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:

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:

Contradictheory: The Truth About History Depends On Context