FCB Investment Scheme: The Reincarnation of the TM Scam in Sri Lanka?
When we investigate scams in Sri Lanka, one pattern becomes clear very quickly: scams do not appear randomly. They evolve.
Some are small and short-lived, collapsing before they spread widely. Others are large-scale, carefully structured, and designed to run for months — sometimes years — before collapsing under their own weight. These larger schemes cause the most damage, not because they are harder to identify, but because they feel safe for longer.
HackAware has already identified two such large-scale investment scams in Sri Lanka: the TM (Triumph Media) investment scheme and Max App Media. TM, in particular, collapsed in mid-December 2025, after running for several months and pulling in a significant number of participants.
What makes this new FCB Investment scheme different — and alarming — is timing.
Our investigation shows that this platform began operating just days before the TM collapse. That places its emergence squarely in the danger window where failing scam structures are often repurposed and relaunched under new branding.
This leads to a more direct and unavoidable question:
Are the same scammers behind the TM (Triumph Media) investment scam returning under a new name to target Sri Lankans again?
Large-Scale Scams Don’t Disappear — They Rebrand
Historically, when a large scheme collapses, the operators do not simply stop. The infrastructure, the payment logic, the recruitment systems, and the psychological playbooks already exist.
What changes is the skin:
- A new brand name
- A new website
- A slightly adjusted narrative
What stays the same is the engine.
This is why the FCB platform immediately stood out. Although the branding and story differ, the underlying mechanics mirror TM so closely that coincidence becomes an increasingly weak explanation.
What the FCB Investment Scheme Claims
The platform presents itself as a task-based earning opportunity, allegedly connected to FCB (Foote, Cone & Belding), a globally recognized advertising agency.
Users are told they can earn daily income by completing simple actions such as:
- Watching videos
- Approving branded content
- Performing basic engagement tasks
There is no verifiable proof of:
- Real advertisers
- Advertising contracts
- Campaign performance metrics
- External revenue streams
Instead, earnings are generated internally through tiered participation.
Red Flag Comparison Framework
Before examining individual red flags, it is important to explain how HackAware evaluates risk.
We do not judge platforms in isolation. We compare them against previously confirmed large-scale scams, both global and local, and examine whether the same structural warning signs are present.
A Global Reference: OneCoin
OneCoin was one of the largest investment scams in history. It was promoted worldwide as a revolutionary opportunity and appeared legitimate for years.
At its peak:
- Millions of participants were earning
- Large public events were held
- Physical rewards and recognition were distributed
- Charitable activities were widely promoted
People defended OneCoin because their experience felt real.
They were being paid.
OneCoin did not collapse because payments stopped early.
It collapsed because its structure depended entirely on continuous inflow of new money.
This lifecycle has since repeated across regions through task apps, investment platforms, and “earn from your phone” schemes.
In this article, we compare three points on the same curve:
- OneCoin (global reference)
- TM (Sri Lankan precedent)
- FCB (emerging early-stage platform)
Core Red Flag #1: Pay-to-Earn Structure
OneCoin
Participants paid to enter the system. Higher packages unlocked greater earning potential.
TM (Sri Lanka)
Participants deposited money to access V-levels. Higher deposits produced higher fixed daily income, regardless of output.
FCB
Users must deposit funds to unlock Intern or VIP tiers. Higher deposits unlock higher per-task earnings and greater daily income.
This is not employment.
This is capital-based participation — a defining trait of Ponzi-style systems.
Core Red Flag #2: Earnings Calculated in Advance
OneCoin
Projected earnings and bonuses were shown upfront.
TM
Daily and monthly income was displayed clearly before participation.
FCB
Users can see their exact earnings per task and per day in advance.
Predictability without transparent external revenue is not stability.
It is a warning sign.
Core Red Flag #3: Simulated Tasks Instead of Real Work
OneCoin
“Education” and mining activity produced no real economic output.
TM
Tasks were disconnected from measurable advertising performance.
FCB
Watching videos and approving branded content serves no verifiable business function.
These tasks exist to justify payouts, not to generate revenue.
Core Red Flag #4: Borrowed Legitimacy and Brand Trust
OneCoin
Used global imagery, conferences, and titles to appear authoritative.
TM
Used scale, visible payouts, and community confidence.
FCB
Uses the name and reputation of a real global advertising agency without proof of affiliation.
Borrowed legitimacy delays doubt — it does not remove risk.
Why the Timing Matters
TM collapsed in mid-December 2025.
FCB appeared just days before that collapse.
Historically, this is exactly when replacement platforms emerge — before public failure, not after — allowing momentum to shift quietly.
This strengthens the possibility that:
- The same operators
- Or the same scam infrastructure
are being reused under a new name.
Why FCB Is Still Small — and Why That Matters
At present, FCB has:
- No major communities
- No public events
- No charity projects
- No long-term payout history
This does not indicate safety.
It indicates early-stage positioning.
Large scams do not start large. They grow deliberately.
What History Suggests Comes Next
Based on OneCoin and TM, the likely next stages include:
- Rapid community formation
- In-person meetings and leadership structures
- Donations or public-good activities
- Increased pressure to upgrade tiers
- Withdrawal restrictions framed as “policy updates”
These are scale mechanisms, not sustainability mechanisms.
HackAware’s Position
This is not a declaration of collapse.
It is an early structural warning.
The FCB Investment scheme shows:
- The same mechanics as TM
- The same logic as OneCoin
- The same risk trajectory seen globally
Waiting for proof after collapse only guarantees more victims.
Final Note to the Public
If you are asked to:
- Deposit money to unlock tasks
- Upgrade tiers to earn or withdraw
- Recruit others to increase income
- Trust on-screen balances instead of real withdrawals
You are not witnessing innovation.
You are witnessing a familiar structure returning under a new name.
Large scams rarely announce themselves loudly.
They return quietly — especially after the last one falls.
