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.


This is allegedly the case for most traders at WHITEFOREX, a Saint Lucia-based brokerage entity, as we look at real user reviews on broker investigation platforms such as WikiFX. Regardless of the profit seizure amount, whether it's $100 or $5,000, traders have expressed their utter frustration over this suspicious trading activity by the broker. Other complaints, such as poor customer support service, further add to traders’ woes. In this WHITEFOREX review 2026, we have investigated reported cases against the brokerage firm.

HIJA MARKETS, a Saint Lucia-based brokerage entity, is dealing with multiple trading complaints from users worldwide. Among the complaints, what captured our imagination was the $3,000 fee demand for the unfreezing of profits on the broker’s platform. Such a payment demand immediately raises legitimacy concerns regarding the brokerage firm. Complaints do not stop here; in fact, they suggest a pattern of disappearing funds and endless withdrawal denials. Many traders have accused the broker of carrying out illicit trading activities online. In this HIJA MARKETS review 2026, we have examined every user allegation against the brokerage firm. To give you more means to assess its legitimacy, we have given a thorough look into its regulatory framework.

EMAR Markets, a South Africa-based forex broker, allegedly never misses the opportunity to disappoint its traders, according to their reviews. The user allegations present a disturbing picture, with users repeatedly complaining about pending EMAR MARKETS withdrawal processing in the pretext of a data review process that reportedly seems to have no end. They even accused the broker of withholding funds even after they paid the verification fee worth 2,000 to 5,000 yuan as requested. Some users complained about the not-so-meaningful updates and complete communication halt that further made the overall trading scenario precarious. In this EMAR MARKETS review, we have examined serious user allegations to provide an overview of the overall situation. To further help you assess its legitimacy, we have provided a regulatory framework of this company.

Crib Markets, a Mauritius-based multi-asset brokerage entity, has been accused of profit deletions by users worldwide, including those from India. After studying the Crib Markets complaints, it was observed that problems started happening when users looked to withdraw funds from the platform. Multiple users claimed deliberate profit deletions by the brokerage firm upon a withdrawal request. In this Crib Markets review, we have found many such complaints in 2026. Besides sharing complaints, we have provided a thorough look into the broker’s regulatory framework.