THE iSERVE - MYAIRLINE SAGA: FACT & FICTION.
top of page
Search

THE iSERVE - MYAIRLINE SAGA: FACT & FICTION.



1. In recent months, there were numerous blog posts attacking iServe and MYAirline. This

was followed by MACC and PDRM issuing public statements as if confirming the blog

posts. The public narrative is that both these companies are scams by Dato’ Allan Goh

Hwan Hua, which justified multiple investigations and actions under AMLA to freeze all

their banking and trading accounts. This had crippled and damaged these 2 companies.


2. It is a well-known fact that AirAsia is in financial trouble. It is also a known fact that

MYAirline is a competitor that poses a threat to AirAsia's restructuring. This fact-sheet will

reveal the business dispute starting with AirAsia vs iServe, and later AirAsia vs MYAirline.

This will separate the fact from the fiction.

https://www.malaysia-today.net/2022/02/18/bank-negaras-looting-and-plundering-

continues/

https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/airasia-x-slips-pn17-status-after-auditor-expressed-

disclaimer-opinion-fpe21-accounts

https://sea.mashable.com/life/21891/budget-carrier-myairline-to-begin-competing-

against-airasia-in-december-2022


3. iServe: Is it a scam?


3.1 iServe commenced business in 2001 as a specialist of smart card solutions and

software development in Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. iServe became

renowned for developing e-commerce kiosks for Eastman Kodak, Nokia and

AirAsia. In fact, since 2010, iServe was the backroom ticketing office for AirAsia.


3.2 iServe is a leading player in e-payment and mobile applications for airline and bus

ticketing and prepaid reloads. iServe had received multiple SME awards for being

an SME/e-commerce ‘Unicorn’, also the Brand Laureate Award for IT Smart

Technology Solutions 2015, and AirAsia Top Performer Award 2016. As at 2018,

iServe had been issued with several licenses by BNM including a Payment Gateway

License.


3.3 When iServe had developed AirAsia’s backroom ticketing service into a successful

and profitable business unit, AirAsia decided to terminate iServe’s services in order

to acquire that business from iServe. This resulted in the first legal battle between

iServe and AirAsia. Although this matter was eventually settled, the seeds of bad

blood had been sowed between the 2 companies.


3.4 iServe holds a MSC status (Multimedia Super Corridor) that allowed it to seek funds

locally and internationally from private equity investors. Since its operations in 2001,

iServe had never defaulted on its payment obligations until 11.11.2021 (20 years

later) when BNM acting as part of a multi-task force action raided its offices and

froze all its bank accounts.

https://www.businesstoday.com.my/2021/11/16/iserve-online-mall-raided-

including-seizure-of-rm118-million-under-amla-offence/2

https://selangorjournal.my/2021/11/i-serve-online-mall-raided-authorities-seize-

rm118-7-mln-cash-bnm/


3.5 The freezing of its bank accounts was the beginning of iServe’s problems as it could

not pay its private equity investors for 1 year. This badly damaged its business

reputation and operations. iServe sued BNM in 2 Judicial Review proceedings and

both were granted leave by the High Court which meant that BNM’s actions were

legally questionable.


3.6 iServe had alleged that BNM was involved in an orchestrated move to sabotage its

business. Justice Wan Ahmad Farid ruled “that the applicant had proved a prima

facie case to challenge the legality of the seizure orders, as BNM had failed to state

the subject of its purported money laundering probe. He also ruled that the firm and

its applicants may be entitled to damages if the freeze orders were found to be

unlawful.”

https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/197451/high-court-allows-judicial-review-

against-bnm-agc-over-seizure-

orders/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20i%2DServe,several%20of%20i%2DServ

e's%20accounts


3.7 When the Judicial Review actions were about to be heard, AGC/BNM offered iServe

a Global Settlement by a compound. iServe had appealed against the quantum of

the compound as being oppressive and illogical. BNM maintained that the

compound and quantum was proportionate and had undergone a due diligent

process based on BNM’s governance and processes of a full and comprehensive

evaluation. The Global Settlement meant that all the investigations by the multi-

agency Task Force had ended. For some strange reasons, this was revived recently.

Legally, this is double jeopardy and unlawful.


3.8 Based on the above, it is apparent that prior to BNM’s actions iServe had never

defaulted on its obligations to its investors. The BNM action was a fait accompli to

sabotage and cripple iServe’s business. That is why no investors had previously

lodged any report against iServe. The Director of CCID is on record as calling on

the public to lodge police reports against iServe. This is perplexing as the police

seemed to have commenced investigation and arrested suspects when there has

been no police report against them.

Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersial, Datuk Seri Ramli Mohamed

Yoosuf, berkata walaupun sehingga kini pihaknya masih belum menerima

sebarang laporan daripada mangsa pelaburan i-Serve yang dikaitkan

dengan aktiviti pengubahan wang haram, tetapi pihaknya sedang serius

memberi tumpuan terhadap suspek yang berkait rapat dengan aktiviti itu dalam

i-Serve.

https://www.bharian.com.my/amp/berita/nasional/2023/10/1169499/isu-myairline-

belum-ada-pelabur-i-serve-tampil-buat-laporan3


3.9 It is alarming to note that the police seemed to be on a fishing expedition to enlarge

the investigation looking for an offence -

"Berdasarkan beberapa petunjuk diperoleh,

kita sedang menyiasat sama ada dana dalam aktiviti pelaburan haram ini

digunakan untuk aktiviti syarikat penerbangan MyAirline sebagai pengubahan

wang haram"

, katanya pada sidang media di Menara KPJ.


3.10 The above fact would suffice to answer the allegation whether iServe was a scam.


4. MYAirline: The Fact


4.1 Consequent to the iServe vs AirAsia dispute, Dato’ Allan Goh had started to

establish a new airline known as MYAirline since 11.1.2021. This formed a new

rivalry between AirAsia and MYAirline. Since late 2022, over a period of 9 months,

MYAirline had forged a good reputation as an airline that constantly achieved OTP

(On Time Performance). MYAirline became the New Red, while AirAsia slipped to

become the most hated brand in Malaysia.

https://www.myairline.my/media-centre/2835 ,

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2022/11/30/myairline-tickets-selling-like-

hotcakes/

https://www.webintravel.com/the-malaysian-aviation-scene-is-changing-as-

myairlines-maiden-flight-takes-off/


4.2 On 7.2.2022, MITI announced that MYAirline is a catalyst in fostering more robust

competition in the low-budget aviation market. This heightened competition was

expected to reduce airfare pricing, in turn, benefitting the general public.

https://www.nst.com.my/business/2022/02/769268/sks-airways-myairline-boon-

revive-malaysias-aviation-sector


4.3 On 1.10.2022, MYAirline received approval of its Air Operator Certificate (AOC) from

CAAM. On 10.11.2022, MAVCOM awarded MYAirline with the Air Service License

(ASL).

https://www.mavcom.my/en/2022/11/10/issuance-of-air ,


4.4 AirAsia’s PN17 status as a financially distressed company is already public

knowledge. On the other hand, on 8.11.2022, Maybank Investment Bank Research

had declared “… MyAirline could dethrone Capital A as the world's lowest-cost

airline as it had secured low aircraft lease rates during the onset of the Russian-

Ukrainian war, which saw lessors scrambling for lessees.” MYAirline’s success

would threaten AirAsia’s restructuring and recapitalisation exercise.

https://www.thesundaily.my/home/bursa-rejects-airasia-s-bid-to-extend-pn17-

status-suspension-DY8760342

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2022/11/08/myairline-to-

make-moderate-impact-on-malaysian-aviation---maybank-ib4


4.5 On 26.6.2023, MYAirlines celebrated flying 1,000,000 passengers across nine

domestic routes within Malaysia since its inaugural flight in December 2022.


4.6 Accusations had been made that MYAirline is a fly by night company. This is clearly

a smear campaign as MYAirline’s Board of Directors included prominent figures in

the aviation industry:

a) Dato' Seri Azharuddin Bin Abdul Rahman (former DG/Chairman DCA);

b) Dato' Abd Hamid Mohd Ali (former CEO of MAHB); and

c) Rayner Teo Kheng Hock (Former Head of Sales AirAsia Group).


4.7 The senior management were also experts in the industry which included Rayner

Teo, Stuart Cross, Shireen Chia Yin Ting, Senthil Balan Danapalan, Schrene Goh

and Sai Yew Yeoh who were all formerly the senior management of AirAsia. This

created another angle of rivalry between AirAsia and MYAirlines.


4.8 Part of the smear campaign was to raise questions how MYAirline could have

obtained its operating licenses by alleging that it did not have financial capability.

This has been answered by Transport Minister, Anthony Loke that at the material

time MYAirline had strong financial capability.

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2023/11/974227/loke-myairline-license-was-

approved-based-strong-financial-capability


4.9 In recent weeks, the story of iServe and MYAirline had been intertwined to confuse

the public with the narrative that both iServe and MYAirline are scam operations due

to the personality of Dato’ Allan Goh who is the principal of both business

operations.

https://www.husseinhamid.com/post/allan-goh-from-taking-illegal-deposits-to-

airline-owner-courtesy-of-mavcom


5. The recent arrests


5.1 On 18.10.2023, Dato’ Allan, his wife and son were arrested by CCID with wide

publicity that they were involved in money laundering. This validated the story that

iServe and MYAirline are scam operations. The public was made to believe that the

report against them was made by investors who had been scammed. This is untrue.

https://www.bharian.com.my/amp/berita/nasional/2023/10/1169499/isu-myairline-

belum-ada-pelabur-i-serve-tampil-buat-laporan ,

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2023/10/18/police-confirmed-the-arrest-of-allan-

goh/


5.2 The Director of CCID had made a call for the public to lodge reports against them.

This seemed rather odd that the police had already arrested the family and yet there

are no police reports against them compelling the Director of CCID to request the

public to make reports of their wrongdoing/crime. So, who lodged the report?

https://www.bharian.com.my/amp/berita/nasional/2023/10/1169499/isu-myairline-

belum-ada-pelabur-i-serve-tampil-buat-laporan5


5.3 The public should know that the arrests of the Goh family was not based on any

report by any investor. In fact, the report was lodged by AirAsia (the

enemy/competitor!). Apparently, AirAsia had lodged the report against iServe for an

alleged, false top-up credit form that had occurred in 2018. This is perplexing.


5.4 It is a known fact that in 2018, iServe was involved in a dispute with AirAsia over the

termination of its backroom ticketing services. iServe contended that AirAsia still

owes it money whereas AirAsia contended that all its debts to iServe had been

settled. This was a dispute on liability and quantum which is a civil matter. The suit

had been settled.


5.5 It is alarming that in 2023, AirAsia is making a police report in respect of some

business transactions in 2018. If so, AirAsia would have sued iServe in that year.

There is no such suit or dispute between them. Did AirAsia file a false report as a

fait accompli to trigger the arrests of the Goh family and the staff of

iServe/MYAirline?


5.6 The fact that police acted on AirAsia’s report (an enemy) to classify the report under

s.420 Penal Code (cheating) as the predicate offence to arrest the Goh family and

the staff of iServe/MYAirline is suspicious and perverse. That alleged predicate

offence became the foundation for the AMLA allegations. If the police is to be

believed, it would seem that they have succeeded to incite some investors to make

police reports. But the fact remains that the arrests of the Goh family and his staff

were based on the report lodged by AirAsia (the enemy) and not by the investors.

https://www.hmetro.com.my/mutakhir/2023/11/1026656/i-serve-67-laporan-babit-

kerugian-lebih-rm816-juta-diterima

https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2023/11/974576/federal-ccid-67-

reports-lodged-regarding-i-serve-scam-totalling


5.7 The above deserve critical analysis as to whether BNM, MACC and PDRM had

participated in a conspiracy to injure a business entity in favour of its rival.


ANON

13,341 views13 comments

Related Posts

See All
bottom of page