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 incur trading losses on the Spreadex platform due to wider spreads? Have you experienced delays in trade processing by the United Kingdom-based forex broker? Has your Spreadex trading account been closed without any explanation? You are not alone! Many traders have expressed concerns on online broker review platforms. In this Spreadex review 2026, we have covered user allegations and provided a regulatory framework the broker operates under.

A broker can launch a white-label platform quickly and still fail the first serious operating test. The failure often begins quietly: an assets expansion has been approved, the client app is branded, and a new account journey looks complete. Then a client asks why a trade-related status, funding hand-off, or account restriction looks different across channels. Support cannot see the same reference trail as operations. The product owns the screen, but no one owns the explanation. The issue is not a missing feature. It is an untested operating model. That is why a cTrader white label platform should be evaluated as a route to a multi-asset service - not as a shortcut to a more attractive terminal. The central question is whether the broker can add instruments, client channels, integrations, and service capacity without making its controls harder to operate or explain.

Perry Warjiyo resigned as Bank Indonesia governor, Destry Damayanti became acting governor, and the rupiah traded above Rp18,000. Here is what forex traders should monitor next.
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.