An AI investment promise. Who must repay?

An investment scheme is promoted around artificial intelligence and financial technology. The promised payments then stop. Can those behind the scheme say that investors simply accepted the business risk?

In Ahmad Syafiq Abd Lateb & Ors v. EAS Management PLT & Ors [2025] CLJU 3379, the Shah Alam High Court examined the agreements, representations and handling of investors’ money. Its grounds dated 14 November 2025 illustrate why the actual obligations and supporting documents matter.

What happened?

Radiance Assets Berhad promoted an investment scheme through webinars and an information memorandum. Its stated fintech focus included e-wallets, digital commerce, remittances, big data analytics and artificial intelligence. EAS Management PLT pooled contributions from investors contributing less than RM250,000 for onward investment in Radiance Assets Berhad.

The investors’ arrangements involved a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement and a Tawarruq Agreement with EAS. The dispute concerned agreed monthly payments of the sale price. Payments stopped, and 249 investors brought proceedings. The defendants disputed the alleged promises and argued that participation carried investment risks.

Investment scheme obligations and personal liability

The court found that the agreed payment obligations had not been fulfilled. On the evidence and contractual terms before it, financial difficulties and unsupported claims about investment performance did not excuse the failure to pay. This was not a ruling that every investment loss must be reimbursed.

The court also found fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy. It considered how the scheme was promoted, the absence of proper information about the use of funds, and the defendants’ conduct. It held the second and third defendants, EAS’s initial partners, personally liable by lifting the corporate veil. Personal liability followed those findings; it did not arise merely because an investment failed.

The claim succeeded only in part. The court ordered payment of RM23,108,685.30, with interest, to the investors listed in Lampiran 2. It dismissed the claims of those in Lampiran 3 because they could not produce the agreements forming the foundation of their claims.

The judgment records that the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. An outcome of that appeal has not been verified for this article. The findings discussed here are those of the High Court.

Where does AI fit into the case?

AI was one of the business areas used to promote the investment. The judgment did not determine whether an AI system malfunctioned, whether AI-generated advice was negligent, or whether AI itself caused the loss. Its relevance is to the promises and accountability surrounding an investment marketed with an AI component.

What should investors and businesses take away?

1. Identify the promise and the party making it.

Before paying, distinguish a forecast of business success from an obligation to pay a specified amount on specified dates. Check which entity signs the agreement, receives the money and undertakes repayment. A technology label does not answer those questions.

2. Keep the complete evidence trail.

Retain signed agreements, schedules, payment records, promotional materials and correspondence. Record what was represented, by whom, and how it influenced your decision. The different outcomes for the two investor groups show why documents should be secured when the transaction begins.

3. Build any personal-liability claim on specific conduct.

A company’s unpaid obligation does not automatically become its officers’ personal debt. Identify each person’s involvement and the evidence supporting any allegation of fraud or conspiracy. Those matters must be properly pleaded and proved.

In our view, the practical starting point is to look beyond the appeal of the technology and examine the transaction itself. Clear obligations, accountable parties and complete records will matter if an investment promise later becomes a dispute.

Share this article