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.


Angel One, an India-based brokerage entity, constantly receives allegations from users online. Users are complaining about withheld funds, poor customer support service, undesired trade execution orders, etc. In this Angel One review, let’s quickly go through these complaints, understand its regulatory framework and pay attention to the product portfolio.

AuroraEx, a United States-based multi-asset brokerage entity, is facing serious user allegations over how it handles deposited funds. Many users have accused the broker of failing to meet its payment obligations. Some have questioned the broker over possible trade-related foul play, while others have alleged that it scammed them through a Ponzi operation. This AuroraEx review examines these user-reported allegations and provides an overview of the broker’s regulatory status.

This Valbury review examines PT Valbury Asia Futures, Broker Code 3441997314, its Bappebti record, the Q1 2026 A+++ assessment, product-specific costs, segregated accounts, withdrawals and complaint routes for traders researching an Indonesia forex broker.

A Prime of Prime forex arrangement can help a broker access trading relationships, credit intermediation, technology connectivity, and liquidity aggregation that may otherwise be difficult to obtain directly. But the label does not prove direct bank access, executable depth, or a particular execution outcome. This 2026 guide explains what a forex Prime of Prime, PoP liquidity provider, prime brokerage forex service, and forex prime broker proposal can mean in practice; where the credit and order-routing chain must be documented; how to test pricing, limits, rejects, records, and resilience; and which commercial terms create hidden operating cost. Use the comparison framework, red-flag list, and 90-day launch plan to assess fit for your client mix and risk model. The objective is a controllable execution dependency with traceable evidence, not a marketing claim about institutional access.