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.

The visible fee in an MT4 white label proposal is rarely the real cost of operating it. For an existing broker, the decision is not simply whether an MT4 white label platform is “cheap” or “expensive.” The real question is whether the commercial model remains viable after integration, support, data, client migration, compliance, and exit costs are included. That is why an MT4 white label cost review should be built as a 24- to 36-month operating case. It should compare three credible choices: 1. Keep the present MT4 setup and improve its weakest controls. 2. Replace the MT4 white label provider but retain the client proposition. 3. Migrate selected clients or products to another platform while running MT4 in parallel. This guide explains how to build that case without relying on headline prices or generic vendor claims.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has grown remarkably recently. However, it has also amplified the scope for financial fraud. One such is the rapid use of deepfake technology involving AI-generated videos, images and audio clips imitating real people. Fraudsters are leveraging these technologies to impersonate financial advisers, celebrities, business leaders and government officials to lure victims into fake investment schemes. Understanding the emerging implications, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has cautioned investors of investment avenues promoted through convincing AI-generated content. Seemingly authentic, deepfakes are designed to manipulate trust and make people transfer funds before authenticating the investment’s legitimacy.

The decision to switch white label providers or migrate to a modern white label trading platform is no longer a luxury for growth-minded brokers—it's a strategic necessity for survival in 2026. The convergence of technological stagnation, regulatory evolution, and shifting client expectations has created a perfect storm.

ABET, a Bulgaria-based brokerage firm, faces severe allegations from users for the reportedly inefficient way it handles their funds. While some alleged illegitimate account blocks by the broker, others reported fund scams and trade manipulations. These ABET reviews have raised question marks over the broker’s legitimacy.