Take investor's money and use Covid as excuse. Money taken but why don't just continue with the operations until investor money run dry? Why abort mission from the beginning and keep investors' money?

Most importantly, why they can accept "investment" without going through Security Commissions? Just like another Geneva case.

So ffc n signature ffc which one chap lap? And which one do crowd fund?

Becoz Genneva investors pursue the matter until court and directors kena nailed n fined.millions.

Smart investors will go After them whilst stupid investors will let the money burnt. That is How u differentiate investors

https://www.crowdplus.asia/disclosure.php

Read and you will know more about crowd fund kungfu.

So tetek anda ialah?

STG i thought sabah tea garden lol.

Ah, the fine print that they are the middle man and not responsible for any lost. Then again, can privaye company sell their "share" like that? I thought only public-listed companies can sell share/equity to the public?

Ah long rate is how much now?

Crowdsource capital with high commission it seems.



If I am not mistaken, just by stating they "owe no legal resposibility to Investors" doesn't automatically exempt them from being sued for negligence, have to check Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) and the Guidelines on Regulation of Markets under Section 34 of CMSA issued by SC (“SC Guidelines”). Those kena already, get your lawyer to see if they can help legally.

This post has been edited by RicoT: Sep 8 2020, 09:50 AM

on this "f I am not mistaken, just by stating they "owe no legal resposibility to Investors" doesn't automatically exempt them from being sued for negligence,"...
how to proof negligent?
can a unit trust fund house be sued when 1 losses money in unit trust investment then sue the fund house/manager for negligent or incompetence?

on this, "have to check Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) and the Guidelines on Regulation of Markets under Section 34 of CMSA issued by SC (“SC Guidelines”)."
according to this article,....

The Case for Financial Reporting for Equity Crowdfunding in Malaysia
Malaysia introduced a regulatory framework to facilitate equity crowdfunding in 2015 and another for P2P financing in 2016.
At the time of writing, there are minimal rules and regulations on financial reporting for alternative funding i.e. non-equity crowdfunding, ECF and P2P financing in Malaysia.

Most of the regulations pertaining to alternative funding lie in the Guidelines on Recognized Markets issued by the Securities Commission of Malaysia (SC) in 2015 and revised in 2016.
The Guidelines on Recognized Markets focuses mostly on the financial reporting aspects of the set-up of the Recognized Market Operator (RMO) and reporting to SC. Paragraph 1.03 of the Guidelines makes it clear that all RMOs must be a body corporate or a limited liability partnership (LLP).

This brings all RMOs to be either under the Companies Act 2016 or the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2012.
Unlike practices overseas, societies or non-profit organisations per se, like many promoted on Kickstart, are not permitted to become RMOs.
The only way non-profit organisations can become RMOs is for those organisations to be registered either as companies or as LLPs.

Paragraph 7.01 requires all RMOs to submit their latest audited financial statements within three months after the close of each financial year to the SC and similar filings must be made at the CCM as required by the Companies
Act 2016 or the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2012.

However, since the RMOs are not public companies, the audited financial statements of the RMOs are not published to the public.
Current listing requirements require public listed companies to publish regular reports (as regular as quarterly) to their shareholders so that shareholders are made aware of the financial performance of their investment.
Regulators require unit trust companies to publish their results to their trust holders.
ECF works in a way similar to unit trusts. Unit holders provide small amounts of funds to unit trust companies to invest in various companies or businesses, while crowdfunding collects small amounts of capital from many backers. RMOs are not subject to such rigorous reporting requirements unlike unit trust companies.
RMOs are not obliged to publish their financial results to their backers since the backers are in the legal sense not shareholders of the business.
Backers would have to go to the CCM to purchase a copy of the audited accounts if they want information about the financial results of their RMO.

Is the financial information available at the CCM useful for the backers for decision making – if they decide to spend money to retrieve the information? It is not thought so.

The Companies Act 2016 requires an RMO file the financial report of the whole enterprise and not different projects crowdfunded in that particular RMO.
There are gaps in company law pertaining to the ownership of an ECF.
The Guidelines on Recognised Markets make it a requirement that information on the promoters of the ECF must be provided to SC during the process of registration.
A similar procedure is applied to traditional companies when those companies plan to place an Initial Public Offer (IPO) on Bursa Malaysia.

However there is not much clarity regarding the ownership of an ECF.
Are backers shareholders of the ECF?
Investopedia mentions that “backers receive equity shares of the company”.
The Companies Act 2016 is silent on this.

In traditional companies including those over-the-counter or private companies, successful applicants to a new company are allotted shares by the promoters and upon the payment of the allotted share capital, the applicant will become a shareholder.
Shareholders are then owners of the company.

The legal statuses of ECF backers are currently unclear in company law.
Backers should be allotted shares in the entity and backers should be able to participate in General and Extraordinary Meetings of the ECF.
ECFs should be managed like any company with a proper Board of Directors, independent directors and a capable Audit Committee for better governance.

https://mfpc.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2019...rowdfunding.pdf

Those kena already, get your lawyer to see if they can help legally.
that is a good advice....
but if the invested money is not much,...just forget about it for the cost of that legal fees incurred may be more than the sum "lost" and also do the due diligent in getting a lawyer too because there maybe some taking the opportunity to "scam" the victims again....like previously read Geneva victims paying for legal fees to try to get back the money...

This post has been edited by yklooi: Sep 8 2020, 12:44 PM

G size cup. Hahaha

didnt know this crowd funding existed.

When was it they first started? 2019?

I ate a few times in their restaurant, their food is quite good eh honestly.

So less than 2 years down the road and taking covid19 as an excuse, they announce that their business has failed and has ceased all the operations?

in the event of liquidation, shouldn't those share capital pumped in be returned to the shareholders/investors by capital reduction? etc?

so the founder take this chance and close everything as well as sapu all the remaining cash and bank balances?

soon, you will see another similar modus operandi operator crowd funding for another chain.

vicious cycle.............

This post has been edited by tehoice: Sep 8 2020, 12:45 PM

according to this,...
These businesses are generally high risk, high return investment alternative to other Investment instruments like Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds or Trust Funds, or even Fixed Deposits.
Startups generally have a 25% yearly average return, however, it also comes with a high risk of >90% mortality rate.

Of course, the 25% return is after even the failures of those startups, as the successful Startups are able to provide more than 5X or if you are lucky, more than 30X returns on your investment.
https://www.nexea.co/equity-crowdfunding-ec...ur%20investment.

expectations of higher returns comes with higher risk of losses too.

This scam is nothing new but in different forms.

yeah their pork ribs are awesome kesian the workers

Holy crab. All kena gamed

Well you are right in your explanations, are you from the Securities Commission? but definitely Crowdplus Asia have breach the SC regulations because a company who is newly formed and do not have any audited financial account can not raise more than RM 500.000, what I can see from the website they have raised more than RM 1 mil per campaign and the companies FFC just formed few months before they raise the funds.
So it's still possible to go legally after Crowdplus or complain to SC ....No Mercy

Read the article in post 113?
The failure rate is more than 90%
The investors willing surrender their money into an investment that has high mortality rate so as to try to earn a possibility of higher returns.
Did they promise can make a return?

"Securities Commission Malaysia announced today the liberalisation of equity crowdfunding (ECF) limit to RM 10 million from the previous limit of RM 5 Million."
https://fintechnews.my/23418/crowdfunding-m...M%205%20Million.

Yes they have promise, up to 120 % for 3 years ..insane.....

is that from the social media or from the crowdfunding's prospectus or from Signature Fei Fei Crab?
i think the 120% is inclusive of those eat credits, gift vouchers....also any T&C attached to the interest of 12% payable bi annually...

This post has been edited by MUM: Sep 11 2020, 09:49 PM

you are right on the limits with RM 10 mil, SC have raised it up.
But Fei Fei Crap did not meet the SC requirements...the FFC companies just a few months old....do not have audited accounts, therefore they are not allowed to raise more tahn RM 500 k, clearly a breach of SC guidelines. Crowdplus should never allow it to raise more than RM 500 k according to the guidelines, to reduce the investor risk exposure!!!
[attachmentid=10584898


Attached thumbnail(s)