Malaysian Securities Commission to weed out virtual scams

SC innovation, digital and strategy executive director Chin Wei Min said those who have identified themselves to the commission can operate up to March 1. “Even if they don’t want to be in this business anymore, whatever they are holding, whether it’s money, crypto assets or digital assets, should be returned to their clients. Otherwise, we will take action.

KUALA LUMPUR: All companies engaging in digital assets will have to make themselves known to the Securities Commission (SC) by Friday, even if they have decided not to carry on once the regulatory framework comes into force.

This includes operators who are not registered with Bank Negara under the anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism – digital currencies (sector six) and those operating “underground”.

The SC will reserve the right to take action against those who fail to identify themselves by Friday on grounds of breaching the securities law.

SC innovation, digital and strategy executive director Chin Wei Min said those who have identified themselves to the commission can operate up to March 1.

“Even if they don’t want to be in this business anymore, whatever they are holding, whether it’s money, crypto assets or digital assets, should be returned to their clients. Otherwise, we will take action.

“The reason we also allow people to continue with their withdrawals and sell down is to ensure that there is an orderly market.

“The last thing we want is to cause confusion, and hopefully, there are no untoward fraudulent activities that people will capitalise on in this transition period and take advantage of investors,” he told a media briefing here yesterday.

While the regulation does not affect operators who are not incorporated in Malaysia, the SC can still take action against them under the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 if the products are marketed, sold, or its operations exist in Malaysia.

Operators who identify themselves to the SC must state their intent, whether they want to resume their activities, of which certain obligations have to be met, or whether they want to wind down their business.

The SC will put up a list of operators and companies that have registered and received a letter from the commission for investors to check if their monies are with legitimate sources.

Chin also reiterated that operators are not allowed to accept new investors, list new products or conduct any sales and marketing activities during this period.

A statement by the SC last Thursday said platform operators would not be allowed to accept new investors and are only allowed to facilitate the withdrawal or transfer of client assets with the written instruction of investors.

They are also not allowed to conduct any initial coin offerings (ICOs) without prior authorisation.

Chin called on all ongoing ICOs to cease activities and the monies or digital assets to be returned to investors until the operators apply for authorisation and after they understand the SC requirements.

The guidelines are expected to be released by the end of the first quarter this year.

“If you are looking at the ones that are out there currently, the standards of the white paper are of low quality. It is important that this falls under regulated activity.

“We recognise that this is an alternative fundraising avenue. The idea here is to allow us to take out all the scams and fraudulent activities and at the same time, provide a platform for our early stage entrepreneurs to raise money,” said Chin, adding that the SC did not want people to take advantage of this as investors are pumping in money on the other end.

This is a high-risk investment and Chin also hinted that there could be a certain threshold for investors.

The Capital Markets and Services (prescription of securities) (digital currency and digital token) order 2019, which kicked in last Tuesday, will see those operating unauthorised ICOs or digital asset exchanges facing up to a 10-year jail term and up to a RM10mil fine.

The Finance Ministry said it viewed digital assets as well as its underlying blockchain technologies as having the potential to bring about innovation in both old and new industries.

 By royce tan The Star

Related post:

SC to regulate digital assets

Fintech - disruptive technology

 

Related News

---

BIS: No rush to issue e-money

 

New cryptocurrency wallet to be launched

Penang bridge tragedy raises many questions

Family shows strength in Moey's death - Nation

  https://youtu.be/nkSSSs7KUMA
https://youtu.be/ooueh3PMZTs

Penang Bridge Rescue Mission Resumes Today. Here's All You Need ...

Driver of black car detained, then released on bail after 16 hours ...

 

  https://youtu.be/tohf5ijbtq4

How to escape a sinking car?
 
https://youtu.be/xJ8OJ2s7Sq4

GEORGE TOWN: The tragic crash on Penang Bridge, which saw a student killed after his car plunged into the sea, has raised a thousand questions.

Online commenters questioned the height of the railings, whether there should be a curfew for those aged above 18 as well as the need for responsible drinking.

Facebook user Asger Abdul Wahab questioned the height of the railing, on which people had stood to jump and commit suicide in the past.

“If the side railings weren’t low, at least the vehicle could have landed on the side of the bridge instead of going over the bridge,” he said.

For Sanush Jeyaratnam, the tragedy highlighted the need for a curfew, as suggested by the government, for those aged 18 and below.

One comment stated that those aged 21 and below should not be out after midnight without adult supervision.

Another Facebook user said the accident did not mean that alchohol consumption should be stopped as it was all about responsible drinking.

Junior Chamber International (JCI) George Town charter president Kyara Ng said the disaster sparked a discussion among their group members, who are aged between 21 and 26.

“I think there is a great need to continue to create more awareness about accidents linked to driving under the influence,” she said.

Defensive driving trainer K.G. Nah noted that when the driver in the black car on Penang Bridge overtook from the left, he went into an “oversteer situation” and all of the car’s weight was transferred to the front tyres.

“In an oversteer, even a trained race car driver will have trouble controlling the vehicle at high speeds,” he said.

He explained that when the rear tyres no longer hold the weight of the car, they lose traction and can no longer follow the lead of the front tyres, causing the car to skid out of control.

Another term for cars in this situation is “tail happy”.

Nah, who received a copy of the dashboard camera footage of the crash, said he watched it frame by frame but could not see the brake lights come on behind the black car until it crashed into the sports utility vehicle (SUV).

“For the car to go into an oversteer without evident braking, it was going at an incredibly high speed,” he added.

As for the SUV, Nah said it was tragic that it was hit in the rear left passenger door.

“Any car slammed in the rear flank will spin out of control and at that speed, the car flipped with enough force to roll over the bridge parapet and fall into the sea,” he added.

By arnold loh and intan amalina mohd ali The Star

Related:

Looking beyond the horrific Penang Bridge car

crash

SUV hoisted out of sea off Penang Bridge | Free Malaysia Today

 

Penang bridge crash: SUV wreckage found with body of 20-year-old ...

 

Penang bridge crash: Wreckage found in sea with body of 20-year-old ...

• Report lodged against man who derided SUV recovery effort

 Wreckage found with body inside
 

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/01/22/wreckage-found-with-body-inside-but-strong-currents-and-poor-visibility-delay-suv-retrieval-efforts/?jwsource=cl

Truth be told: It’s not wrong to tell the truth

Two things could make the controversial Sedition Act fairer: It’s OK if you tell the truth, and it’s OK if you want to stop injustice.

 

Sedition Act Can Be Fairer If Truth Is Taken Into Account | Star2.com Star2.com

A COUPLE of weeks ago, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad talked about the Sedition Act. He calmly explained to all Malaysians that it isn’t meant to avoid criticisms about wrongdoing, it isn’t meant to shackle whistleblowers, and it’s completely not sedition if you tell the truth.

“If you say something factual, you cannot be punished for it,” said Dr Mahathir, “But, on the other hand, if we shut the mouths of everyone, to the point that people cannot even speak up against acts of crime, then there will be injustice in the country.” (“Be clear on what insult means”, Nation, The Star, Jan 11; online at tinyurl.com/star-insult.)

Basically, it sounded like he could have been talking about anything – except the Sedition Act. Now, the Sedition Act is not unfamiliar to Pakatan Harapan. In its own manifesto, PH said that it would revoke the Sedition Act if it came to power, giving the reason that it is a law “inherited from the British colonial era without amendment to improve weaknesses”. And then after PH formed the government, it seemed to kind of casually forget this.

I have written about the Sedition Act before (“Lost in translation?”, Contradictheory, Star2, March 29, 2015; online at tinyurl.com/star-sedition). If you’re not reading this column online, here’s a summary of what I said then: I pointed out the problem that you can be guilty of sedition even if all you are doing is repeating what somebody else has said. And to top it off, it doesn’t matter if what you said was true, nor does it matter if you said it with the best of intentions. It’s like saying somebody’s dress is figure-hugging, and hearing them answer, “Are you saying I’m fat?”

It’s all there in the Act. The Act talks about whether “things” have a “seditious tendency”. These include actions, speech, words and publications, for example, and whether they influence people to feel hatred, contempt or disaffection for the Rulers or the government. Whether the “things” are true or not doesn’t matter.

The Act also says, “The intention of the person charged at the time ... shall be deemed to be irrelevant”.

Why is it interpreted like that? It’s hard to say, but I think it does make it easier for the authorities to manage anti-government sentiments.

For example, it’s possible to be selective with the truth to manipulate a situation. So, technically, what somebody said might be fact, but might also be misleading.

Secondly, intent is something that can be very difficult to establish. You have to get into the mind of the accused and tease out what he or she intended by what he or she said or wrote.

For example, if all you wrote on a Facebook page is that somebody should be investigated for doing a Very Bad Thing, then you have sown the seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience. You might argue, I didn’t know it wasn’t true, I just wanted to see justice being done. What, people got upset by what I wrote? I didn’t know that would happen.

This is precisely the sort of annoying thing I have to face on social media almost every day. Somebody re-posts or retweets a rumour en masse to others with two button clicks and when you ask them why didn’t they just check it first, they shrug and say, “I just wanted people to know – just in case”.

(That’s really what we should have a law against: Indiscriminate and irresponsible retweets. The penalty would be to copy pages of Wikipedia by hand for the local library.)

But the thing is, it should be hard to put somebody in jail.

The system of justice we have now focuses on the presumption of innocence. In other words, people have to gather evidence and prove to the court that you are guilty. And people should be entitled to the best possible defence, and saying I am normally a good person who does good things should be taken into account.

Intent matters. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. Intent is the bedrock of whether we are kind to others because we want everyone to thrive, or because we want to later take advantage of them.

If we want to be able to prosecute people for saying hateful things that disturb society, you must show intent. Either make clear the context or show a pattern of previous behaviour. It’s the difference between an Internet troll and Karpal Singh.

The Sedition Act, in a way, does try to at least cover situations where you are trying to right a perceived wrong in society. But in a case like when artist Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Haque) drew cartoons making fun of alleged crimes in the previous government, it is clear there is still much leeway for interpretation there.

The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them. It’s an opportunity for the truth to shine instead of hiding out.

There are many who blame the PH government for being hypocritical for not keeping its election promise and maintaining the Sedition Act. I don’t disagree.

But the fact is that Dr Mahathir touched on the two things that perhaps could potentially make the Act fairer. He said it is OK if we told the truth. And it is OK if we want to stop injustice.

And I can’t think of why any Malaysian wouldn’t want to do both.

The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them.

• star2@thestar.com.my Dzof Azmi

Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi’s theory is that people need both to make sense of life’s vagaries and contradictions. Write to Dzof at star2@thestar.com.my.

Related:

Parliament can repeal Sedition Act - Letters

Experts: Sedition Act can be amended - Nation

 

Contradictheory: The Truth About History Depends On Context

A whole new world - China luring talents from Malaysia & Singapore with lucrative salary

THE pull of the Chinese entertainment market is so great at the moment, actors from all over – including Malaysia and Singapore – are being drawn there.

There is a lot of money being spent in China, which broadly translates to more working opportunities as well as the potential for higher salaries.

According to London-based analyst IHS Markit, it is the world’s second biggest television market after the United States, as the country spent more than US$10.9bil (RM45bil) on TV programming in 2017.

China is also set to be the world’s largest film market by 2020, with its domestic theatrical revenue estimated to reach more than US$10bil (RM41bil) by then, according to reports.

Malaysia-born actress Tong Bingyu, 35, revealed that her pay for working on a single television drama series in China was the equivalent of a year’s salary in Singapore.

The former Mediacorp star, who used to go by the name Chris Tong and who had quit the Singapore company early last year, had previously claimed that was how much she was paid for her appearance on the upcoming Chinese TV period drama series One Boat One World.

She sounds hesitant when pressed, however. In a telephone interview recently, the 35-yearold says in Mandarin: “It’s true that it is possible to get a lot more money in China. The market there is huge and if you get picked for big projects, you can be well compensated.

“But I don’t want people to get the wrong idea that it’s easy money. Just because you pack up and move to China doesn’t mean you will be rich. It also depends a lot on luck and whom you know.”

Her stroke of luck came four years ago when she met a Chinese producer from popular TV channel Hunan Television through a good friend.

That producer eventually helped set her up for acting gigs in China.

Besides One Boat One World, Tong also snagged a role in the wuxia drama The Heaven Sword And Dragon Saber, which is based on Louis Cha’s novel of the same name.

Tong says of the producer: “She gave me so much solid advice. She pointed out very frankly that I’m not that young anymore and that I should diversify.”

Which is why Tong decided to try her hand at producing as well.

Currently, she is busy working as a producer on the Chinese action spy movie Zhi Sheng Si Yu Du Wai (Beyond Life And Death), which boasts a budget of 300mil yuan (RM182mil).

She was roped in after she met famed Hong Kong producer Manfred Wong, who is also behind the film.

Tong, who is managed by her Malaysian husband Kee Kai Loon, 40, says: “It’s stressful because I’m so new to this job, but it has also been very exciting. I’m suddenly asking questions like, ‘How much does this cost? What will it look like?’

“When I was at Mediacorp, I was such a passive person - I just went to work to act.”

The film, which she describes as an explosive actioner in the vein of China’s hit war films Operation Red Sea (2018) and Wolf Warrior (2015), is slated for release later this year.

Coming up, she will also produce a Chinese Web series, for which she declines to reveal the details.

When she was in Singapore, the actress played the lead in Mandarin TV series such as family drama Mightiest Mother-In-Law (2017) and nursing drama The Caregivers (2014).

“I will unlikely get the same star status as an actress in China and that’s OK. The reality is there are so many younger and more beautiful actresses who have been working in China for much longer than I have,” says Tong, who has been based out of Beijing for the past two years.

“I just take every day there as an opportunity to learn new things. Besides, now that I’m doing the producing thing, I realise that I’m loving it. If all goes well, I might be a producer full-time in the future.”

 – By Yip Wai Yee, The Straits Times/Asia News Network

Related posts:

  SY Lau, a Malaysian took China's WeChat by storm

    

 

 

 

 

 

World's first artificial intelligence (AI) news anchor

 

 

  

China battles US for AI and robotic space: Who’s ahead?

 

Unknown Chinese startup creates the world's most valuable Bytedance

Goldman Sachs must follow up on its apology with US$7.5bil compensation in 1MDB scandal

https://youtu.be/XxwX8CRvSks

Goldman Sachs Group Inc should follow up on its apology to Malaysia with a payment of US$7.5bil (RM30.86bil), says Lim Guan Eng.

The Finance Minister said a mere apology from the investment bank over the scandal-ridden 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) is not enough, unless they pay reparations and compensation.

Lim said Goldman Sachs should understand the agony and trauma suffered by Malaysians as a result of the scandal.

“An apology is not enough.

“An apology with US$7.5bil is what matters.

“At least he (Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon) accepted that they have to bear and shoulder some responsibility but that is insufficient.

“They have made provisions of around US$561mil (RM2.3bil) but that is not adequate.

“We are seeking US$7.5bil,” he told a press conference here yesterday after announcing the names of the joint lead arrangers for the Samurai bond.

On Thursday, Solomon apologised to Malaysians for former banker Tim Leissner’s role in 1MDB.

Solomon also said it was very clear that Malaysians were defrau­ded by many individuals, including the highest members of the previous administration.

Asked if Malaysia would drop charges against Goldman Sachs with the US$7.5bil payment, Lim quipped: “US$7.5bil ... then we can discuss lah”.

Lim added that it was very clear who the top government official Solomon was referring to as there could only be one person.

“You worked hand in hand, and there has to be accountability. It also involved a breach in fiduciary duty, and I think the banking industry has this obligation to make good the losses that we suffered.

“I think this is at least an admission.

“If not for the change of government, do you think Goldman will apologise? We’re dealing with the largest investment bank in the world,” he said.

Lim added that he found it distressing that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak still refused to admit there was something wrong with 1MDB and the entire exercise.

He also lambasted the former premier for passing the buck to Goldman Sachs, and for being in a state of denial for refusing to admit that Malaysians suffered huge losses due to the scandal.

By Royce Tan The Star

Goldman Sachs CEO apologises for ex-banker’s role in 1MDB scandal

NEW YORK: Goldman Sachs Group Inc chief executive officer David Solomon (pic) has apologised to the Malaysian people for former ban­ker Tim Leissner’s role in 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal, but said the bank had conducted due diligence before every transaction.

Goldman is being investigated by Malaysian authorities and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for its role as underwriter and arranger of three bond sales that raised US$6.5bil (RM26.7bil) for the sovereign wealth fund.

US prosecutors last year charged two former Goldman bankers for the theft of billions of dollars from 1MDB. Leissner, a former partner for Goldman Sachs in Asia, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money and violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

“It’s very clear that the people of Malaysia were defrauded by many individuals, including the highest members of the prior government,” Solomon said on conference call discussing the bank’s fourth-quarter results in a report by Reuters.

Solomon said Leissner denied the involvement of any of Goldman’s intermediaries in transactions with 1MDB.

An attorney representing Leissner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Roger Ng, the other charged former Goldman banker, was arrested in Malaysia at the request of US authorities and is expected to be extradited, according to John Marzulli, a spokesman for the prosecution.

The DOJ has said that US$4.5bil (RM18.5bil) was allegedly misappropriated by high-level officials of the fund and their associates between 2009 and 2014.

As part of Goldman’s due diligence efforts, Solomon said the bank sought and received written assurances from 1MDB and International Petroleum Investment Co (IPIC) that no third parties were involved in the first two bond sales.

Abu Dhabi’s IPIC had co-guaranteed the 1MDB bonds when they were issued in 2012.

In the final offering, the Malaysian government itself, along with 1MDB, represented that no intermediaries were involved, he said.

“All these representations to Goldman Sachs have proven to be false,” Solomon said.

Goldman Sachs did not disclose any other information about its involvement with 1MDB, but said the impact on its client franchise had been de minimis. Shares of the bank, which reported strong fourth-quarter results earlier in the day, have fallen over 25% in the last three months, after headlines about its involvement with the sovereign wealth fund emerged.

The Malaysian government said in December it was seeking up to US$7.5bil (RM30.8bil) in reparations from Goldman over its dealings with 1MDB. – Reuters

In an immediate reaction yesterday, former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said Goldman Sachs had to take responsibility because they were appointed and paid by 1MDB to take care of Malaysian’s interests.

“We put up a system, the system was there to take care of our interests, you see.

“So if they fail, then they have to take responsibility, because they were appointed and paid by 1MDB to take care of our interests,” Najib said.- The Star

Related:

 Goldman Sachs  CEO David Solomon apologises for ex-banker's role in 1MDB scandal

Tommy Thomas: 'Premature and untrue' that Malaysia will...

Guan Eng: It's 'reasonable' to ask Goldman Sachs for...

Goldman did not get Ipic board's approval for RM7.32bil bond issue

 

Related posts:

 

Malaysia files criminal charges against Goldman Sachs, ex-bankers in 1MDB probe

 

Goldman Sachs banker's obscene commissions netted 11% from 1MDB believed to be most compelling evidence of rogue behaviour

 

Goldman Sachs staring at ‘significant penalties’, its system of accounting controls could be easily circumvented