I think, we can all agree that it is the least to say “the plot thickens” in the current Revenue Group’s cases.

With so called “evidence” submitted by the hired “employees” of Revenue Group, I think it is quite obvious that it is their utmost priority to push investors towards voting against the current board of directors.

However, the “employees” of the duo claims that they had never sell any shares but was immediately declined with an announcement where the duo disposed 4,106,000 shares of Revenue Group at RM0.524, while buying 400,000 shares again at the price of RM0.512.

Is this an act of indirectly manipulating the share price, in which the duo manually creates the selling pressure and attempts to recollect the shares at lower price?

And… the “employees” claim that they are ethical? Hmm… questionable.

With this quote unquote unintentional sales and buy back activity, it had already affected not only the existing investors who are holding the shares prior to the MACC’s arrest, it also impacted some other shareholders who had just joined the company due to the attractiveness in share price at current level.

Also, I suspect that all these letters and evidence are smokescreen by their “employees” to misdirect the shareholders to forget about the MACC’s case.

If they think us minority investors are ignorant, then it is just plain unfortunate for them.

For me, the intention of these “insider” information are obvious, one is to prompt investors to forget about the MACC arrest about the duo, and two is to push for more EGM votes in favor to the duo.

Having their plan failed gracefully, they have now resorted to depressing the share price to collect cheaper, to win at EGM.

Maybe the “employees” can help explain the rationale behind selling the shares?

And these “employees” are so unprofessional in the sense that simply sharing company confidential information to social media, which is harmful for company in long term? PLUS – if the “evidence” is real, why not submit to the authorities, or MACC directly?

Please provide us with more clear answer, “employees”