April 2024; an attacker had deleted databases on its AWS servers and likely exfiltrated data, and data allegedly taken was offered for sale on the dark web – data on 95,000 employees of its clients (including identity number, salary, bank account and religion) and on 24,765 emergency contacts and children was put at risk. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) found a breach of the Protection Obligation because, despite the HR data entrusted to it by clients, the provider had no web application firewall against existing SQL injection vulnerabilities, remote desktop access open to the internet without two-factor authentication, and vulnerability scans only every two years. It imposed 17,500 SGD, payable in twelve monthly instalments in view of the company's cash flow, and directed among other things a web application firewall, annual penetration tests, two-factor authentication and encryption of all personal data fields.

Authority / court

Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data processors

Legal basis

Section 24 PDPA 2012 (Protection Obligation); Section 48J PDPA (Financial Penalty)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, admission under the Expedited Decision Procedure and first breach; payment in instalments in view of cash flow, while a waiver was refused.

Published

8 Jan 2026

Original amount 17,500 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In August 2024 an attacker encrypted a network drive shared by SESAMi and its subsidiary Abecha holding payment data (including full credit card numbers and bank account details) of around 20,471 customers of the subsidiary's fuel fleet discount programme and of up to 18,837 individuals from registrations for SESAMi's B2B platform; exfiltration could not be established. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) classified SESAMi, which ran the network for the subsidiary without a written contract, as a data intermediary in that respect and found a negligent breach of the Protection Obligation by SESAMi (including outdated firewall and VPN firmware, no patch management and unenforced password and MFA rules), and likewise by Abecha, which as controller had taken no steps to ensure adequate security at SESAMi. SESAMi received 8,750 SGD and directions, while Abecha, as the controller, received directions only, including setting out roles and data protection duties within the group in writing.

Authority / court

Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data processors

Legal basis

Section 24(a) PDPA 2012 (Protection Obligation); Section 4(3) PDPA (Pflichten bei Einsatz eines Data Intermediary); Section 48J PDPA (Financial Penalty)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, prompt and effective remediation, admission under the Expedited Decision Procedure; for Abecha also lower culpability owing to its limited autonomy as a wholly owned subsidiary, one of the reasons for not imposing a fine on it.

Published

26 Feb 2026

Original amount 8,750 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The SaaS provider operates a system for licensed moneylenders that is linked to the Moneylenders Credit Bureau and into which its clients enter data on loan applicants and borrowers; in June 2024 an attacker used a vulnerable web application to take over the SQL server's system administrator account, which was protected only by an easily guessed password, deleted databases and exfiltrated data on 190,589 individuals including credit report data, which was offered for sale on the dark web. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) found a breach of the Protection Obligation (inadequate access control, no vulnerability assessments or penetration tests) and, given the company's role as a provider processing client data entrusted to it, considered a fine of 17,500 SGD appropriate; it rejected the request for a waiver or reduction. In addition, the company must obtain the Cyber Trust mark certification of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) for its new network within nine months.

Authority / court

Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data processors

Legal basis

Section 24(a) PDPA 2012 (Protection Obligation); Section 48J PDPA (Financial Penalty); Section 48I PDPA (Directions)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, admission under the Expedited Decision Procedure and first breach of the PDPA.

Published

3 Jul 2025

Original amount 17,500 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Jul 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The provider of point-of-sale and CRM software for small and medium-sized enterprises reported two attacks in 2024 in which perpetrators used SQL injection, among other methods, to extract files with data on a total of 698,112 individuals, including health information (skin conditions and treatments) of 9,122 individuals; the data was likely posted on a hacking forum. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) stressed that the SaaS provider holds large volumes of data on behalf of its clients and found a breach of the Protection Obligation: publicly accessible servers, no network firewall, no security testing before releases, unsupported operating system and PHP versions, and credentials left unprotected in source code and configuration files. Alongside 17,500 SGD it directed a package of measures ranging from network segmentation and patch management to vulnerability assessments and penetration tests at least once a year.

Authority / court

Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data processors

Legal basis

Section 24(a) PDPA 2012 (Protection Obligation)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, admission under the Expedited Decision Procedure and first breach of the PDPA.

Published

8 Jan 2026

Original amount 17,500 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Apr 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link