Thanks for the updates.

So they were fined for "not abiding with an injunction"

So there is no defamation?
The things they said and do about UBB.....not defamatory?

Meaning, ........ or indirectly means ......

This post has been edited by MUM: Dec 13 2023, 01:13 AM


Attached thumbnail(s)

Anyway, any idea why would they go against the court's injunction?

So the verdict for that case is still out there

This post has been edited by MUM: Dec 13 2023, 05:51 AM

Anyway, any idea why would they go against the court's injunction?
What are their purpose of going against that court's injunction?
What are they trying to achieve?

This post has been edited by MUM: Dec 13 2023, 06:01 AM

This forummer had in Oct 2022 talked of positive experience on his platform that had established since 2009 and had been having funds giving out positive experience every 5 weeks since 2013 without fails.
Look at the millions they were said to had made

Past performance is not an indicator of possible same or continuous same performance of future performance.



Attached thumbnail(s)

Currently trust companies are under the purview of SSM.
I would only consider putting any money in it after the "efforts" to change the "Trust Companies Act" had already been passed and in law.


Attached thumbnail(s)

I guess the principle of "a person is innocent until proven guilty" applies to " a scam is not a scam until proven to be a scam".

Those that believes and had experienced the good pay out for few years would continue to be strong supporters of it.
They may says things which may includes/imply things just like the supporter of a scheme posted previously in another thread (as per image).

But as for me, I will still stick with as posted In post 311.

This post has been edited by MUM: Feb 22 2024, 12:01 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

Just saw this, this morning, ...

KUALA LUMPUR (March 25): The Securities Commission (SC) said it has begun to investigate unlisted companies and entities offering cash trust products and flagged concerns of potential violations of capital market laws.

The SC has observed “certain possible adverse conduct” by unlisted companies that typically offer preference shares and entities offering cash trust products, the regulator said in its Annual Report 2023 released on Monday. A review suggests possible breaches of the laws, including offering shares without registering a prospectus with the SC, it noted.

“Several investigations have been initiated,” the SC said, including possible breaches of section 58 on capital market services license, section 232 on requirement to register prospectus and section 179 on potential use of “manipulative and deceptive devices.”

Cash trusts are typically designed to provide investors with a lower-risk investment option for liquidity purposes. However, cash trusts are not regulated by the SC or Bank Negara Malaysia.

The Association of Trust Companies Malaysia, Life Insurance Association of Malaysia, Malaysian Financial Planning Council and the Financial Planning Association of Malaysia, among others, have previously complained about certain cash trusts.

These cash trusts and other outfits with similar modus operandi promise extremely high returns, reminiscent of Ponzi schemes, with some said to offer returns of as high as 36% per annum.

“The SC is also concurrently reviewing its current regulatory framework to consider introducing the requirement for assessment and due diligence to address any gaps that is detrimental and harmful to the investors,” it added.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...9ApaWBttV7JFT0M

This post has been edited by MUM: Mar 26 2024, 06:59 AM


Attached thumbnail(s)

Post 53 has some brief info, ...


Attached thumbnail(s)

Is that your dividend for your 10k deposit in a year?

Currently trust companies are under the purview of SSM. Not under the jurisdictions of BNM or SC.

I would only consider putting any money in it after the "efforts" to change the "Trust Companies Act" had already been passed and in law. I had been waiting for 2 years already since the proposal was made known.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...dJxc-l27kuqTo_Y




Attached thumbnail(s)

Found this from SSM website.
I found it "interesting and of concern", but perhaps others may find it of no issue to them.
I got no extra money or the leisure time to go the civil action route if shits hits the fan.

https://www.ssm.com.my/Pages/Services/Other...-Complaint.aspx

This post has been edited by MUM: Oct 21 2024, 10:55 AM


Attached thumbnail(s)

Just hoped and wished that those agreed changes to the Trustee Act includes "those private and personal" trust agreements...like subscribing to those cash trust deposits agreements and not just agreed to make changes to the Trustees Act just impacting some "bodies".
And I also hoped and wished that I don't have to wait "years" for it to be gazetted into law.

"PETALING JAYA: Two laws governing trustees of organisations are to be amended in hopes of curbing the misappropriation of funds meant for religious, social or charitable purposes.

The two laws are the Trustees (Incorporation) Act and the Trustee Act 1949, the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement."

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/...ds-for-charity/

This post has been edited by MUM: Dec 1 2024, 10:10 AM


Attached thumbnail(s)

While waiting for his response, you can try read post 236, 237 n 238 on page 12 for some info.

That investment that you saw also doing short-term loan, with collateral at the shortest time, same as those trust companies that offer cash trust. ?

I was asking about your mentioned,
"To many people think this interest they give is high, but to me it is just peanuts, compared to what I saw from the real investment."

I was wondering if that investment ( with its inherent and associated risks that come with it) can be compared to those from cash trust?

If not, then no wonder the returns is peanuts compared to those "real investment"