<![CDATA[Securities crowdfunding places retail investors in a structurally different position from shareholders of listed companies because issuers face no profit-track-record requirement, securities are not exchange-traded, and no structured financial distress mechanism exists. This study examines legal protection and remedies for investors facing issuer default by comparing Indonesia’s securities crowdfunding framework with Malaysia’s initial public offering architecture. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. This finding is that Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 17 of 2025 strengthens platform requirements but does not establish a structured investor exit mechanism. Malaysia distributes responsibility among gatekeepers, including the principal advisor, underwriter, and ACE Market sponsor, while Practice Note 17 and Guidance Note 3 provide distress mechanisms. Malaysia applies a tiered regulatory model relevant to Indonesian crowdfunding. Investor protection also involves financial, data, and Shariah compliance axes. Indonesia and Malaysia have strengthened data protection through Law Number 27 of 2022 and the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2024, respectively, but enforcement challenges remain. The study recommends continuing gatekeeper liability, distressed issuer classification and exit mechanisms, limits on exculpatory clauses, integrated data protection duties, and a positive-law and fiqh al-muamalat protection model.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
