Customers of Singapore’s licensed payment firms would be able to take unresolved disputes to an independent body for the first time under a consultation the Monetary Authority of Singapore published on 16 October. MAS proposes that every major payment institution (MPI) and standard payment institution (SPI) licensed under the Payment Services Act 2019 subscribe to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC). Stablecoin issuers would follow once MAS’s new licence for them comes into force. Comments close at 7 pm Singapore time on 30 November 2026.
Payment firms were left out in 2020
FIDReC, set up in 2005, is the only approved dispute resolution scheme under the Financial Services and Markets (Dispute Resolution Schemes) Regulations 2023. Banks, finance companies, card issuers, direct insurers and insurance brokers must already belong. When the Payment Services Act took effect in 2020, MAS chose not to require payment service providers to join, to ease their move into the new licensing regime. MAS says it has instead “fielded such disputes and followed up with the PSPs on a supervisory basis during this intervening period.”
That arrangement put MAS in the position of informal complaints handler for a sector that includes e-wallets, remittance firms, merchant acquirers and digital payment token services. It also left customers without access to independent mediation or adjudication.
E-wallet claims are the test case
There is already evidence of how the scheme works for payment firms. Under the Shared Responsibility Framework for phishing scams, formalised with the Infocomm Media Development Authority in 2024, MAS required e-wallet providers that store e-money to join FIDReC. From the framework’s start to 30 June 2026, FIDReC received 416 claims against e-wallet providers and eventually handled 141. Of the completed claims, 99% concluded at mediation and 1% required adjudication.
Those numbers suggest that most disputes, once in front of FIDReC, settle before adjudication. The consultation paper does not explain the gap between the 416 claims received and the 141 handled, and FIDReC can hear only disputes that meet the eligibility conditions in its terms of reference.
MAS sets out the disputes it expects payment customers to bring: service lapses, misrepresentation, misconduct and the apportionment of liability, including scam losses.
Stablecoin holders get a route to recourse
The consultation links the proposal to MAS’s 1 September consultation on stablecoin regulation, which would create a fourth Payment Services Act licence for MAS-regulated stablecoin issuers. Holders of those stablecoins are expected to have a direct right to redeem from the issuer, and MAS wants eligible holders to be able to bring a claim to FIDReC if redemption goes wrong. Issuers would have to subscribe “within an appropriate timeframe” after the framework starts.
That gives Singapore’s planned stablecoin regime a consumer redress layer that sits outside the issuer and outside the courts.
As holders of MAS-regulated stablecoins are envisaged to have a right to redeem their MAS-regulated stablecoin directly from the issuer, MAS is of the view that these stablecoin holders should have the option of bringing a claim to FIDReC against the MAS-regulated stablecoin issuer.
MAS, Consultation Paper P017-2026, October 2026
Money-changers stay out
Money-changing licensees, the third existing licence type, would not have to join. MAS says their business is simple, conducted at physical premises, and involves much smaller amounts of customer money. Complaints MAS receives about them usually concern poor service and uncompetitive exchange rates, and MAS concludes that “imposing the requirement would be overly burdensome.”
Eligible complainants under FIDReC’s terms are individuals, sole proprietors, charities and small businesses, so large corporate users of payment firms would not gain access through this change.
Fees will be set during 2027
Onboarding a large number of MPIs and SPIs is, in MAS’s words, “a major exercise”. FIDReC will charge an initial onboarding fee, with one option being a fixed fee shared equally by all new members, excluding e-wallet providers already subscribed. Members will also pay case fees for each dispute and an annual general levy for FIDReC’s fixed costs, with each category’s share based on the resources its disputes require. MAS says the fee structure should be as fair as possible, give firms certainty for budgeting, and encourage early resolution without deterring use of FIDReC. MAS and FIDReC will consult the industry on fees and timelines “over the course of 2027.”
For smaller SPIs, the levy and case fees will be a new fixed cost. The size of that cost is not yet known.
What to watch
- MAS’s response to comments after 30 November 2026.
- The fee and levy framework to be agreed with industry during 2027.
- Final amendments to the Second Schedule of the DRS Regulations.
- The stablecoin licence and the timing of issuers’ FIDReC membership.
Primary sources
- MAS, Consultation on Expanding FIDReC Membership to Payment Service Providers, 16 October 2026
- MAS, Consultation Paper P017-2026 on Expanding FIDReC Membership to Payment Service Providers (PDF), 16 October 2026
Photo (cropped): Chainwit., CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}