1) Koperasi Wawasan Pekerja-Pekerja Malaysia Berhad (KOWAJA)
RM7,980 Deducted from Loan
A member applied for a RM80,000 loan in January 2009 but only RM33,995 was deposited into his account. He was never given a copy of the loan agreement.
When he said he wanted to return the RM33,995 as it was not what he applied for, he was told that he would have to pay a fee of RM2,000. His February 2009 salary slip revealed that RM897 had been deducted to pay for the loan.
Only after CAP had written to SKM was the mystery solved and he was given a copy of his loan. According to SKM, he was only given a RM42,000 loan so that he does not exceed the 60% limit placed on deductions of salary from civil servants’ pay.
What was shocking is that he received only RM33,995 because RM7,980 (19% of the loan) was deducted as “cost of loan”. (Another RM25 was deducted for KOWAJA’s fee and share.)
Is this the fee KOWAJA earned for arranging the loan for the member with RCE Marketing Sdn Bhd? Of course the member is unaware of the existence of RCE.
Applied for RM5,000 Loan, Told that He Bought RM14,000 Jewellery
A member was asked to sign a blank form when he applied for a RM5, 000 loans from KOWAJA in July 2007. In August 2007, RM5, 294.51 (not RM5, 000) was credited into his bank account. But the bigger surprise was when he received a copy of the agreement a week later. According to the agreement, he had not taken a personal loan but had instead bought costume jewellery form a company called Ikhtiar Destinasi Sdn Bhd. He was asked to pay RM197.49 per month for 72 months or a total of RM14,219.28 for the jewellery.
When queried, the company explained that the member had bought the costume jewellery and the jewellery was sold back to the supplier. The complainant will then get cash when the supplier deposits the money into the borrower’s account.
2) Koperasi Pelaburan Hartanah Berhad (KOPRAHA)
Co-op Advertised 16% Returns, But Permit to Collect Deposits Withdrawn
This cooperative was promising returns of 16% per annum on investments in an advertisement in the papers. Consumers called up CAP to find out whether the offer is genuine.
According to SKM, KOPRAHA was given permission to collect deposits from non-members under paragraph 50(e)* of the Cooperative Societies Act 1993 in August 2008. However in December 2008, KOPRAHA’s permission to collect deposits was withdrawn as it was discovered that it had not followed the conditions laid down under which it can collect deposit from non-members.
*funds of a registered society may be raised by deposit or loans from members and non-members subject to restrictions laid down in the Act and the regulations and in the by-laws of such registered society.
3) Koperasi Belia Majujaya Malaysia Berhad
Loss-making Co-op to Build Houses
In 1987, she placed RM3,000 in the cooperative’s housing scheme and was promised an interest of 7% per annum.
As she had not benefited anything as a member of the cooperative, she decided to withdraw the sum (together with interest) in 2007. The cooperative rejected her application.
Letters that CAP wrote to the cooperative were returned. SKM informed us that the cooperative’s office was closed and that it was not informed of the new address.
In its February 2009 reply to our queries, SKM stated that according to the cooperative’s latest financial report for the year ending 31 December 2005, it had suffered total loss of RM3.7 million. SKM is presently carrying out an investigation under Section 64* of the Cooperative Societies Act in order to determine the status of the cooperative.
*Power of the Registrar General to inspect books, etc. of registered societies
4) Koperasi Perkasa Malaysia Bhd
Received Only RM5,595 Out of RM9,000 Loan
The member applied for a personal loan of RM9,000 in 2005 but ended up receiving only RM5,595.
Apart from processing fee, insurance and so forth deducted from the loan he was surprised to find that RM1,845 was deducted for Syarikat Lembah Mawar, a company that he had no knowledge of.
He settled his loan in May 2007 and the cooperative issued a letter acknowledging that he had settled the balance of RM6,525.
Therefore, he was not expecting another letter dated 4 July stating that he still owed the cooperative RM767.04.
SKM is looking into his complaint.
5) Koperasi Siswazah Bhd (KOSIS)
Unable to Withdraw Investment
He had been a member since 1996 and after investing RM11,000, he wanted out in December 2004. To date he has yet to get his money back.
In August 2006, the JPK informed us that its investigation revealed that the cooperative was no longer active. It was however given time to get back on its feet. Its financial situation was critical and it was burdened by many debts. JPK was looking into whether the cooperative should be given more time to improve itself or to deregister it.
In December 2006, we were informed that the JPK had met with the Board of Directors to appeal against the deregistration of the cooperative.
In May 2007, the cooperative was given 1 year (ending on January 2008) to revive itself.
In June 2008, the SKM (having taken over the function of JPK) said that it was awaiting a report from its Federal Territory branch regarding the position of the cooperative.
In March 2009, SKM said that the cooperative’s Federal Territory branch had carried out a joint venture project planting serai in Kelantan.
Though SKM advised the borrower to apply to the cooperative’s board if he wished to withdraw his investment, it did not say whether the cooperative would be able to refund the money.
6) Malay Officers Cooperative Credit and Investment Society (MOCCIS)
Made a Guarantor Unknowingly
He had settled his loan with MOCCIS Trading Sdn Bhd (a subsidiary of MOCCIS) in January 2000. However he later discovered that his salary was being deducted because he is said to have stood guarantor for 2 borrowers who have taken loans from MOCCIS Trading .
According to him, he did not know the borrowers and neither did he sign any agreement to be guarantors for them.
Applied for RM5,600 Loan, Received RM3,200 and Told He Owed RM6,000
Another member was persuaded by his friend to apply for a loan with a finance company in 1997. He signed a blank form and later was informed that his RM3,600 loan was approved. However, he received only RM3,200.
He got a shock when he received a letter from MOCCIS Trading Sdn Bhd, saying that he had bought RM6,000 worth of goods and his salary was being deducted to pay off the loans.
7) Koperasi Al-Hilal Malaysia Bhd (KOHILAL)
No Refund, Co-op Has No Money
In 1990 he joined the cooperative and RM23 was deducted monthly from his salary. In 2006 he decided to terminate his membership.
In November 2006 the cooperative replied that his application for termination had been approved but it could only come into effect 1 year after the application was approved.
However, not only did he not get back his money a year later in November 2007, monthly salary deductions to the cooperative continued to be carried out.
In April 2009, SKM replied that the member had contributions worth RM3,514.38 in KOHILAL but the cooperative simply did not have the money for the refund. SKM managed to stop his salary deductions with effect from May 2008.
KOHILAL, as it turned out, was investigated by JPK in 2005 under Section 64 of the Act. Its investigation revealed that the cooperative was having serious financial problems. This led to further investigations and as a result, its Board of Directors was dissolved and the cooperative was placed under an Administrator.