Social Escorts and Social Escorting in Singapore - A Lawyer's Perspective

Reported Decision of the District Court in [2025] SGDC 16

I recently acted for the two accused persons in the reported decision of the District Court in [2025] SGDC 16. Through this article, I hope to share my insights and experience as defence counsel for the matter. In so doing, I also endeavour to give the reader a small glimpse into the world of social escorting in Singapore.

Both accused persons pleaded guilty in early January 2025 to a series of charges arising out of their involvement in and orchestration of a sophisticated business providing the companionship services of young high-end social escorts from Singapore and another nearby country.

The social escorts in question were generally young to begin with, with some starting work when they were just over 20 years old. The ladies came from many walks of life. Some were students. Others were even budding beauticians at some point. There were friends or acquaintances of Ms X as well. A few of these social escorts worked or collaborated with Ms X for a few years. Others ceased work sooner. There was no one singular profile that would fit all the social escorts involved.

The social escort business setup by Ms X lasted almost 6 years and only ceased upon the arrest of the accused persons upon a sting operation. Ms X saw to the operations of this business. Mr Y, on the other hand, assisted Ms X to conceal any illicit profits of the business, but he was not otherwise involved in the social escort aspect of the business Ms X had established. At some point, they set up a legitimate business hoping to extricate themselves from the bane or stigma of running a social escorting commerce in time.

Notably, these social escorts would also provide various sexual services for a fee to clients they were escorting, albeit on a voluntary basis, and only if they were comfortable or otherwise agreeable with the arrangement. Ms X advertised and marketed the availability and costs of such sexual services online and on social media platforms such Telegram. Ms X also made or facilitated the arrangements for paid sex between the social escorts and their clients. Sometimes they met in places the social escorts were at (in call). Other times, they met at locations designated by the customer (outcall).

However, it was not disputed, that the accused persons had never in anyway coerced, pressured or even mistreated the social escorts who worked or collaborated with Ms X. The social escorts had engaged in paid sex arrangements for various personal reasons including a desire to supplement their lifestyle or to finance their further studies. Some had even sought out Ms X for such work out of their own volition through advertisements placed in online forums; and were not in the strict sense recruited by Ms X.

In turn, Ms X would take a cut of their earnings from the paid sex in question, whilst Mr Y would facilitate Ms X to conceal these earnings and any such profits. At the conclusion of investigations, the key charges eventually preferred against the accused persons pertained to vice-related activities, including offences under the Women’s Charter and under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992.

Ms X pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including procuring individuals for prostitution and living off their immoral earnings, covertly managing a significant operation for close to 6 years and profiting significantly. The sentencing court had highlighted her pivotal role in orchestrating the vice activities and complex dealings to disguise the origin of earnings.

Mr Y aided Ms X by providing bank accounts to obscure illicit transactions. Although his role was considered secondary to Ms X's, his actions were nevertheless considered crucial by the court, as he had helped process and mask the illegal profits.

In imposing sentence, the court utilized established sentencing frameworks from previous cases to determine the punishments, emphasizing deterrence as a key objective given the increasing profitable nature of vice crimes. As an overarching strategy, sentences were scaled to align with legislative changes, reflecting the seriousness of the offences.

Although the accused persons stated by way of mitigation, that they had engaged in the illegal activities in question due to extreme family hardship and applied the profits towards improving the lives of their family, the court (though sympathetic and being empathetic) stated it could not be complicit in the wrongdoing of the accused persons by affording them any corresponding discount in their sentences, whatever the underlying motives of the accused persons may have been.

The defence had also pleaded for the court to take into account the fact of a significant bulk of the sexual services rendered being lopsidedly provided by one escort only. The defence further highlighted, that this escort had also sought Ms X out for opportunities to engage in such escorting work; and not the other way round.

In so doing, the defence had attempted to persuade the court to accord a far lesser degree of harm and culpability to the accused persons on the basis of the social escorting business established by Ms X being of lesser sophistication and magnitude operations-wise, being of smaller outreach and having lesser negative impact on aggregate on the social escorts involved.

The court took the view, that in sentencing, the involvement of each individual social escort in question must be examined on its own to determine the corresponding harm caused by Ms X and her culpability. This was opposed and contrasted with the approach advanced by the defence, which sought to address the scale of the operations and of its negative impact in a broad manner.

There was also a transnational element in the present case with a foreign operator and at least 2 foreign escorts being involved too. This was accorded aggravating weight by the court in sentencing.  

Ms X received a global sentence of 20 odd months' imprisonment and a more than S$150,000 fine, while Mr Y was sentenced to about 10 or more months' imprisonment and a more than S$25,000 fine. These sentences reflect the gravity and extended duration of their offences, aiming to serve as a deterrent to potential offenders by hitting at the lucrativeness of such vice-related activities. The fines were also structured to disgorge the illicit profits earned from the vice activities.

At the time of sentencing, a disposal hearing was pending in relation to a significant amount of money seized by the SPF in the course of investigations.

In closing, I must say, that in spite of society being more open in this day and age, the State remains resolute in protecting persons (such as and even social escorts) and the public at large from the illegal sex trade. And as long as this is the case, it will remain reflected (at least) in the sentences meted out by the court and in the sentencing considerations involved.

** Certain details have been deliberately obscured or restated to protect the needed privacy of the individuals whose lives have been much affected by the episode.