PSA: Banks May Hold Large Transfers For Accounts of at Least S$50,000 From 15th October 2025

From 15th October 2025, banks may hold digital transfers for bank accounts with balances of at least S$50,000 if withdrawals over a 24-hour period exceed half of the total funds.

What is going to happen from 15th October

For accounts that are at least S$50,000 and up, banks may impose a 24-hour cooling period that is triggered when withdrawals within 24 hours exceed 50% of the account balance. New and subsequent transfers during the cooling period will not be allowed. Customers will be notified via their banking app or online platforms when this happens.

After 24 hours, if the transfer is deemed legitimate, it will be completed once the cooling period is over. According to the Association of Banks (ABS), customers may “in exceptional circumstances” verify the transactions with their bank. They may do so at their bank’s branches, ATMs, or by calling the bank’s hotline, though these options depend on what the banks offer.

Recurring standing instructions, recurring GIRO/eGIRO payments, or bill payments to billing organisations will be exempted from such safeguards. Non-digital transactions such as cash withdrawals at banks and ATMs are also not affected.

The following banks will be implementing these measures:

• Citibank
• DBS
• HSBC
• Maybank
• OCBC
• Standard Chartered
• UOB

“Enhanced fraud surveillance” and to give potential scam victims a “cognitive break

In a press release, ABS said that this is part of “enhanced fraud surveillance” and the 24-hour cooling period is meant to be a “cognitive break” for scam victims to have time to cancel transactions if they realise that they have been scammed.

This is going to be very inconvenient

Personally, I feel that this measure is heavy-handed and would pose a lot of inconvenience for legitimate transfers in the name of protecting scam victims.

Even before this announcement, banks have already been suspending larger transfers. While well-meaning, some banks seem unprepared to cope with handling customers’ requests to verify their transactions. I transferred some funds on the last day of September and had to wait about 2 hours for my transfer to be unblocked. Not terrible, honestly, but there are some who have had worse luck:

It’s likely going to get worse once this new safeguard measure goes into effect. Moreover, the use of the term “exceptional circumstances” also raises eyebrows. What are defined as such situations and who makes this judgment call over my money?

Exemptions should be made

At the very least, transfers to one’s own accounts with other banks should be exempted from such measures so that banking customers who are merely shifting funds within their own accounts without impediment.

Customers could also be allowed to opt out from anti-scam measures like these. This is probably out of the banks’ hands since not provided for in MAS’s Shared Responsibility Framework thingy, so regulators should indeed allow those who want to be exempted from such things to opt out and banks wouldn’t need to be liable for any scam-related losses for such customers.

Interest optimisers

Such safeguards invariably inconvenience those who transfer savings frequently between different banks to earn more interest.

One way to live with such measures would be to transfer large transactions a day before we intend for it to happen. This isn’t an elegant solution since the transfer may actually go through without the cooling period, and interest can also be lost for a premature transfer.

Another would be to familiarise ourselves with the transaction verification process of the banks we are placing our funds with. It’s possibly worth an article on its own and hopefully we’d get more details from the different banks soon. Do contribute your own experiences since some banks have already started rolling out similar measures in recent months.

Subscribe for more deals and updates!

As I finish writing this, I’m wondering whether such measures would in fact deter a scam victim determined to transfer large amounts of funds to a stranger. Would visiting a bank ATM really stop them from doing so, or would it just disproportionately inconvenience people who need access to their funds? I’m all for fighting scams, but I do hope that measures would be more considered.

If you’re someone who wants to earn more from credit cards, savings accounts and other financial deals, stay subscribed to the Telegram so you can be notified of news and deals. Leave notifications turned on so that you don’t miss time-sensitive updates!

Seth Wee was a licensed financial adviser representative from 2009 to 2025, with over 16 years of experience in Singapore’s financial advisory industry.

He started Sethisfy.com in 2019 to share practical insights on credit cards, banking products, and miles strategies, helping readers identify financial products that deliver the best value. Seth has been featured in CNA, Channel 8, Today, and a host of other publications. In 2025, he was also part of a panel at CPF’s Ready For Life festival.

Subscribe to the channel for free updates!

Disclaimer: I may receive an affiliate/referral fee when you sign up for services/products on this site, and such fees keep the site running. I would only recommend services/products I would personally use or recommend to my own friends and family, but I do not provide any warranty or guarantee for the quality of these services/products. Thank you for supporting my site!

Please exercise due diligence when signing up for any service/product as I will not be liable for any personal loss, financial or otherwise. Content published here are my sole views and personal opinion, and none of the information here constitutes personal financial advice nor represents the views of my employer(s).