Abstract:The Kuala Lumpur High Court has ruled that a Singaporean businessman, Chan Cheh Shin, must return RM28 million to 122 Malaysian investors after the court determined that his investment operations were conducted illegally.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has ruled that a Singaporean businessman, Chan Cheh Shin, must return RM28 million to 122 Malaysian investors after the court determined that his investment operations were conducted illegally. The decision highlights the importance of regulatory compliance and investor protection within the financial sector.
The ruling, delivered by Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mohd Arief Emran Arifin, concluded that Chan had collected investment funds without the required approval from the Securities Commission of Malaysia (SC). The court found that Chan's activities violated Malaysian financial regulations, rendering his operations unlawful.
Chan, the director and founder of Fulda Malaysia Bhd, promoted various investment products through roadshows and seminars. These promotional efforts, which began in 2016, targeted Malaysian investors who subsequently invested their money into Fulda Malaysia Bhd and another company, Palau Capital Ltd, based in Singapore, where Chan also held a directorial position.
The plaintiffs in the case alleged that Chan had persuaded them to invest in numerous financial products, including overseas ventures, with promises of substantial returns. They also stated that Chan, reportedly credentialed as a “leading banker” with expertise in finance and investments, assured them that he would carefully manage their funds and personally cover any potential losses. Despite these assurances, the investors received no returns on their investments, prompting them to file a lawsuit in 2022 to recover their money.

In an online judgement, Judicial Commissioner Arief ordered Chan to repay the RM28 million to the 122 investors. Additionally, Chan is required to pay interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the amount owed, calculated from the date the lawsuit was filed until the judgement sum is fully settled.
The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers M. Manian and R. Gajelan, while Chans legal defence was handled by Ravi Nekoo and Sarah Anthony. Following the ruling, Ravi Nekoo indicated that his client intends to appeal the decision, though further details on the appeal process were not disclosed.


When choosing a broker, the most important thing for any trader is making sure the company follows proper rules and regulations. This helps protect your capital, ensure fair treatment, and give you options if problems arise. We know that checking a broker's regulatory status can be confusing. That's why we're giving you a detailed, fact-based review of Moneta Markets. The simple answer is that Moneta Markets works through multiple companies in different countries. This means the brand has licenses from various places around the world, including top-level regulators such as the UK's FCA and regional ones like South Africa's FSCA. However, it also includes offshore companies, which come with different risks. This article will explain each license, examine the companies behind the Moneta Markets brand, and analyze exactly what this regulatory setup means for you as a trader. We'll base our review on public regulatory information and real user experiences to give you a clear and honest pi

When checking out a forex broker, traders often deal with lots of mixed information. Moneta Markets is a perfect example of this problem. On one side, it shows itself as a well-established, regulated broker with good trading conditions that bring in thousands of clients. On the other side, the internet is full of serious scam allegations, especially about holding back people's capital. This creates an important question for any future trader: is Moneta Markets a legitimate partner or a clever trap? This investigation wants to cut through all the confusion. We will not give you a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Instead, we will do a balanced and fact-based analysis to help you make a smart decision. We will break down the clear signs of its legitimacy, look closely at the specific details of negative complaints, and compare this conflicting evidence. Our analysis is based on facts you can check, including the broker's official regulatory status, real-world operational checks, and a deep l

Have you witnessed a withdrawal freeze by JustForex, a Seychelles-based forex broker? Did you face wallet issues while trading with the broker? Failing to access either your deposit or profit amount despite completing the verification process? Facing capital losses due to the manipulated charts on the trading platform? You are not alone! These alleged issues have surfaced on broker review platforms. In this JustForex review article, we have examined these issues faced by traders. Keep reading!

TRADE.COM, a Mauritius-based forex broker, is gaining attention on broker review platforms, such as WikiFX, for more negative reasons than positive ones. The negative reports have emerged on account of the constant withdrawal denials and capital losses due to the alleged wrong trading guidance by the broker. There are positive reviews too, but most of them sound too generic. Exposure reports cover specific glitches traders have faced here. In this TRADE.COM review article, we have investigated multiple complaints against the forex broker. Read on!