Dufourbit Warning: FCA Says the Firm Is Unauthorised—7 Checks Before You Pay
The FCA warned about Dufourbit on 19 August 2026. Check the named domain, contact details, missing protections and seven steps before making any payment.
简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
اردو
Abstract:A civil servant in Kuantan has lost more than RM160,000 after falling victim to a fraudulent investment scheme known as “Future Funds”.

A civil servant in Kuantan has lost more than RM160,000 after falling victim to a fraudulent investment scheme known as “Future Funds”.
The case began with what appeared to be a harmless online interaction. The victim established contact with a woman on Facebook, and over the course of a month, the two built a rapport through regular conversations. According to investigators, this gradual approach was used to gain the victims trust before introducing any financial proposition.
After establishing familiarity, the suspect presented an investment opportunity under the name “Future Funds”. She claimed to have the ability to assist the victim in generating profits and managing withdrawals, portraying the scheme as both reliable and profitable. The communication soon shifted from casual exchanges to financial discussions, with the suspect guiding the victim through the process.
Encouraged by the promise of returns, the victim made his initial investment. Shortly afterwards, he received a payment of RM2,000, which appeared to confirm the legitimacy of the scheme. Authorities believe this early return was a deliberate tactic designed to build confidence and encourage further investment.
Following this initial success, the suspect began requesting additional payments. These requests were accompanied by various explanations, including administrative requirements and further investment opportunities. Despite these assurances, no additional returns were delivered after the first payout.
Over a period spanning from 12 February to 4 March, the victim carried out eight separate transactions. The funds, which included personal savings as well as money borrowed from family members and a bank, were transferred into five different company accounts. Investigators noted that the use of multiple accounts is a common strategy employed by fraud syndicates to complicate tracking efforts.
Throughout the entire period, the victim never met the suspect in person. All communication took place via WhatsApp messages and video calls. While the suspect had provided an identity card number to support her claims of legitimacy, police later determined that the document was likely falsified.
Maran police chief Superintendent Wong Kim Wai confirmed that the case is being treated as a criminal offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, which relates to cheating and fraud. Authorities are currently working to trace those responsible and recover the stolen funds, although such cases often present significant challenges due to the speed and complexity of digital transactions.
The incident reflects a broader pattern in which scammers exploit social media platforms to identify and engage potential victims. By combining personal interaction with financial promises, these schemes blur the line between social and professional relationships, making them particularly difficult to detect at an early stage.
Financial experts have repeatedly warned that investment opportunities introduced through informal channels, especially by individuals met online, carry a high level of risk. The promise of quick returns, coupled with pressure to make repeated payments, is a clear indicator of potential fraud.
Even as major technology companies such as Meta step up efforts to curb scam advertisements and remove fraudulent content, the responsibility for financial safety ultimately rests with individuals. Fraudulent promotions are not confined to social media alone but can appear across search engines, websites and messaging platforms. As such, investors must remain cautious and critically assess any opportunity that appears overly lucrative, regardless of where it is encountered.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.

The FCA warned about Dufourbit on 19 August 2026. Check the named domain, contact details, missing protections and seven steps before making any payment.

Was your trading experience with Warren Bowie & Smith, a Mauritius-based brokerage entity, not so fruitful? Did the broker tempt you into trading by giving you assurances of profits that never appeared on the Warren Bowie & Smith login dashboard? Did you struggle to withdraw profits from the trading platform? Upon your withdrawal request, did the broker official make you invest further? This Warren Bowie & Smith review examines serious trading allegations against the broker. Additionally, we have provided the broker’s regulatory status.

Angel One, an India-based brokerage entity, constantly receives allegations from users online. Users are complaining about withheld funds, poor customer support service, undesired trade execution orders, etc. In this Angel One review, let’s quickly go through these complaints, understand its regulatory framework and pay attention to the product portfolio.

AuroraEx, a United States-based multi-asset brokerage entity, is facing serious user allegations over how it handles deposited funds. Many users have accused the broker of failing to meet its payment obligations. Some have questioned the broker over possible trade-related foul play, while others have alleged that it scammed them through a Ponzi operation. This AuroraEx review examines these user-reported allegations and provides an overview of the broker’s regulatory status.