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.


A close look at ZarVista's regulatory status shows major red flags that mark it as a high-risk broker for traders. This analysis goes beyond the company's marketing materials to examine the real substance of its licenses, business structure, and operating history. The main issues we will explore include its dependence on weak offshore regulation, a large number of serious user complaints, and worrying details about its corporate identity. It is also important to note that ZarVista previously operated under the name Zara FX, a detail that provides important background to its history. This article aims to deliver a complete, evidence-based breakdown of the ZarVista license framework and its real-world effects, helping traders understand the serious risks involved before investing.

When traders think about choosing a new broker, two main questions come up: Is ZarVista safe or a scam? And what are the common ZarVista complaints? These questions get to the heart of what matters most—keeping your capital safe. This article gives you a detailed look at ZarVista's reputation using public information, government records, and real experiences from people who used their services. Our research starts with an important fact that shapes this whole review. WikiFX, a website that checks brokers independently, gives ZarVista a trust score of only 2.07 out of 10. This very low rating comes with a clear warning: "Low score, please stay away!" The main reason for this low score is the large number of user complaints. This finding shows that ZarVista might be risky to use. To get the complete picture, we will look at the broker's government approval status, examine the specific complaints from users, check any positive reviews to be fair, and give you a final answer based on fact

Trust has always been a widely discussed topic in the forex industry. When genuine, rational voices are drowned out, market participants struggle to discern which information is trustworthy amid a sea of complex data. This difficulty in establishing trust has placed industry transparency at the forefront of attention.

Before thinking about ZarVista, you need to understand the complete picture. At first glance, ZarVista (which used to be called Zara FX) presents itself as a modern, feature-packed trading company. It advertises appealing trading terms, different account options, and the powerful MetaTrader 5 platform. However, our detailed research shows a completely different reality. This broker has major warning signs, an extremely low trust rating, and a high-risk business model. This ZarVista review will examine the broker's promises, comparing what it advertises with actual evidence. We will explore the ZarVista Pros and Cons by looking at its rules and regulations, platform features, and most importantly, the large number of user complaints that show a troubling pattern. This investigation is based on careful analysis of information from independent verification websites like WikiFX, giving you an objective and fact-based review to help you make a smart decision and protect your capital.