TAWAU: The High Court proceedings last week placed two major allegations under sustained judicial scrutiny insider trading linked to share price movements and the claim of “41 missing gold doré bars” in the ongoing corporate dispute involving AuMas Resources Berhad (formerly Bahvest Resources Berhad and previously Borneo Aqua Harvest Berhad).

The matter, heard before Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos, saw Plaintiff Witness 1 (PW1), Chong Tzu Khen, cross-examined in detail on the factual and documentary basis of both allegations.

Taken together, the exchanges reveal a court process focused not on rhetoric, but on evidentiary thresholds documentary proof, regulatory action, and causal linkage.

Insider Trading: Allegation Acknowledged, Regulatory Action Absent

During cross-examination last week, defence counsel put directly to Chong that his assertion that Datuk Lo Fui Ming caused fluctuations in the company’s share price amounted to an allegation of market manipulation.

Chong agreed that his position carried that implication, explaining that in his view, leadership direction and corporate decisions could influence investor perception and price movement.

Counsel further suggested that Chong’s position effectively amounted to an allegation of insider trading in connection with a RM20.4 million demand. Chong agreed that this was his allegation, maintaining that the timing and circumstances raised concerns from his perspective.

However, under questioning, Chong confirmed that after becoming a director on 26 May 2023, he did not lodge any formal complaint with Bursa Malaysia or the Securities Commission Malaysia.

He also confirmed that no civil proceedings specifically premised on insider trading had been initiated, explaining that his priority after assuming directorship was stabilising mining operations and protecting shareholder interests.

The defence suggested that the absence of regulatory referral weakened the allegation. Chong disagreed, maintaining that his concerns remained valid notwithstanding the absence of a formal complaint.

Share Price Volatility: Structural vs Personal Attribution

The court also examined whether share price movements could be attributed to a single individual.

Chong agreed that share prices of public listed companies are influenced by multiple variables, including financial performance, economic conditions, foreign fund flows and currency strength. He nevertheless maintained that the CEO’s strategic direction and decisions form part of the broader ecosystem influencing investor sentiment.

Defence counsel highlighted that historical disclosures showed fluctuating profits and losses over several years, and that such volatility predated the 2023 dispute.

ESOS, Dilution and Timing

The Employee Share Option Scheme (ESOS) was also examined as a contextual factor.

Chong agreed that ESOS implementation requires shareholder approval and Bursa disclosure. He further acknowledged that he had not recorded written objections prior to the 26 April 2023 requisition notice.

He maintained that the potential dilution effect would materialise if the 180 million ESOS shares were exercised, and that this formed part of his broader concern regarding corporate governance.

The defence suggested that the ESOS was compliant with listing requirements and that Chong himself stood to benefit as an eligible participant. Chong agreed that participation could increase shareholding, but maintained that dilution remained a structural issue.

“41 Missing Gold Doré Bars”: Accounting Inference vs Physical Proof

Parallel to the market-based allegations, the court also scrutinised claims that 41 gold doré bars were removed under the previous management of Wullersdorf Resources Sdn Bhd (WRSB).

Under cross-examination, the court heard that Chong lodged two police reports on 26 June 2023 within approximately 40 minutes of each other. He confirmed that the second report stated it was made for the court’s attention only and not for further police investigation.

Only the first report was exhibited in support of an ex-parte injunction.

Defence counsel suggested that police reports constitute complaints rather than proof of wrongdoing. Chong disagreed, maintaining that the reports were necessary steps.

The evidentiary foundation of the “41 bars” claim was then examined.

Chong acknowledged that:

gold production does not necessarily result in immediate sale,

doré bars may be accumulated, re-batched or re-smelted,

no specific SOP or regulation was produced requiring each produced bar to correspond to a sales invoice within the same accounting sequence.

He also confirmed that no biometric logs, CCTV records, access controls or audit trails were produced in the Common Bundle of Documents (CBOD) demonstrating exclusive control of the gold room by the named former management.

While disputing suggestions that others had access, he agreed that no documentary evidence excluding such access was exhibited.

On the tax issue, Chong referred to an Inland Revenue Board (IRB) document but accepted that it referred to undeclared income and did not expressly state that 41 bars were missing. He agreed that tax reconciliation discrepancies do not in themselves prove theft.

He further confirmed that the royalty recording mechanism of Jabatan Mineral dan Geosains Malaysia (JMG) is based on production declarations rather than physical counting of bars.

The defence position was that the missing bars allegation was derived largely from accounting comparison and inference rather than direct evidence of physical removal.

Cross-examination concluded at Question 1027 at the request of counsel.

The Court fixed further hearing dates on:

27–30 April 2026 (27 April at 2.30 p.m.; others at 9.00 a.m.)

13–15 May 2026

18–22 May 2026

Additional dates in June and July 2026 have been proposed for reservation.