Abstract:The Malaysia Securities Commission (SC) has issued a formal alert, warning the public about a newly identified investment scam that uses fraudulent Information Memorandums (IM) to deceive potential investors. This scheme falsely claims that the companies involved have either submitted their IMs to the SC or received approval from the Commission, thereby creating a false sense of legitimacy around their investment offerings.

The Malaysia Securities Commission (SC) has issued a formal alert, warning the public about a newly identified investment scam that uses fraudulent Information Memorandums (IM) to deceive potential investors. This scheme falsely claims that the companies involved have either submitted their IMs to the SC or received approval from the Commission, thereby creating a false sense of legitimacy around their investment offerings.
In accordance with the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA), unlisted companies are required to submit their Information Memorandums to the SC within seven days of presenting them to potential investors. The purpose of this process is to ensure transparency and compliance with regulations, safeguarding the interests of investors. However, the SC emphasized that merely creating or submitting an IM does not imply the Commissions endorsement, as companies must still undergo rigorous scrutiny before any approval is granted.

In a recent case, the SC uncovered that a company had deliberately misled investors by claiming it had submitted an IM to the Commission, hoping to bolster the credibility of its investment scheme. The company had not, in fact, submitted any such documentation, raising suspicions of fraud. The SC believes this could be part of a wider, coordinated scam designed to exploit investors' trust.
As soon as this fraudulent activity was discovered, the Securities Commission took swift action by reporting the company to law enforcement and adding it to the SCs Investor Alert List. This list is designed to inform the public about companies and individuals involved in dubious or illegal investment schemes. The SC considers such behaviour particularly dangerous, as it misleads investors into believing that the investment product is legitimate and has been reviewed or approved by the authorities.
The Securities Commission strongly urges the public to remain vigilant when evaluating any investment opportunities, especially those that claim to be associated with the SC or its officials. Investors are advised to carefully verify the legitimacy of any investment offer by consulting official sources or contacting the Commission directly.
Additionally, the SC encourages anyone who encounters suspicious investment activities or misleading information to report such cases promptly. By doing so, the public can help prevent others from falling victim to these potentially harmful scams, thus contributing to the overall protection of investors.


PURPLE TRADING, a Seychelles-based forex brokerage entity, is constantly criticized by numerous traders on review platforms such as WikiFX. While withdrawal delays or denials are reportedly a common issue here, there are also complaints about wide spreads and poor customer services. This PURPLE TRADING review examines user-reported allegations against the trading enterprise. Additionally, the article takes a close look at the broker’s regulatory status.

Exness review for Indian traders in 2026. This guide explains what the RBI Alert List says, what it does not say, why a global license is not Indian authorization, and how to verify permitted forex routes before funding an account.

HSB Investasi review 2026: check the Instant Withdrawal claim, the IDR 14 million per-proposal limit, the three-request daily cap, transfer costs, transaction statuses, and what Bappebti data does—and does not—tell traders.

A branded trading platform can look like the fastest route to a modern branded trading environment, but a fast launch is not the same as a controlled launch. This 2026 broker guide explains what the custom trading platform is, where a provider broker solution can sit in a wider operating stack, and how to evaluate the difference between a white label, a server license, and a connected CRM or Client Office setup. It also unpacks proprietary platform costs beyond the monthly headline, including implementation, integration, support, data, governance, migration, and exit assumptions. Use the practical questions, workflow tests, comparison table, and launch checklist to assess a platform provider without mistaking a feature demo for evidence that your brokerage can run the service safely at scale.