Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) read together with Section 152(2)(a) of the Securities Commission Malaysia Act 1993 (“SCMA”) (“Breach”)

ACE Holdings Berhad (“AHB”)

Disclosure of misleading information by AHB to the Securities Commission Malaysia (“SC”) when AHB was required to disclose to the SC certain information pursuant to a notice issued by the SC under Section 152(1) of the SCMA.

1. Reprimand; and
2. Penalty of RM440,000

14 November 2022

On 13 December 2022, AHB filed a review application with the SC against the sanctions imposed.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 15 February 2023.

Breach of Section 356(1)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 read together with Paragraph 4.17, Section B, Part 1 of the Guidelines on Unlisted Capital Market Products under the Lodge and Launch Framework

Delay of one (1) business day in the submission of the monthly investment returns for seven (7) wholesale funds to the SC.

Penalty of RM7,000.

26 September 2022

Section 356(3) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ("CMSA") for breach of Paragraphs 8.2.1(a), 8.2.3, 8.2.4(b) and 11.6 of the Guidelines on Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing for Capital Market Intermediaries issued on 7 December 2016 ("AML Guidelines") read together with Section 356(1)(a) of the CMSA.

MSSB has breached the following  paragraphs of the AML Guidelines:

1. Paragraphs 8.2.1(a) and 8.2.3 of the AML Guidelines ("Breach 1''); and
2. Paragraphs 8.2.4(b) and 11.6 of the AML Guidelines ("Breach 2'').

Breach 1
Failure to conduct ongoing due diligence and scrutiny of MSSB's customers throughout the course of the business relationship and to monitor MSSB's customer's account on a regular basis to ensure that transactions conducted are consistent with, amongst others, MSSB's knowledge of the customers and their risk profile, as well as monitoring of suspicious transactions.

Breach 2
Failure to reclassify its customer(s) as higher risk and lodge a suspicious transaction report to the relevant authority in circumstances where, amongst others, the pattern of account activity of the customer appears unusual or inconsistent with MSSB's profile or knowledge of the customer.

1. Reprimand for each of the breach; and
2. Penalty of RM220,000.00.

23 September 2022

On 3 October 2022, MSSB filed a review application with the SC against the sanctions imposed.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 23 February 2023.

• Breach of:
1. Section 61(4) of the CMSA, Paragraph 7.03(1) of the SC's Licensing Handbook and Section 65(1)(g)(v) of the CMSA (“Breach 1”);

2. Paragraph 5.03 of the Guidelines on Advertising for Capital Market Products and Related Services ("Advertising Guidelines") (“Breach 2”); and

3. Paragraph 5.07 of the Advertising Guidelines (“Breach 3”),
   read together with Section 356(1)(a) of the CMSA; and

• Failure to maintain fitness and properness as a Capital Markets Services Representative's Licence (“CMSRL”) holder for the regulated activity of fund management which warrants a revocation or suspension of licence under:

  1. Section 72(2)(2)(b)(i) of the CMSA read together with Section 65(1)(b) of the CMSA; and

  2. Section 72(2)(2)(b)(iv) of the CMSA read together with Paragraph 7.03(1) of the SC's Licensing Handbook and Paragraph 7.03(3) of the SC's Licensing Handbook

Breach 1
DDNK’s remarks and conduct on several occasions had resulted or contributed to the misleading impression that an unregistered individual and/or agency had represented, or had an arrangement with IPAM, as a marketing representative that undertakes marketing and referral activities, when in actual fact, the individual and the agency were not registered with IPAM. As such, DDNK has failed to comply with SC's licensing condition which requires him to remain fit and proper at all times, as he has conducted himself in such a way that casts doubt on his competence and soundness of judgment.

Breach 2
DDNK had failed to ensure that advertisements made by him or IPAM did not contain any misleading messaging.

Breach 3
DDNK had failed to ensure that information in advertisements is accurate.

• Suspension of CMSRL for 6 months pursuant to Section 72(3) of the CMSA;

• Reprimand;

• Penalty of a total of RM577,500; and

• Direction to DDNK to attend a course(s) relating to conduct professionalism, ethics or integrity to capital market activities, as determined by the Board of IPAM where such course(s) provide/result in:

  1. an extra 20 CPE points (in addition to the prescribed/requisite CPE points to be collected), or

  2. equivalent to 2 days of training,
     within 6 months of the date of suspension ('Mandatory Training',), or where DDNK ceases to be a CMSRL holder with the SC, from such date of cessation.

6 October 2022

On 14 October 2022, DDNK filed a review application with the SC against the suspension and quantum of penalty imposed.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 22 December 2022.  

Breach of:

1. Paragraph 7.04 of the Guidelines for Marketing Representative (“MR Guidelines”) (“Breach 1”);

2. Section 61(4) of the CMSA read together with Paragraph 7.02(1) of the SC’s Licensing Handbook and Section 64(1)(h)(v) of the CMSA (“Breach 2”) ;

3. Section 61(4) of the CMSA read together with Paragraph 7.02(12)(a) of the SC’s Licensing Handbook (“Breach 3”);

4. Section 61(4) of the CMSA read together with Paragraph 7.02(1) of the SC’s Licensing Handbook and Section 64(1)(l)(ii) of the CMSA (“Breach 4”); and

5. Section 122(1) of the CMSA (“Breach 5”), read together with Section 356(1)(a) of the CMSA.

Breach 1
IPAM had no proper policies and controls established to monitor referral and marketing activities vis a vis compliance with the MR Guidelines. This  resulted/contributed to unregistered individual and/or agency structure undertaking referral and marketing activities on IPAM’s private mandate on several occasions in contravention of the aforesaid guidelines.

Breach 2
IPAM has failed to comply with the  condition on being fit and proper at all times as IPAM, through Dato’ Dr Nazri Khan (“DDNK”), its Chief Executive Officer (at the material time) has conducted himself in such a way to cast doubt on his competence and soundness of judgment.

Breach 3
IPAM has failed to ensure DDNK, as its licensed representative was adequately supervised which has resulted/enabled DDNK to conduct himself  in such a manner in breach of the relevant SC’s law and requirement.

Breach 4 :
IPAM’s employee had misused SC’s name and misled the audience for the benefit of IPAM in one of IPAM’s virtual training sessions. As such, IPAM has failed to comply with the condition of its licence to remain fit and proper at all times as the action of IPAM’s employee reflect discredit on IPAM’s manner of conducting its business.

Breach 5 :
IPAM has failed in ensuring proper custodial arrangement is in place to safeguard its private mandate clients’ assets in respect of investment in foreign jurisdiction as required under the securities laws.

1. Reprimand;

2. Penalty of a total of RM695,000; and

3. Directive for IPAM to:

   1. Enhance its controls, and policies and procedures through the establishment of proper monitoring/surveillance measures to ensure that only registered Marketing Representatives are marketing IPAM’s products/services; and

   2. Appoint an external auditor upon completing the transfer of all clients’ assets to the custodianship of Maybank, to assess and confirm that all its clients’ assets are correctly accounted for, and the custodian arrangements comply with the SC regulatory requirements. IPAM shall submit the auditor’s report to the SC.

6 October 2022

On 14 October 2022, IPAM filed a review application to the SC to withhold any public announcement on the reprimand and against the quantum of penalty imposed.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 22 December 2022.

• Ang Hwei Chyn (“Ang HC”)
• Ang Kim Cheng @ Ang Teng Kok
• Cheong Chiew Yoon
• Ang Ai Way
• Goh Chong Ee
• Angson Sdn Bhd
• Interasia Bluechip Sdn Bhd (“Interasia”
  (collectively known as “Ang Family”)
• Goh Ah Keen @ Goh Chok Sai
• Jumboritz Sdn Bhd (“Jumboritz”)

(collectively, persons acting in concert Group, “PAC Group”)

The PAC Group are persons acting in concert under subsection 216(2) of the CMSA in relation to Multi-Usage Holdings Berhad (“MUHB”)  pursuant to the financial assistance provided by the Ang Family and Goh Ah Keen to Jumboritz for the subscription of MUHB shares under MUHB’s private placement exercise.

• Reprimand;
• Penalty of RM500,000 against the PAC Group collectively; and
• Directive to the PAC Group to reduce their collective holdings in MUHB to not more than 33% within one (1) year from the date of the sanction (“Reduction”). Pending the Reduction, the PAC Group is only allowed to exercise up to 33% of the voting rights in MUHB. In this regard, the PAC Group must ensure that:
  
  (a)   If the Reduction is by way of disposal, the disposal must  not be to any persons acting in concert, as defined under subsections 216(2) and (3) of the CMSA, with the PAC Group or any of them; and
  
  (b) The SC be notified upon completion of the Reduction.

24 November 2022

On 12 December 2022, Ang HC on behalf of the PAC Group submitted a review application to the SC to reduce the RM500,000 penalty imposed on the PAC Group (“Penalty”) to RM250,000, and for the reduced penalty to be paid via 5-monthly instalments of RM50,000 per month.

The SC had dismissed the review application and affirmed its earlier decision on the Penalty against the PAC Group, jointly and severally. However, the PAC Group is allowed to pay the Penalty over a 10-month period of RM50,000 per month.

The PAC Group were informed of the SC’s decision on 10 February 2023.

1. As the principal adviser for the Offer, Mercury Securities had not demonstrated that it had used all reasonable effort to ensure that the Offeror and the Ultimate Offeror were provided with appropriate advice to comply with the Rules and Malaysian Code on Take-overs and Mergers 2016 (“Code”), particularly in relation to –
   
   (i) ensuring that the Offeror was aware that the Offer must be made to all shareholders and not limited to those shares in issue as at the date of the Notice, where failure to do so was a non-compliance with General Principle 1 of the Code; and
   
   (ii) ensuring that the Offeror has sufficient financial ability to implement the Offer in full (for possible issuance of new shares) prior to the launch of the Offer, where failure to do so was a non-compliance with General Principle 3 of the Code; and
   
   
2. Mercury Securities had submitted a declaration pursuant to subparagraph 3(f) of Appendix 3 of the Rules in its initial application letter dated 15 March 2022 to the SC which contained a false or misleading statement by confirming that no conflict of interest situation exists or is likely to exists in relation to its role as principal adviser for the Offer, when in fact it was at the material time acting for both the Offeror (as the principal adviser for the Offer) and the Offeree (as the principal adviser and placement agent for the Offeree’s proposed placement of shares).

1. Reprimand; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the 2 breaches.

1. Reprimand; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the breach.

1. Reprimand for the breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000 for the breach.

1. Reprimand for the breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the breach.

1. Reprimand for the breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the breach.

1. Reprimand for each breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the 2 breaches.

1. Reprimand for the breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the breach.

Two (2) breaches of Section 354(1)(b)(iii) of the CMSA read together with:

• Paragraph 3.3.7(a) of the Federation of Investment Managers Malaysia’s Code of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct (Unit Trust Funds) as at 22 January 2013 (“Code”); and
• Paragraph 3.1.12(d) of the Code.

As a previous Unit Trust Consultant, Harani had:-

• Entered into written understanding or arrangement with an investor for investments decisions to be made on his behalf; and
• Failed to explain the nature and characteristics of the unit trust fund marketed and gave direct guarantee that a specific result will be achieved.

Harani’s breaches contain elements of fraud and dishonesty causing the investor to suffer losses of an amount up to RM1.32million. 

1. Reprimand for each breach;
2. Penalty of RM2,000,000.00

1. Reprimand for each breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the two (2) breaches. 

Three (3) breaches of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“AMLA”)

Cheah Pui San (“Cheah”)

1. Reprimand; and
   Penalty of
2. RM225,000.00 for the 3 breaches.

Nine (9) breaches of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Section 4(1)(b) of the AMLA

1. Reprimand for each breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the 9 breaches

Three (3) breaches of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Section 4(1)(b) of the AMLA

1.  Reprimand for each breach; and
2. Penalty of RM225,000.00 for the 3 breaches.

Breach of Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (“SICDA”) read together with Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA

Coco Li Heng

Based on the available evidence, Coco Li Heng was found to be the beneficial owner of the deposited securities in the Central Depository System account in the name of David Lim Chee Siang.

1. Reprimand
2. Penalty of RM27,000

1. Reprimand
2. Penalty of RM27,000

Six (6) breaches of section 354(1)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) read together with sections 369(b)(B) of the CMSA (“Breaches”)

Cheah Yew Keat

As the Group Managing Director of DIS Technology Holdings Berhad (“DISTB”), Cheah Yew Keat had knowingly caused the furnishing of six (6) financial statements of DISTB that were false to the stock exchange, Bursa Malaysia, relating to the affairs of DISTB.

Reprimand for each breach; and

Penalty of RM2,730,000 which consists of RM455,000 for each breach.

Three (3) breaches of Section 354(1) of the CMSA read together with:-

• Paragraph 3.3.5 of the Federation of Investment Managers Malaysia’s Code of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct (Unit Trust Funds) as at 22 January 2013 (“Code”);
• Section 92A(2)(a) of the CMSA and Paragraph 3.1.3(a) of the Code; and 
• Section 58(1) of the CMSA..

As a Unit Trust Consultant of Affin Hwang Asset Management Berhad, Nabihah had:-

• accepted cash and had monies credited into her personal bank accounts from investors for purposes of investment in unit trusts;
• provided statements to individuals which she knew contained false or misleading information; and
• carried on a business in the regulated activity of dealing in private retirement schemes when she was not a registered person.

1. Reprimand for each breach;
2. Requirement to make restitution to investors, amounting to RM52,618.00; and
3. Penalty of RM472,500.00.

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) read together with Section 369(b)(B) of the CMSA

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together Paragraph 9.35A(1)(b) of the Main Market Listing Requirements

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, Prolexus had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction Prolexus.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 2 September 2022.

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Sections 369(b)(B) and 367(1) of the CMSA

Choong Chee Mun, Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer of Prolexus

Knowingly causing the furnishing of information contained in the Announcement that is misleading to Bursa.

1. Reprimand; and
2. Penalty of RM280,000.00

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, Choong Chee Mun had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider reversing its decision.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 2 September 2022.

Choong Chee Mun has fully settled the penalty of RM280,000.00 imposed by the SC.

28.

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Sections 369(b)(B) and 367(1) of the CMSA 

Knowingly causing the furnishing of information contained in the Announcement that is misleading to Bursa.

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, Khadmudin Bin Mohamed Rafik had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider reversing its decision.

On 2 September 2022, the SC affirmed its decision in respect of the findings of breach and the reprimand imposed, but reduced the quantum of penalty from RM224,000.00 to RM140,000.00.

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Sections 369(b)(B) and 367(1) of the CMSA 

Knowingly causing the furnishing of information contained in the Announcement that is misleading to Bursa.

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, Lau Mong Ying had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider a lighter punishment towards him.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 2 September 2022.

Lau Mong Ying has fully settled the penalty of RM224,000.00 imposed by the SC.

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Sections 369(b)(B) and 367(1) of the CMSA 

Knowingly causing the furnishing of information contained in the Announcement that is misleading to Bursa.

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, Lau Mong Fah had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider reversing its decision.

On 2 September 2022, the SC affirmed its decision in respect of the findings of breach and the reprimand imposed, but reduced the quantum of penalty from RM224,000.00 to RM140,000.00.

Lau Mong Fah has fully settled the penalty of RM140,000.00 imposed by the SC.

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Sections 369(b)(B) and 367(1) of the CMSA 

Knowingly causing the furnishing of information contained in the Announcement that is misleading to Bursa.

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, Prolexus had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider reversing its decision.

On 2 September 2022, the SC affirmed its decision in respect of the findings of breach and the reprimand imposed, but reduced the quantum of penalty from RM224,000.00 to RM140,000.00.

Boo Chin Liong has fully settled the penalty of RM140,000.00 imposed by the SC.

Knowingly causing the furnishing of information contained in the Announcement that is misleading to Bursa.

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, Chin Chew Mun had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider reversing its decision.

On 2 September 2022, the SC affirmed its decision in respect of the findings of breach and the reprimand imposed, but reduced the quantum of penalty from RM224,000.00 to RM140,000.00.

Chin Chew Mun has fully settled the penalty of RM140,000.00 imposed by the SC.

Breach of Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Sections 369(b)(B) and 367(1) of the CMSA

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 25 February 2022, W Norma Binti W Daud had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction her and to consider reversing its decision.

On 2 September 2022, the SC affirmed its decision in respect of the findings of breach and the reprimand imposed, but reduced the quantum of penalty from RM224,000.00 to RM140,000.00.

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 23 February 2022, Ahmad Mustapha Bin Ghazali had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider reversing its decision.

The review application was dismissed by the SC on 2 September 2022.

Ahmad Mustapha Bin Ghazali has  fully settled the penalty of RM224,000.00 imposed by the SC.

1. Reprimand; and 
2. Penalty of RM224,000.00

27 January 2022

On 16 February 2022, Lim Yong Lee had applied to the SC for a review of its decision to sanction him and to consider reversing its decision.

On 2 September 2022, the SC affirmed its decision in respect of the findings of breach and the reprimand imposed, but reduced the quantum of penalty from RM224,000.00 to RM140,000.00.

Lim Yong Lee has fully settled the penalty of RM140,000.00 imposed by the SC.