Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Legal fees - action against distributor

I have approached a well known lawyer. He told me that the legal fees to take a case to the High Court is likely to be $100,000 or more. If this is shared by 100 investors, the cost per investor is $1,000. If there are 200 investors, the cost is $500 per investor.

If investors wish to contemplate taking legal action, you have to be prepared to spend $500 to $1,000. As the amount invested in most cases is quite large, averaging about $50,000, it may be necessary to spend 1% or 2% to seek compensation.

I shall be putting up another "petition" to gauge the interest in taking collective action to engage the service of the lawyer. I will arrange for the investors to meet the lawyer before you take the final decision.

It may be necessary for the lawyer to take separate cases against separate distributors. This is complicated and may add to the cost. I will let the lawyer explain how to handle this matter at a future time.

What are your views? You can post your comments in this blog.


Anonymous said...

Before anyone jumps on the ship to take legal action, I strongly suggest they ponder over this carefully. In the event which the legal sue is lost, the institutions can countersue for deflamation. In fact, this countersuit can happen even before the legal suit against the institutions is even started. The big institutions can use this strategy to escalate the litigation cost of the investors deliberately to force an out-of-court settlement.

Anonymous said...

I am a high notes 5 investor from Malaysia. I am interested in taking group legal action. This fund is a risky fund but market as a low risk investment. Until today, the bank still has not disclosed why such a low risk investment can fail so miserably. Without the big stick waving at them, I doubt the bank has any motivation to do anything to help the investor.

Anonymous said...

I thought we have a good case. 8000 investors all got burnt. For unless HSBC trustees and FIs took up the offer to buy back notes with a high % of principle, this should be our last resort.

Vote: All for it
FI: Phillips Securities
invested: Minibond 3, $40k

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tan, fo me, it is ok to share hundreds of courts fees for the justice purpose although my holding of HN2 has not been confirmed to be redeemed early.

Ms. Xiao

Anonymous said...

We should engage the lawyer as a last resort only if MAS does not want to act and take an active role.

The cost of 1,000 versus the amount invested is realtively low so I believe that most investors would participate.

The question is are there any good lawyers left since most of the larger firms are already acting for the FI?

Unknown said...

since more than 300 investors bought Minibond from Maybank, we should take legal action together to save cost

Anonymous said...

Could you post more information on how the lawyer intends to fight the case ?

I am surprised that legal costs can be shared. Doesn't it need to be on a case by case basis ?

How do you distinguished between geniune victims and those who willingly took risks but are pretending to be victims now ?

Anonymous said...

The lawyer chosen must have INTEGRITY and CAPABILITY.

The lawyer must also access the chances of winning. It must be more than 50%...

If we win but the JUDGE does not order COMPENSATION (if it is govt-regulated), then the money spent would be WASTED.

Unless this case is done at International court...

Will MAS be implicated in the lawsuit?

zhummmeng said...

Your fact finding form or Know Your Cleint form bound to have lots of incriminating evidences against the bank and the consultants. This is your best hope to sue for FULL compensation plus loss of earning and not the product.
This is the documnetary proof and if it is found that product 'RECOMMENDED'was inapproriate and not on REASONABLE BASIS against the financial circumstances and the needs of the cleint, it will be the last nail on the coffin of the FIs and their RMs or consultants.
Study the KYC. I know that most of the consultants filled the KYCs after the sale.There bound to be slip ups.Get your lawyer to examine this document.

Justice must be seen meted out and not be remained as dead letter in the staute. Section 27 of the FAA is the straw that will break the camel's back.

Anonymous said...

Can we get a legal firm to fight for our cause and to accept a percentage of any returns we may get. I am sure that those affected will willingly pay with part of any returns they may get back. We may have a good case as the sale can be likened to the milk scandal. The seller of bad products can be sued if the product is not what it is claimed to be and causes harm to the buyer. This is a bad product that is touted as safe and the name of Lehman is hidden in small print and not mentioned that it can cause a credit event. As to causing harm many singaporeans have lost their life savings.

Anonymous said...

I support the idea of sharing legal costs. Please keep everyone informed. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Actually there is a precedent but in another case. Remember the Raffles Town Club saga where members also collectively sued for misrepresentation? If I remember correctly the outcome was not favourable to members in terms of amount awarded, although they won. And it only involved a Town Club. Imagine now dealing with FIs, the case will be more complicated and tougher and the outcome may not be worth the effort and the cost. And not forgeting the big problem of finding suitable lawyers able and willing to act for the investors. Also as someone had mentioned, the prospect of being countersued, which is also likely given the financial power of FIs and willing and able lawyers acting for them.

So I think the best solution is still to get MAS to help. After all, the gahmen is supreme and also has never lost a case in court, at least in Singapore.

Anonymous said...

Hope such action will not happen.
Public already losing confidence in the investment products.

If need to go engage lawyer to fight the banks due to no or low compensation, sales of banks investment products will only plunge. It'll take a very long long long time to restore confidence. They have to consider very carefully.

Anonymous said...

I think spending $1k shouldn't be a problem for me. I think this blog is too PUBLIC - I believe the FIs, MAS etc are keeping a close watch of all the blog entries/comments by now. So it will be wiser to ask Mr Tan to arrange a meeting for us (genuine investors only)with him and the lawyer/s to discuss in length after this week's Speakers' Corner gathering. Pl correct me if i am wrong.

Anonymous said...

What about Lehman Brothers, the main culprit? Are we not suing LB also since they are responsible for churning out all these toxic products?

Anonymous said...

No point suing Lehman as they are already bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

The FI have immensed fire power, the investors are no match verus the FI. FI is not some townclub, if MAS does not act, take it as a very expensive lesson irrespective of whatever injustice that may be in some cases.

Anonymous said...

Want MAS to be more proactive? Most direct way will be a few hundred of investors protest in front of MAS building.

Anonymous said...

FIs only made 2% or 3% from the sale of each product, and you are asking them to pay you back 100% of your investment? The most you can get back is the commission from your FI. Your money actually went to Lehman and not your FIs. You are suing the wrong party!

Anonymous said...

Some people seem too pessimistic and worried about countersuit.
1. The lawyer engaged to fight for the investors must be an expert experienced in the financial sector disputes.
2. He/she should be able to advise whether or not such collective action will be regarded as defamation that may result in countersuit.
3. S$1k is a small sum to pay. Even if the compensation is only a fraction of investment amount, this action if successful will make history.
4. Why worry about MAS or the FIs watching this blog. This is to show how angry and serious the investors are. And there are many many of us.The action will sure attract international attention. The stake for the FIs and perhaps the regulators are much much higher. Already the trust for FIs here has been shaken. No one will buy structured products or anything that looks complicated from FIs anymore and many FAs or RMs will soon become redundant and more retrenchment.... It is time for the FIs to fight fire and restore confidence. They are fighting a losing war if they do so.

Anonymous said...

anonymouse 9:22pm,
Pls keep yr mouth shut,are you the member of those Fls,i have nothing
left now,but just my life if they
want just take it.

Anonymous said...

You have no case. You signed on the dotted line with the fine print. Take this as a learning experience. Greed does not always pay.

Anonymous said...

We should also petition to PM LHL for help.
It is the duty of PM to protect its citizens. Otherwise he will lose our respect. He will lose his moral authority to lead the country.

Unknown said...

If the response from the FI's are not favourable to the investors, then taking legal action is a definite step.

There is no point whining and hoping the government would do anything if we investors are not taking any action.

Remember, unity is strength.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I strongly support explore legal action. Banks earn commission by simply selling thru misleading but not willing to bear responsibility when something happen. Until now my RM from Maybank has been aoiding my calls and never a single time call to update info. In my case when collecting my fixed deposit upon maturity got trapped into this when RM offered this 'safe and shorter term comittment' as a better alternative than buying endowment policy. You can see the numbers of victim from Maybank tops the list.

Minibond 1/2 $100k

Anonymous said...

If lawyer agrees we have a strong case, I am willing to spend the money. I am very upset/angry and wants to seek justice against the FI that mis-sold these products unless the FI/MAS can offer an agreeable resolution. If the court action can stop/reduce their future sale of such misleading products, we will be protecting the public (since MAS is not doing their job).

Anonymous said...

Want MAS to be more proactive? Most direct way will be a few hundred of investors protest in front of MAS building.

>> I am for it. Protest as the Hong Kongers did and they get HK government attention. Perhaps we should march peacefully from Speaker Corner to MAS building to make our statement?

Anonymous said...

Agreed, if the FI still do not want to restore confidence to the local market. They can go ahead and countersue all the lehman investor. Most of us believe that we've been misguided and misinformed. The publicity generated to let the public know how this structure scheme works and how the FI sell such misguided information product to the old aunty and uncle is enough to let everyone see for themselves that these FI which we have trusted so much has deteriorate to such a level.

Anonymous said...

Agreed that we should all march to MAS building in order for them to be proactive in this matter. Suggest we can also request a meeting between them and the represntatives from the various FI to answer our queries FACE to FACE to seek for an instant reply (just like what the Hong Kong investors did). After sending a compliant letter to CEO of FI, we only received a phone call from one of the personnel, who has asked me a few questions and again reminded me to expect 0% return on my investment! And he also mentioned that we are of less advantage compared to those retiree who are illterate, we should read the FINE PRINT! He also mumbled that there is no evidence of MIS-SELLING cos' everything is done on verbal between us and the RM a year ago. I then told him due to the short sales disucssion, we actually based on TRUST on the bank and the RM to sign on the fatal dotted line. No prospectus given, no risk survey done + last day of fund launched. In return, he told me since I TRUSTED the bank so much, now I SHOULD NOT complain or blame the Bank now! Mind....this is what they called collect feedbacks and complaints! Really pray for MIRACLE to redress justice for our hard earned life savings!!

Anonymous said...

Tharman said that MAS should not over regulate and he said to regulate a "A' rated
Lehman was over regulating.Surely Tharman with his years of experience in MAS should know that rating is NOT a FREE service. AS long rating is not free all ratings agencies will be biased and will NOT rate a paying cleint poorly..Conflictt of interest is always present.
Another problem is that was NEVER any regulation.If there was we wouldn't have any of these crises.
1.Were the distributors given strict guidelines about products?
2.Were the sale intermediaries policed and checked for flouting the section 27?
No, no!!! they were given freewheeling freedom to do what they wanted. Self regulations is as good as NO regulations. It was all a sham.

Pissed off

symmetrix said...

There are curently 4 options that investors can pursue which cost virtually nothing and have no backlash:-

1. FI.
2. FIEReC.
3. CASE.
4. SIAS.

I feel that only after exhausting these options should we consider legal action. Many of us have still not exhausted the first option yet ie with the FI. Going thru all these options may take a very long time, perhaps many months.

Investors should ask ourselves why do we want to go the legal route? Is it that we do not have the patience to go thru these 4 companies in sequence, and want to go straight for the kill? Or do we feel that these 4 bodies are useless to our cause?

Anonymous said...

unlikely to win.
if MAS acts in favor of the investors, this will pave the way for more complaints on all other investment products 'gone bad'.
next time, any investment product that fails, the buyer will likely to use this case as a precedence/example. imagine that.
and how would you differentiate between victim and savvy investor pretending to be victim?
what was the verdict of the case of the indon client that sued CBank when her dual currency deals went disastrously wrong?
the courts didn't rule in her favor.

Anonymous said...

Is there a cap/limit (say 1k) that one is willing to pay for the legal fee? Note that in a legal case, there is no sure win. So paying legal fee does not mean we can get back everything. Even if we get back a fraction, most probably will go to pay legal fee. So going the legal route should be the last option.


Anonymous said...

To find a legal firm to fight for us is a problem. Most of the legal firms refused to take the job because the FIs are their core clients.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Tan, I'm willing to share the legal cost no matter what is the outcome at the end of the day, because it is a good chance to test the Government and the legal system in Singapore. I strongly believe MiniBond investors are being misled by the “trusted and long established” Finance Company and there is no reason for us to lose the case unless …. Moreover it is a good chance to get publicity and share our painful experience with every Singaporean so they can learn from it as well.

Mrs Foo – a MiniBond victim

Anonymous said...

In this saga, the FIs has more to lose.They will lose face and their international reputation and image will be tarnished. They will lose retail investors' trust and confidence once the lawsuit is publicised internationally. The FIs will not like to see this happen.
So fight all the way to bring them to court. Let the whole world know that we have unscrupulous FIs in Singapore.

rjchen said...

I believe we should take legal actions if both MAS & FI did not response to our petition. Yes, we did sign on the dotted line, but, we were misled to sign on the dotted line, yes, all the misleading evidences were verbal, but, RM's words against our words, who will the judge believe, if we are telling the truth, justice should be on our side. There are life savings from so many uncles, aunties & retirees, the court will not be so heartless just to dismiss our case.


rjchen said...

We, the investors should take legal actions if both MAS & FIs did not response to our complaints, yes, we have signed on the dotted lines, but, we were misled to sign on it, yes, all the midleading evidences are verbal, but, it is RM's words against ours, if we are telling the truth, then judge should be on our side, there are so many of us suffered the same, especially there are so many uncles, aunties, retirees, it is untinkable that all of these would just gang up together to make a false accusation. I think we have a very good chance of winning.



Anonymous said...

A few years ago, I was working in the CBD area and was approached by this headhunter who persuaded me to join a fanciful company headed by an Australian talent. As it was a sales manager job, there is just a basic pay of $500 per month. I have to attend their training programme as part of the qualification process to be confirmed in the job. I gave up the present job as it looks very promising in the new job. The headhunter is also part of the management.
During the first three weeks, I used all my resources and contacts to set up meetings and sales presentations opportunities for the companies. I wrote countless emails to many companies and governmental organisations introducing the training services of the company.
While going through some files, I began to notice that there were cases of previous managers who received threats of police reports and letters to pay up and compensate the company. I thought nothing of it till that fateful day nearing the completion of a month work there.
I had just finished meeting a customer when my mobile rang and it was a call from that headhunter who is also a director of the company. She asked me to go back to the office for a meeting. When I reached the service office it was well past office hours and I was told that my services is being terminated. Stunned but conscious of my responsibilites I tried to turn on the computer to see whether I have any unfinished work and correspondence to complete before I leave the company, I was physically obstructed and the computer turned off repeatedly when I tried to switch it back on. There was a scuffle over this and she called the police. I then left the office. I was interrogated by the police, first time in my life, and issued with a letter demanding that I pay $4,000 for attending their training course and my $500 salary was not paid. I then recall that there were other managers who were treated the same before and that this was a scam by foreigners partnering with locals to prey on the local population.
The moral of the story, it is a well thought out plan and is not incidental. They know the psychology of the people, their fears, their thoughts and their possible actions.
The common theme here is that foreigners are involved, the RMs are also victims just as the managers who were hired and instructed to liase with the customers. The real culprits are the big shots of these companies. When you start receiving counter-sue letters you will realise how precarious your position is in and what you stand to lose. They have it all worked out. They even use the local enforcement agencies as well as their knowledge of the law to work for them. It is time our government come out to protect the local population instead of importing so many foreign thrash to prey on us.

Anonymous said...

Yes, sue the distributor firms. $1,000 is nothing. even $5,000 is nothing compared with how much we have lost.

We want a full refund of our money. We will pay up to 10 grand to get it done. Mr. Tan, you have my support to sue the FIs.

Anonymous said...

I’m surely support the class action sues and legal cost, and more importantly our case hear on the OPEN court. The FIs biggest assets probable their reputation and the trust by their clients, without that their business just not valid anymore.

Mr. Mui, a victim of minibond.

Anonymous said...

If legal action is too costly, what about "fist action"?

Home > Breaking News > Asia > Story
Oct 8, 2008
HK investors protest mis-selling

HONG KONG - FURIOUS investors clashed with police outside Bank of China's Hong Kong headquarters on Wednesday and demanded the repayment of investments linked to failed US bank Lehman Brothers.
Scuffles erupted outside the Bank of China building, as protesters tried to push through the police's barricade, an AFP photographer at the scene said.

Hundreds of protestors also swarmed other major banks and the city's legislature and demanded help from lawmakers to recoup their money.

The protestors, who complain that the banks which sold them the so-called 'mini-bonds' had not fully explained the risks involved, held placards and shouted slogans to demand a full refund of their investments.

Lawmakers, grabbed by protesters as they were on their way to the first session of the new legislature, promised to do all they could to pressure the government to take more aggressive action against the banks.

Wong Kin-ming, a retired hawker who had put his entire savings of 2.52 million Hong Kong dollars (S$469,000) into the bonds, said his financial advisor at one major bank told him there was no risk in the investment.

'He told me I would not lose my principal no matter what happened. Tell me what that is if it is not deception?' Mr Wong said.

The 53-year-old said he had had trouble sleeping for three weeks. 'I took three sleeping pills yesterday night. I will need a psychiatrist soon.'

The protestors gathered initially at the legislature on Wednesday morning, before they divided themselves into smaller groups and marched towards the headquarters of their own banks and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.

Political parties said they would meet with some of the banks on Wednesday afternoon to discuss plans to resolve the crisis.

The government proposed on Monday that the banks buy back the products at their estimated value from investors, who bought an estimated 12.7 billion dollars (S$2.39 billion) of the products.

But the proposal failed to pacify bond holders, who said the market value of the products is now much lower than their purchasing price.

Lehman Brothers, one of Wall Street's most established banks, collapsed last month, sparking turmoil on financial markets across the world. -- AFP

Anonymous said...

$1,000 is a small percentage considering what my mum and I have in minibonds. I have no issue coming up with this amount.

But having said that, I also hear the reservations put forward by the others earlier.

I am no legal expert but will put my trust in Mt Tan's judgement on whether we should all go ahead.

I am with the majority.


Anonymous said...

Lehman executives received US400 million bonuses!


WTF, I thought LB is already bankcrupt! These people who caused many of us suffered with loss of our investment have the guts to receive FAT bonuses. We got to sue them!

Anonymous said...

Do we really have a case & how do we define MIS-SELL?? For our DBS High Note, it was indeed spelled in fine print that our recovery on our investments can be zero if the credit events kick in! Not sure whether MiniBond has such print literally?? Though from the start many of us (be it literate or illterate) we were not highlighted / told of this fatal fact and signed based on 100% trust with the bank otherwise for that mere 5% return, none of us will be stupid enough to take the risk! Now we could not smell or touch the $, is all gone! Many had comfort and said that we should take this as a lesson & move on but is indeed an expensive one & i'm sure none of the victim can sallow it!! How many ten years we have and we are not those high flyers who easily earn tens of thousands and recover the $ loss easily. Those are our hard earned $ which saved from years of bonus for our retirement & children's education. Can those authorities and shareholders sitting on the FI have some mercy on people like us!

Anonymous said...

I believe that it is unlikely investors can win this case. First, Lehman Brothers was rated A+ by S&P (higher than Malaysia's rating of A-). When the RMs said Minibonds and High Notes were low risk back in 2006 or 2007, they were correct because of LB's high rating. Even Dr. Money said CLS are low risks.

Secondly, we had all signed the documents and we can't really blamed the FIs for our ignorance.

It may be better for all of us to cut loss and lives move on...

Anonymous said...

I support going ahead. $1,000 is worth paying to get justice. Any lawyer would be able to provide advice whether we should go ahead and the risks involved. Many of the banks talk about their corporate social responsibilities. Royal Bank of Scotland RBS, the company that bought ABN AMRO says their corporate responsibility is "To deliver superior sustainable value we run our business with integrity and openness, delivering optimum financial results within clearly defined business principles.". I like to see them live up to their statement.

Anonymous said...

Will certainly join any class action if there are sufficient number of investors willing to do so.

Anonymous said...

I seriously look at those postes that was against the lawsuit. Are you really one of those that lose hardearn money with little to spare for the rest of your life?

It is not about WINNING anymore, it is our belief that we were mislead for the minibond series. No mention and explantion of CDO, credit swap in the use of the cover page that lure innocent investor in. No explanation of the risk involved except for the bank that they link to where none failed. No mention of lehman bro involvement. No mention of minibond ltd swap with Lehman. Most of us were putting money in for Fixed Deposit yet introduce to such product.

If you are from FI, please get out of here. We are just a bunch of hardworking people that can ill afford to lose these saving in one go.

I support the lawsuit!

Anonymous said...

Can the legal fee be a % of what we can recover from the notes/minibonds? This is to align the interest of the lawyer and ours.


Unknown said...

Dear JK (10.10pm),
First, I think you have given an incorrect link to Dr Money's comments. Second, even Dr Money's article reproduced below did not talk about the risk posed by the underlying securities:

"The Bold Claim: "Total returns over 5 3/4 years of over 28 %." (Source: Ads and product brochure.)

The Facts: (i) Returns are 4.88 % per year x 5.75 years = 28.07 %. These are the maximum returns. There is no capital protection. Default risk, however, is very low since the product is linked to the credit rating of six very large and creditworthy companies. Sales staff focus on the low default risk and make no mention of a second risk which is much higher: Interest rate risk.

(ii) If interest rates fall, the issuer has the right to call (buy back) the mini bonds after one year. In this case, you would receive your principal plus a bonus. The problem is if interest rates have dropped, you would be limited to reinvesting your proceeds at the prevailing (lower) interest rate.

(iii) For the rare customer who brings up this point, the sales staff counter it by saying that for recent offerings of similar products in Hong Kong, the bonds were not called. Of course, the HK dollar is pegged to the US dollar and US interest rates have been rising for the past 2 years. The interest rate environment is about to change. (In August 2006, the US Central Bank (the US Federal Reserve Bank) finally paused after a 2-year series of interest rate increases.)

(iv) The mini bonds' lock-in period is 5 3/4 years. You will lose if interest rates rise during this period. Should you wish to sell the bonds to take advantage of higher rates, you would have to sell them back to the issuer (since the mini bonds are not traded). The issuer would probably buy them back at less than par value. It means you would suffer a loss of principal."

Source: http://www.askdrmoney.com/Analysis_Structured_Bank_Products.htm

Many people including me thought, to quote Dr Money, "Default risk, however, is very low since the product is linked to the credit rating of six very large and creditworthy companies." No one realised that we would lose all or a substantial portion of the capital even if there was no default, like in the present situation. The sales pitch was focused only on the Reference Entities. It makes me wonder if this is a deliberate attempt to mislead investors.

Parka said...

I suggest paying a percentage of the compensation to the law firm instead of a fixed sum. Maybe 5%. For me, that would total up to be also around $1000 if we do get full compensation. But if the case doesn't win, there's really no point in paying for no results. Fixed sum payment I also don't mind, I just don't want to pay for no results.

These FI are just waiting to be sued. Who thinks that the FI will do something right for their customers? Who here thinks they have integrity?

If I'm an executive in the FI, I probably will wait until the lawsuit before I act. And that's me thinking in their (stinking) shoes.

Anonymous said...

If a fair resolution cannot be reached, I support legal lawsuit. I am really upset about how they had misrepresented the minibonds but are not taking responsibility for it now. If we cannot get our money back then we go after their reputation

Anonymous said...

Yes. Go for it. Sue the FIs for hoodwinking their FAs and sold high risk products to low risk customers. Make a big din out of it and tell SINGAPOREANs these FIs are not trusted and boycott their products. Don't fall into their sweet talking gap again.

Anonymous said...


I believe we have a strong case, for one, when I bought the DBS High Hote 5, at the point of sale, my RM did not show me the pricing statement, she verbally intraoduced & explained the note to me, but failed to mention the critical risk factors such as "first to default", "credit event" etc. I received my pricing statement from the post after I have commited my investment.

Even you were shown the pricing statement, you would not hvae sufficient time to digest this paper, as it is so technical, the RM would act as the adviser, the presentor of this product, she must not mis-present or mislead the investors, after all, we were not given the paper in advance for thorough study before we made our independent decision, RM's verbal words have greatly influenced our decision making, because, the RM's face-to-face explaination has somewhat redauced our need to study the paper.

It is the bank or RM's duty to highlight the risk factaors, failing whcih, they are failing theire faduciary duties.


Anonymous said...


Thanks for your comments.

We also don't remember seeing the pricing statement, no risk analysis was done and no prospectus was given. As it was the last day of fund launched, we have sign off based on trust to the bank and words of RM that it was a low risk product. We have also emphaised to the RM that our concern is to ensure that our invested principle is return after the year matured! Needless to know that all this is nothing but a CRAP!

Anonymous said...

The act of deceit by Maybank in providing us a facade leading us to believe that the Minibond Series 5/6 is a secure deposit linked to 6 strong & sound FIs/banks (Lehman Brothers was unmentioned then), in my opinion should be investigated. Moreover, the name in itself, ‘minibond’ has provided a false impression of a safe product, with little risk involved. Frankly, no sound minded person would put their money in jeopardy with a mere 5-6% pa return.

In my opinion, this act of deception by Maybank is no different from the 'money-turned apples' cheat cases (occasionally reported in the papers), the outcome of both leading to the lost of hard earned savings and money. I believe that the police would be able to help victims like me to recover our hard-earned money. Thus, I decided that I will be going to the police this Saturday to report my case.

Blog Archive