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.


Did you experience a difference in the CMTrading withdrawal experience when requesting a small and a large amount? Did the Cyprus-based forex broker accept your requests when the withdrawal amount was small and deny when it was high? Were you told to pay a processing fee that seemed illegitimate in your context? Did the broker scam you by prompting you to deposit more after showing your initial profits? In this CMTrading review article, we have investigated the broker in light of the complaints. Check them out.

When looking at a forex broker, traders often find confusing and mixed information. This is exactly what happens with ACY Securities. On one side, it's a broker that has been operating for 10-15 years and has a good license from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). On the other hand, there are many serious complaints that show a very different story. As of early 2026, websites, such as WikiFX, have lowered the broker's score because they received over 156 user complaints, with a total of 182 "Exposure" reports filed. This creates a big problem for people who might want to use this broker. The main question this article will answer is: Is ACY SECURITIES legit, or are the many ACY SECURITIES scam claims actually true about how it does business? We will look at facts we can prove, study the broker's rules and regulations, examine the patterns in user complaints, and give a clear, fact-based answer about the risks of working with this broker. Our goal is to cut thr

ACY Securities shows a complicated picture for traders. On one side, it is a well-known broker that has been running for more than ten years and has a license from a top-level regulator. On the other side, it is a company that faces many serious complaints from users and official warnings from several international financial authorities. This ACY SECURITIES Review aims to explain these differences. We will give a fair and thorough analysis of both what the broker advertises and the serious risks that users have reported. At its heart, ACY Securities is a story of attractive trading conditions that are overshadowed by major user complaints and questions about whether it can be trusted. Our goal is to examine the facts, look at the evidence, and help you make a completely informed decision about your capital’s safety.

This ZarVista Review provides an analysis based on verified public data and direct user-reported experiences. From the outset, it is essential to note that ZarVista, formerly known as Zara FX, exhibits a profile that indicates a high potential risk for traders. This conclusion is not made lightly; it is supported by its low regulatory score, a large volume of serious user complaints, and operational transparency issues.