Hot on the heels of the cross-out from Catherine Lee's claw, Siow Chung Peng disclosed his Form 29B on July 30, 2004 with 5,498,600 Lii Hen shares. Chan Kam Sam on the other hand disclosed his on July 26, 2004 with 6,170,500 Lii Hen shares, an increase of 2,872,350 shares from his disclosure of June 22, 2004 of 3,298,200 shares, evidently due to the cash infusion of Botak Liew.

Lii Hen shares price was somewhat subdue from RM 1.87 on July 1, 2004 to RM 2.02 on July 26, 2004, the tense period of the Catherine Lee and Siow Chung Peng saga. But the stock price of Lii Hen seems to have been given a pair of wings with the end of this saga. Indeed, Lii Hen shares price had since surged from RM 2.02 on July 26, 2004 to RM 2.78 on August 10, 2004, a 37% increase in eleven trading days. This prompted Bursa Malaysia to issued an enquiry on the Unusual Market Activity ("UMA") to Lii Hen on August 10, 2004.

Right after the Bursa Malaysia's UMA announcement, Lii Hen shares price leaped further to closed at RM 3.94 on September 10, 2004, adding another 42% increase from the closing price on August 10, 2004 in one month. In short, after the saga has been resolved on July 26, 2004 where the price closed at RM 2.02, Lii Hen shares price had rocketed to close at RM 3.94 on September 10, 2004 or a price surge of RM 1.92 and a staggering 95% jump in less than one and a half month's time. What caused the big jump in this period? Who provided the propellent in sending Lii Hen shares price skyward?

Market analysts and financial columnists abound were seen citing various reasons to this surge as can be seen from the news articles during this period. A foreign newswire even reported that Lii Hen shares price was boosted from stronger demand from the United States after the US International Trade Commission imposed punitive duties of up to 198% on imports of wooden furniture from China in June, 2004.

Some spoke on technical chart that the recent overbought stochastics were neutralised during the saga period and it is pointing to a potential upswing imminently.

But these are purely academic opinions. For almost 9 years, the real impetus to this strong rally appeared to have been concealed by the vested parties until the remisier walked into the Commercial Crime Investigation Department of the Negeri Sembilan Police Contingent on April 5, 2004.

We can confirm now that the remisier who made the police report is Dato' Goh Hock Choy and we are attempting to get hold of a copy of this report. Since he was the man who brought the deal to Siow Chung Peng from the Muar carpenters and since he had acted on both sides of the deal, surely he would have had on his chest a lot of confidential informations. Some are even lethal, perhaps. We have said very early in our research that he would have with him some incriminating evidence to support his allegation.

True to our deduction, the police investigation have since been transferred to the Bukit Perdana Police Headquarter of the Commercial Crime Investigation Department in mid August 2013. We believed the elevation of the case to the headquarter level was due to the seriousness of the alleged crime as it involved not only a public listed company but also the magnitude of the alleged loss of almost RM 150 million as reported by the Prime News of The New Straits Times on May 29, 2013.

It was also rumoured that there were some interference by a third party in the police investigation at the state level in the Negeri Sembilan Police Contingent that eventually caused the Bukit Perdana Commercial Crime Investigation Headquarter to stepped in and took charge of the case. Regardless of what went around in the market place and since it is still under police investigation, we are not going to speculate until we have further confirmation on the progress.

Lets focus on why Lii Hen shares price went skyward after the UMA announcement on August 10, 2004. It was reported in the New Straits Times article on May 29, 2013 that after the remisier, now we know he is Dato' Goh, was tasked with placing out some 5 million Lii Hen shares at various prices on a staggered basis, a controversy began on August 10, 2004 when Tan Bee Eng and Chua Lee Seng allegedly made an untrue and misleading announcement to Bursa Malaysia that caused hundreds of investors to begin snapping up Lii Hen shares which boosted the price to RM 6.80.

We may need to read this police report of April 5, 2013 in the context of another enforcement action by the Securities Commission. On September 4, 2012 the SC charged Dato' Goh under Section 84(1) of The Securities Industry Act 1983 for creating a misleading appearance of active trading of Lii Hen shares by being concerned in the sale and purchase of Lii Hen shares that did not involved any change of beneficial ownership. Concurrently, the SC also charged Siow Chung Peng under Section 84(1)  and Section 122C(c) of the same Act for abetting Dato' Goh in the same offence.

Why did the Dato' reports to the police in 2013 then? Why not to the SC? And why only now after he was charged? Was the police report linked to the charge he was facing? Or an entirely new crime by the carpenters as alleged in the news report? Were Siow Chung Peng or Catherine Lee or some one else involved?

It appeared that we have more questions now than answers as we tried to unearth the real shenanigans behind the Lii Hen 2004 debacle. The game of the cat and mouse has just began.

Please visit the new Lii Hen Shareholder Activists website at www.liihen.com