What To Do if You Are in a Sham (Fake) Marriage in Singapore

Marriage is supposed to be about love, commitment, and building a life together. But sometimes, people tie the knot for reasons that have nothing to do with a genuine marital relationship. In Singapore, this is known as a sham marriage or marriage of convenience—and it carries very real legal consequences.

What Is A Sham Marriage?

In Singapore, a sham marriage happens when:

• A party gets married to assist either party obtain an immigration advantage (for example, when a husband or wife marries for one of them to apply for the grant or extension of the validity of any Singapore Permanent Residency, visa, pass, permit or re-entry permit); and
• any gratification is offered, given or received as an inducement or reward or entering the marriage.

A marriage of convenience is potentially an offence under Section 57C of the Immigration Act 1959 and potentially void under Section 11A of the Women's Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) ("Women's Charter").

Although sham marriages may be void under the Women's Charter—typically before the Singapore Court declares that the sham marriage is void—parties are still recognised as spouses with the full benefits and rights of any other married couple. This includes important matters such as the surviving spouse having priority to the division of a person's estate after death and the spouse having priority to be appointed as the administrator of the deceased's spouse's estate.

When Is a Sham Marriage Void?

If either party to a marriage—solemnised after 1 October 2016—is convicted of an offence under section 57C of the Immigration Act, the marriage will be deemed void under Section 11A(3) of the Women's Charter.

However, even if there has been no conviction, an application can be made to the Singapore Courts to declare that a marriage is void. Most often the application is made by one of the parties to the marriage. However, there are also cases—when one of the parties has already passed on—that the intended Administrator of the deceased has applied for a declaration that the marriage is void.

Case study: Gian Bee Choo and others v. Meng Xianhui [2019] 5 SLR 812.

• The Plaintiffs were the siblings of the Deceased, who passed away intestate on 23 December 2017. The Plaintiffs had regarded the Deceased as a bachelor.
• Unknown to the Plaintiffs, the Deceased and the Defendant had solemnised a marriage on 20 January 2007. The Plaintiffs only found out about the marriage when the Defendant turned up at the Deceased's wake.
• The Plaintiff commenced action in Court primarily seeking a declaration that the Marriage was a sham marriage or marriage of convenience.
• The Court found that the marriage was not a genuine one as there was a lack of evidence of a genuine marital relationship. Among other things, the Deceased and the Defendant lived separately and the address listed on the Defendant's IC which was the Deceased address did not match the Defendant's actual residence. The Court also found that the Deceased had been paid a sum by the Defendant to help her obtain PR status.
• The Court held that Section 11A of the Women's Charter only applied to marriages solemnised on or after 1 October 2016 and that Section 11A of the Women's Charter did not have a retrospective effect.
• However, the Court also held that that Parliament's intention in enacting Section 11A could not have been to affirm the validity of all immigration-advantage sham marriages that had taken place before that provision's commencement date.
• Furthermore, the Court held that an immigration-advantage sham marriage constituted a lawful impediment to a proposed marriage within the meaning of Section 17(2)(d) of the Women's Charter. A wrongful declaration that there was no lawful impediment thereby invalidated the marriage licence and rendered the marriage void under Section 22 read with Section 105 of the Women's Charter. Thus, the Court ultimately declared that the marriage was void despite being solemnised before 1 October 2016.

Case study: Cheng Tze Tzuen v Dang Lan Anh [2025] SGHC 112.

• The Claimant was the son of the Deceased from his first marriage. The Deceased passed on 8 January 2012.
• The Deceased had divorced his first wife and his marriage with the Defendant was subsequently solemnised on 26 January 2011.
• The Claimant applied for among other things a declaration that the marriage between the deceased and the Defendant was void, as it was a sham marriage or marriage of convenience.
• The Court made no order on the application and declined to follow the previous cases including Gian Bee Choo and others v Meng Xianhui [2019] 5 SLR 812. Instead, the Court reasoned that, while they accepted the proposition "that there has been a policy stance expressed in certain other statutes against marriages of convenience", they distinguished between legal consequences and the validity of the act of making a false declaration.
• The Court held that Parliament had already in Section 11A and Section 105 (aa) of the Women's Charter decided that the consequences of a marriage of convenience being void only applied to marriages solemnised after 1 October 2016. Therefore, as Parliament's intention was clear, the Court did not have any discretion to declare a marriage void other than the grounds stipulated in Section 105 of the Women's Charter.

Given the above cases, for marriages solemnised before 1 October 2016, it is unclear if it will be possible to apply for a declaration that the marriage is void. At the time of this article Cheng Tze Tzuen v Dang Lan Anh [2025] SGHC 112 is undergoing an appeal and it remains unclear which view will prevail in the appeal.

What Can You Do If You’re in a Sham Marriage?

• For marriages solemnised after 1 October 2016:
  Either party may apply for a declaration that the marriage is void on the ground under Section 105 (aa) of the Women's Charter. However, both parties might still be criminal liability for entering into a marriage of convenience in the first place. It is never advisable to enter a marriage of convenience.

• For marriages solemnised before 1 October 2016:
  Either party may still apply for a divorce if they fulfil the necessary requirements for filing a divorce and as long as both parties are still living. If unfortunately, one party is already deceased, then it was suggested by the Court in Cheng Tze Tzuen v Dang Lan Anh [2025] SGHC 112 that the administrator of the deceased's estate may still apply to the Family Justice Courts to provide guidance as to the appropriate entitlements to the deceased's estate though it remains unclear in this scenario what directions would be made by the Family Justice Courts.

Pending the outcome of any application in Court, we would recommend that parties make a Will to state their preferred distribution for their estate. This would prevent their estate from being distributed to their spouse based on the rules for distribution under the Intestate Succession Act [2020 Rev Ed].

Disclaimer: Statements in this article are not to be construed as legal advice, and are meant for general information only. The writer and/or Hoh Law Corporation shall not be responsible or liable for any errors, mistakes, or misinterpretation of any statements found herein.