Introduction
In July 2026, Singaporean police seized a SGD 55 million property and bank assets as part of a fraud and money-laundering investigation involving Aperia Group chief executive Alan Wei Zhaolun, who was accused of concealing the true destination of Dell, Super Micro and Asus servers containing Nvidia chips (BBC News, 2026).
A month earlier, Malaysian customs authorities had intercepted 72 servers at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA). Declared as “computer components,” the servers were reportedly intended to transit to another Asian country without the authorisations required under the Strategic Trade Act 2010 (The Star, 2026; Bernama, 2026).
Separated by only a few weeks, these cases illustrate a structural problem identified in the specialist literature: the US export-control regime, designed largely around direct transactions between an exporter and a declared end user, struggles to account for the actual logistics of global semiconductor supply chains (Grunewald and Fist, 2025).These cases therefore raise questions about the ability of the US Export Administration Regulations to remain effective without the cooperation of third countries.
The Geographical Blind Spots of US Export Controls
The principal framework is administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and relies on the classification of advanced chips, including ECCN 4A090, and on obligations imposed on US exporters.
Since September 2025, the framework has also included a 50% “affiliate rule”, designed to prevent circumvention of the Entity List through shell subsidiaries. However, the rule has been suspended until November 2026 (Akin Gump, 2025; TSI Global Consulting, 2025).The system consequently remains centred on the initial transaction between the US exporter and the declared purchaser.Yet, as Grunewald and Fist (2025) demonstrate, documented circumvention schemes often follow a two-stage process: a legitimate end user is identified to the US seller, after which the goods are secretly re-exported through a third jurisdiction offering favourable logistical conditions, such as a free-trade zone, bonded warehouse or equipment-leasing company.
Singapore and Malaysia occupy a distinctive position in this geography. Singapore accounts for approximately 18 percent of Nvidia’s invoiced revenue, although this does not necessarily correspond to physical deliveries (Grunewald and Fist, 2025). Malaysia, meanwhile, has developed infrastructure such as the KLIA Free Commercial Zone, allowing goods to transit without necessarily being formally treated as having been “imported.”
Neither country is considered a declared adversary by Washington, and both have adopted domestic controls. In Malaysia, the Strategic Trade Secretariat (STS) introduced a “catch-all” mechanism in July 2025 covering certain advanced AI chips, requiring prior notification and, where applicable, a re-export permit (MITI, 2025).The issue is therefore not simply the absence of local rules, but the gap between their adoption and their physical enforcement in economies whose competitiveness depends partly on efficient transhipment.
Two Cases, Two Circumvention Mechanisms
The Aperia case illustrates circumvention at an earlier stage of the supply chain between November 2023 and February 2025, companies belonging to the group allegedly falsely certified to Dell, Super Micro and Asus that they would themselves be the servers’ end users, before reselling them through channels that remain only partially understood (The Diplomat, 2026).This represents a classic form of documentary fraud at the know-your-customer (KYC) stage. It is precisely the type of risk that the enhanced controls recommended by Grunewald and Fist (2025) seek to address, notably through independent verification of end-user identities and mandatory reporting of high-risk transactions.
The KLIA case involved a different mechanism, occurring further downstream. Servers already shipped from another Asian country were transiting through the airport’s free-trade zone under a misleading customs description (“computer components”) before being re-exported (Bernama, 2026).Unlike the Aperia case, this did not involve falsifying the identity of a US end user. Instead, it appears to have exploited customs status: transit through a free-trade zone may, in many jurisdictions, be subject to fewer formal import-declaration requirements than goods entering the domestic market.
Nevertheless, both cases highlight the same structural issue. Their detection resulted from action by the transit states themselves (Singaporean and Malaysian authorities) rather than from direct intervention by US authorities. They therefore demonstrate the extent to which the EAR depends on administrative capacity and political willingness beyond US jurisdiction.
Discussion
The significance of these cases remains difficult to assess because key information is not publicly available.
On the one hand, both states mobilised substantial resources, including asset seizures, arrests and, in Malaysia, a ministerial task force involving the Ministers of Investment and Digital Affairs (Malay Mail, 2025). This suggests that US diplomatic pressure, reinforced by research such as Grunewald and Fist (2025), may be generating tangible cooperation even without formal strategic alignment.
On the other hand, the physical volume intercepted at KLIA (72 servers) worth approximately USD 13 million remains marginal compared with the median estimates of illicit shipments discussed by the same authors. Their estimates suggest that around 100,000 advanced chips may have been smuggled in 2024, representing several billion US dollars. The deterrent effect of a small number of highly publicised seizures should therefore not be overstated.
A central methodological limitation is the absence of reliable public data on the actual detection rate: the proportion of illicit flows that are identified and intercepted. Grunewald and Fist (2025) acknowledge that this is a major source of uncertainty.
Moreover, Singaporean and Malaysian cooperation should not automatically be interpreted as strategic alignment with US objectives. Both governments have stressed that they retain regulatory sovereignty (Badrul Hisham, 2025), a distinction that US-based analyses may sometimes understate.
Conclusion
The Aperia and KLIA cases support the structural hypothesis advanced in the literature: the US export-control regime governing AI-related semiconductor trade operates partly through delegated enforcement. Its effectiveness depends on the capacity and willingness of third countries to exercise, within their own territories and at their own political cost, controls designed to serve a foreign national-security objective.
However, it remains impossible to determine whether these cases indicate a durable strengthening of international cooperation or isolated successes within a global illicit trade that remains substantially under-detected. Resolving this question will require customs and judicial data that are not yet publicly available.
Bibliography
Badrul Hisham, A.A. (2025) Strengthening Strategic Trade Governance in the Semiconductor Age. Khazanah Research Institute, Views series, 25 November.
Banks, J. and Warren, E. (2026) Letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, 23 March. https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_commerce_nvidia_supermicro.pdf Schneider, J. and Ottinger, L. (2025) ‘Smuggling Nvidia GPUs to China’, ChinaTalk (Substack), 22 August. https://www.chinatalk.media/p/how-gpus-get-smuggled-to-china
Butts, D. (2025) ‘Singapore police probe Nvidia customer Megaspeed over alleged China export violations’, CNBC, 10 October. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/10/singapore-us-investigate-nvidia-client-megaspeed-export-controls-violation.html?msockid=35ca794aff1d60d411ff6e9efecb61fa
Chen, S. and Tozzi, P. (2026) ‘It Takes More Than Two to Tango: Creating Effective Export Controls on Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment’, Just Security, 9 July. https://www.justsecurity.org/145562/effective-export-controls-semiconductor-equipment/
Cotton, T. (2025) Letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, 15 abril. https://www.cotton.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/103025lutnickletter.pdf
Fedasiuk, R., Elmgren, K. and Lu, E. (2022) Silicon Twist: Managing the Chinese Military’s Access to AI Chips. Washington, DC: Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), Georgetown University, June. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/silicon-twist/
Foong, K. (2025) ‘Malaysia implements export control measures on advanced AI chips’, Rahmat Lim & Partners (in association with Allen & Gledhill), 14 August. https://www.rahmatlim.com/perspectives/articles/31040/mykh-implements-export-control-measures-on-advanced-ai-chips
Ge, J. (2026) ‘China’s chipmaking supply chain runs through Southeast Asia’, East Asia Forum, 21 June. https://eastasiaforum.org/2026/06/20/chinas-chipmaking-supply-chain-runs-through-southeast-asia/
Grunewald, E. and Fist, T. (2025) Countering AI Chip Smuggling Has Become a National Security Priority: An Updated Playbook for Preventing AI Chip Smuggling to the PRC. CNAS Working Paper, 11 June. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/countering-ai-chip-smuggling-has-become-a-national-security-priority
Harithas, B. (2024) Mapping the Chip Smuggling Pipeline and Improving Export Control Compliance. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 9 April. https://www.csis.org/analysis/mapping-chip-smuggling-pipeline-and-improving-export-control-compliance
Heyi, C. (2026) ‘Southeast Asia Is the Chip War’s Hinge, Not Its Weak Link’, The China-Global South Project, 31 July. https://chinaglobalsouth.com/analysis/southeast-asia-is-the-chip-wars-hinge-not-its-weak-link/
JETRO (2025) ‘マレーシア、米国製先端AI半導体の輸出規制を強化、即日実施’ [Malaysia: Immediate strengthening of export controls on US-made advanced AI semiconductors]. Kuala Lumpur, 16 July. https://www.jetro.go.jp/biznews/2025/07/426578b0da2e49ae.html
Kettner Edelmetalle, Redaktion (2026) ‘Chinas Chip-Coup: Wie Peking Amerikas Exportverbote über Südostasien umgeht’, Kettner Edelmetalle Magazin, 22 April. https://www.kettner-edelmetalle.de/news/chinas-chip-coup-wie-peking-amerikas-exportverbote-uber-sudostasien-umgeht-22-04-2026
Kondi, M. (2026) Hardwired Repression: Data Centers, Global Technology, and China’s Surveillance Infrastructure in the Uyghur Region. Washington, DC: C4ADS. https://c4ads.org/reports/hardwired-repression/
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP) (2025) ‘[이슈트렌드] 싱가포르, 중국으로의 엔비디아 AI 칩 불법 수출 사건 관련 조사 착수’ [Issue Trend: Singapore launches investigation into case of alleged illegal export of Nvidia AI chips to China], 14 March. https://www.kiep.go.kr/aif/issueDetail.es?mid=a10200000000&systemcode=03&brdctsNo=379431
Kozlowskyj, C. (2026) AI Chip Smuggling: The Limits of US Export Controls. BISI, 6 April. https://bisi.org.uk/reports/ai-chip-smuggling-the-limits-of-us-export-controls
MTI (Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore) and Singapore Customs (2025) Circular on the Strategic Goods Control Act. Singapore, 4 April. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/SGCA2002-S660-2025?DocDate=20251001
Pao, J. (2026) ‘Nvidia GPU crackdown hits China-linked Southeast Asia data centres’, Asia Times, 4 June. https://asiatimes.com/2026/06/nvidia-gpu-crackdown-hits-china-linked-southeast-asia-data-centers/
Peer, M. (2025) ‘Schmuggel von Nvidia-Chips? Singapur drohen Sanktionen’, Handelsblatt, 6 March. https://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kolumnen/china-schmuggel-von-nvidia-chips-singapur-drohen-sanktionen/100111380.html
Walker, R. (2026) Between the Superpowers: Southeast Asia’s Strategic Supply Chain Dilemma. Sydney: Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/between-the-superpowers-southeast-asia-s-strategic-supply-chain-dilemma
Wang, C.-N., Nhieu, N.-L., Chiang, C.-T. and Wang, Y.-H. (2024) ‘Assessing Southeast Asia countries’ potential in the semiconductor supply chain: an objectively weighting multi-criteria decision-making approach’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, article 1260. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03768-x