TAWAU: The High Court here on Wednesday heard testimony that the Department of Minerals and Geoscience (JMG) approved the Operational Mining Scheme (OMS) for Wullersdorf Resources Sdn. Bhd. (WRSB) only after being satisfied that the company had sufficient operational rights, while the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval remains valid.

The evidence was given by the plaintiffs’ fourth witness, Wong Ji Yung, former Chief Operating Officer (COO) and current Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of AuMas and WRSB said this was based on his understanding of JMG’s OMS approval process.

According to Wong, WRSB submitted the first injunction order as part of its OMS application to demonstrate that, pending the outcome of the related legal proceedings, the company retained the right to continue using the facilities built for its mining operations.

He told the court that JMG had taken the injunction into consideration, noting that the OMS approval contains a clause stating that it remains valid until its expiry date or until the outcome of the related legal proceedings.

The testimony formed part of the ongoing civil trial involving AuMas Resources Berhad and Wullersdorf Resources Sdn. Bhd. (WRSB), with proceedings being heard before Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos.

The plaintiffs are represented by Norbert Yapp & Associates together with Azimi Yahya, while the defendants are represented by Andy Tay & Associates, Lawrence Chai, and Peter Soong & Partners.

The High Court subsequently adjourned the trial until July 27, when the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ consulting mining engineer, Ir. Dr. Selamat Aliman, is scheduled to continue.

TAWAU: The High Court here today continued hearing a civil trial involving Bahvest Resources Berhad and Wullersdorf Resources Sdn Bhd as plaintiffs, and Datuk Lo Fui Ming, Lo Teck Yong, Chong Khing Chung, and Southsea Gold Sdn Bhd as defendants.

The proceedings before Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos also involve a separate action filed by Southsea Gold Sdn Bhd against Wullersdorf Resources Sdn Bhd and Bahvest Resources Berhad, which has been consolidated through a prior court order.

The court then proceeded with cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witness, Chong Tzu Khen, by defence counsel Henry Lim.

In his testimony, Chong was questioned on related party transactions and confirmed that board and shareholder approvals are required under Bursa Malaysia Listing Requirements before such transactions can be implemented.

He also agreed that failure to obtain prior approval could render such transactions non-compliant with Bursa regulations.

Chong further confirmed that he had instructed the issuance of letters to three independent non-executive directors in May 2023 concerning a temporary resolution, which included a warning of potential legal action if no response was received. However, he stated that the letters were not intended as threats and that no legal action was subsequently taken.

On board composition, Chong confirmed that Bahvest’s board comprised five members at the material time, including three independent directors and two executive directors, with the independent directors forming the majority in line with Bursa requirements.

He also confirmed that the independent directors later approved the temporary resolution during a board meeting in May 2023.

The proceedings further examined production records and gold dore invoices, where Chong agreed that differences existed in document formats and signatures. He confirmed that some invoices were signed by him while others were signed by Chong Khing Chung, with several documents admitted as defence exhibits after verification of their serial sequence.

He also referred to the company’s financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2022, which recorded expenditures related to mining infrastructure and assets, and confirmed the documents were signed by Datuk Lo Fui Ming and Lo Teck Yong.

On land agreements, Chong maintained that the Letter of Consent (LOC) and the sublease agreement were interrelated and disagreed that the sublease superseded the LOC. He added that mining facilities evolved from temporary to permanent structures as operations progressed.

During re-examination by plaintiffs’ counsel Norbert Yapp, Chong explained that the term “back signed” referred to invoices that were reprinted and signed later for submission to authorities after original documents were unavailable following a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) seizure. He confirmed the documents were used for royalty assessment purposes.

The hearing will continue tomorrow at 9am.

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 question-and-answer proceedings were conducted by two defence counsels, Andy Tay and Henry Lim.

Plaintiffs are represented by Norbert Yapp & Associates with Azimi Yahya, while defendants are represented by Andy Tay & Associates, along with Lawrence Chai and Peter Soong & Partners.

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.

TAWAU: Perbicaraan sivil melibatkan AuMas Resources Berhad (dulu dikenali Bahvest Resources Berhad) bersama anak syarikat milik penuhnya, Wullersdorf Resources Sdn Bhd (WRSB), terhadap Datuk Lo Fui Ming, Lo Teck Yong, Chong Khing Chung dan Southsea Gold Sdn Bhd diteruskan di Mahkamah Tinggi Tawau hari ini.

Prosiding di hadapan Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Steve Ritikos itu memasuki hari keenam dengan pemeriksaan balas terhadap saksi pertama plaintif, bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif (CEO) AuMas, Chong Tzu Khen.

Plaintif diwakili firma guaman Norbert Yapp & Associates bersama Azimi Yahya, manakala pihak defendan diwakili Andy Tay & Associates bersama Lawrence Chai serta Peter Soong & Partners.

Dalam tindakan berkenaan, plaintif antara lain memohon deklarasi bahawa Datuk Lo Fui Ming dan Lo Teck Yong didakwa melanggar kewajipan fidusiari, statutori serta kewajipan berwaspada (duty of care).

Mereka turut memohon supaya Resolusi Sementara antara WRSB dan Southsea diisytiharkan terbatal dan tidak sah.

Selain itu, plaintif menuntut pemulangan wang berjumlah RM6 juta yang dibayar kepada Southsea pada 10 Mei 2023, ganti rugi am, ganti rugi melampau serta ganti rugi teladan serta faedah lima peratus setahun.

Sepanjang pemeriksaan balas, saksi mengakui beliau merupakan pengarah WRSB dan pernah berkhidmat sebagai pengarah ganti di Southsea, sekali gus mempunyai akses kepada rekod kewangan serta hak menghadiri dan mengundi dalam mesyuarat lembaga pengarah. Bagaimanapun, beliau mendakwa tidak dijemput menghadiri mesyuarat lembaga pengarah selepas 26 April 2023.

Mahkamah turut diberitahu bahawa saksi tidak merekodkan sebarang bantahan rasmi dalam minit mesyuarat, selain tidak membuat aduan kepada Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM), Bursa Malaysia atau pihak polis berhubung dakwaan salah urus atau pelantikan Chong Khing Chung sebagai pengarah.

Saksi juga bersetuju bahawa tiada laporan audit forensik atau penemuan kawal selia yang menyokong dakwaannya bahawa syarikat berkenaan dijalankan sebagai “pertunjukan solo” (one-man show), namun beliau tidak bersetuju bahawa dakwaan tersebut sekadar andaian peribadi.

Dalam prosiding sama, mahkamah dimaklumkan bahawa pengambilalihan WRSB oleh Bahvest pada 2015 telah dilaksanakan dengan kelulusan lembaga pengarah dan pemegang saham, selain melibatkan proses usaha wajar (due diligence) oleh penasihat profesional, bank pelaburan dan peguam cara luar.

Perbicaraan ditangguhkan pada jam 1 tengah hari dan akan disambung semula esok.

TAWAU: The civil trial involving AuMas Resources Berhad (Bahvest Resources Berhad) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Wullersdorf Resources Sdn Bhd (WRSB), against Datuk Lo Fui Ming, Lo Teck Yong, Chong Khing Chung and Southsea Gold Sdn Bhd continued before the High Court in Tawau today.

The proceedings, heard before Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos, entered its sixth day with the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ first witness, former AuMas Chief Executive Officer Chong Tzu Khen.

The plaintiffs are represented by Norbert Yapp & Associates together with Azimi Yahya, while the defendants are represented by Andy Tay & Associates alongside Lawrence Chai and Peter Soong & Partners.

Among the reliefs sought, the plaintiffs are seeking declarations that Datuk Lo Fui Ming and Lo Teck Yong breached their fiduciary, statutory and duty of care obligations, and that a Temporary Resolution between WRSB and Southsea is null and void. They are also seeking the return of RM6 million paid to Southsea on May 10, 2023, general, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest at five per cent per annum.

During cross-examination, Chong acknowledged that he was a director of WRSB and had served as an alternate director of Southsea, with access to financial records and entitlement to attend and vote at board meetings.

However, he maintained that he was not invited to attend board meetings after April 26, 2023.

He further agreed that he had not recorded any formal objection in board minutes, nor lodged complaints with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), Bursa Malaysia or the police regarding the alleged mismanagement or the appointment of Chong Khing Chung as director.

The witness also accepted that there was no forensic audit report or regulatory finding supporting his claim that the company was run as a “one-man show”, but disagreed that his allegations were merely personal assumptions.

The court was told that the 2015 acquisition of WRSB by Bahvest was carried out with board and shareholder approvals, and involved due diligence conducted by professional advisers, investment bankers and external solicitors.

Proceedings were adjourned at 1pm and will resume tomorrow.