The Chinese has a proverb that says unceasing rainfalls with a leaked roof (屋漏偏逢連夜雨). Tan Bee Eng, the executive director of Lii Hen, may soon realised that he may be in breach of yet another offence under the Capital Markets & Services Act 2007 ("CMSA 2007"). Any reasonable man will know that disclosing a fake price in a false statement to Bursa Malaysia is an offence.

Section 369 (a)(A) of the CMSA 2007 states that a person who with intent to deceive, makes or furnishes any false and misleading statement or report to the Commission or a stock exchange relating to dealing in securities commits an offence.

The Securities Commission ("SC") had on September 11, 2013 used the same charge against two former directors of Silver Bird Group Berhad ("Silver Bird") for furnishing false information to Bursa Malaysia between 2010 and 2011. The charges, under Section 369(b)(B) of the CMSA 2007 were made in relation to false statements in Silver Bird's unaudited financial accounts.

We are unsure if a separate complaint was made by Dato' Goh  to the SC for what Tan Bee Eng has done in 2004 as we have highlighted. But it won't be long before the SC picks this up.

Dato' Goh may not be the best person to lodge this complaint to the SC because of his pending case. But this would not stop anyone else  from lodging the alleged crime to the SC, especially now that the cats are out. Interestingly, if the SC does open up an investigation into the allegation of disclosure of false statement  to Bursa Malaysia by Tan Bee Eng, this may well be one of the strong defences for the Dato' to paralyse the charge by SC on him. The SC ought to have considered all the evidences and statements of various witnesses available during their investigation before they arrived at the decision to charge him. Unfortunately in the light of what we have came to know and revealed thus far, the SC had missed out the other real big fish in the guise of Tan Bee Eng. Suffice to say this will render the investigation as incomplete and the charge flawed inadvertently and inevitably. He may even claim the charge was mala fide.

The SC's saving grace would then be to preferred a charge on Tan Bee Eng. Anyway, for the SC who will be more sensational in news headline worthiness in their enforcement action between a director of a public listed company and a remisier? Your guess is as good as mine.

Lii Hen shares price will be pummelled severely if Tan Bee Eng is charged in the court of law by the SC. He is one of the two founders and the key man in the operation and management of the company. The occurrences of this and the damage inflicted to the shares price of Lii Hen may be beyond redemption. A case in point may be the old fund managers' darling stock, Kim Hin Industry Berhad's ("Kimhin 5371") Johnnie SH Chua insider trading fiasco in 1996. Until today, Kim Hin shares price had failed to see the blue sky or anywhere near it even though he was acquitted eventually many years later.

Another shackle may be waiting in the doorway for Tan Bee Eng. And Chua Lee Seng included. As the persons who have agreed on a two parts deal to Dato' Goh in late March 2004 as well as the persons who have  collectively supplied the initial 5 million Lii Hen shares to him and collaborated in the exercise by disseminating stock positive announcement to Bursa Malaysia such as that of June 15, 2004, both have the ultimate aim to see a high stock price of Lii Hen so that their 32% stake can be sold. These actions of theirs are in stark contradiction to the Unusual Market Action ("UMA") announcement of August 10, 2004 made by Lii Hen. There is no denying that as the executive director and executive chairman of Lii Hen respectively, they knew about why the shares price and traded volume of Lii Hen is increasing. It is because of their two parts deal with the Dato' that the shares price and traded volume of Lii Hen is increasing. How could the board then, including the two of them, knowingly and intentionally lied that they are not aware of any circumstances that account for the UMA during the period in question?

Both Tan Bee Eng and Chua Lee Seng are caught with their pants down in this false and misleading UMA announcement to Bursa Malaysia. The aftermath similar to the Kim Hin fiasco will be compounded, to the very least, if both Tan Bee Eng and Chua Lee Seng as the key men and founders of Lii Hen are charged. Lii Hen shares price may never see the light of day.

Prior to the UMA announcement, Lii Hen shares price had recorded a 37% increase from July 26 to August 10, 2004 the day the UMA announcement was made, but it had since added another 42% from August 10 to September 10, 2004. We have established that the Muar carpenters have a hand in the big run up of Lii Hen shares price since March 2004. But so far, their roles in this Italian job seems to be confined to collaborating with false and misleading announcements that are deemed stock positive  beside supplying the initial 2,961,000 Lii Hen shares that swirled them into the stock manipulations.

We will soon find out the ingredients of the propellent that blasted off Lii Hen shares price to the sky from July 26, 2004. But before that, we may need to take a pit stop at Mayban Securities Sdn. Bhd., the very place that issued the Letter of Intent to Purchase, the ultimate zenith of the Muar carpenters' hard work over the last seven months.

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

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

September 17, 2013