Others Stock

[PRTASCO] Tey Por Yee, Ooi Kock Aun charged with fake evidence?

” I truly believe that everything that we do and everyone that we meet is put in our path for a purpose. There are no accidents; we’re all teachers – if we’re willing to pay attention to the lessons we learn, trust our positive instincts and not be afraid to take risks or wait for some miracle to come knocking at our door. ” – Marla Gibbs

July 18, 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – The startup venture world was surprised a prolonged conspiracy of an investee manufactured a fake report to put blame and made an excuse to sue his own investors could be further manufactured with a legal charge, based on the false lawsuit fake evidence. That part of the world is called Malaysia, a country with 30 million population and not less of controversial events.

On July 12, 2016, Tuesday, Malaysia news came up with a factory-produced cookie-cutter story “Ex-Protasco Bhd directors face another charge”. This time the allegation is jaw dropping – the investors cum victims (Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee of Protasco Bhd) of the investee (Chong Ket Pen of Protasco Bhd), were charged on virtually made up and non existence allegations. Senior journalist in the know did a company search to find the truth if the allegation of their directorship were true, were shocked they could’t find any proof of such record or wrong doing. Worst off, they found out the potential serious breach of duty by relevant government officers who recommended and carried the charges. Here is the news inserts with commentary that shocked the world.

[part 2]

” KUALA LUMPUR: Two former Protasco Bhd directors were charged yesterday with failing to disclose during a Board of Directors meeting on an oil and gas investment proposal that they had a direct interest in the matter. (Journalist found out that the allegation is based on the victims’ investee, Chong Ket Pen. Chong Ket Pen’s coward cover up to escape himself from his duty by hiding the facts that he signed an agreement on 3rd November 2012 without informing his company board of directors, triggered his motive to manufacture a blame. That is real failure to disclose his interest during “his” board of directors meeting. Journalist surprised how come two invisible victims could be charged instead? Shouldn’t it be the other way round? Further more, this strange excuse of a failed execution by Chong Ket Pen in due diligence or failed to put an effort asking the right questions, were push as a blame to Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee whom Chong asked to purchase the company Protasco Bhd and refers the oil deal, and trusted Chong to carried out entire exercise? Most outrageous is the ridiculous excuse of linking an ownership or relationship of the asset as basis of a lawsuit, where as the subject matter is the asset validity itself – Chong’s own due diligence unless he lied to himself, past the test. Who owns it is totally nothing to do with due diligence on the oil asset. Unless Chong Ket Pen failed the due diligence, which is again, himself to be blamed. He needs a scapegoat, conveniently his saviours are his victims, to cover up his true problem. Chong broke the law and breached his duties.)
[part 3]

In this regard, businessmen Datuk Tey Por Yee, 40, and Datuk Ooi Kock Aun, 49, are alleged to have unwittingly led the board members to approve acquisition of shares worth US$22 million (RM87.5 million) in PT Anglo Slavic Utama, a corporation in Indonesia, which they have ties with. (The authority personnel would be either blind sighted, or incompetance in pursuing justice by giving a public listed company board of directors such power abuse, changed, manufactured and lied on board minutes. According to journalist source knowing the matters, Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee “never existed” nor “met the board”, how would Protasco Bhd board be shadowy “led” to approve an acquisition? The only person recklessly and urgently needs to led the board of Protasco Bhd for approval, is the “one and only executive director” of Protasco Bhd during material time – Chong Ket Pen himself. This is the jaw dropping part – the obvious potential wrong doer is Chong Ket Pen, if the board of director all pretended to be “stupid”, shouldn’t there be board minutes to verify by Police Officers or Deputy Public Procecutor, or most obvious, Bursa Malaysia or Securities Commission, levels and levels of verification to justify even a charge? In that misery country, company may hire liars (or lawyers) to teach them how to lie. Maybe that explains.)

[part 4]

They are accused of committing the offence at Protasco Bhd, 2nd floor, Corporate Building Unipark Suria in Jalan Ikram-Uniten, Kajang here between November 2012 and Dec 28, 2012. (Anyone knowing the facts will fall off the chair with such statement in a legal charge, alleged the innocent victims Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee of committing an offence at a specific place which parties in the know from Bursa Malaysia inteligence have no such record, unless again, manufactured by Chong Ket Pen and lied together with Protasco Bhd board of directors, acting in concert to “lie on such event”. Once a lie starts and evidence manufactured, it’s lying all the way, makes no difference fabricate more. Again, such facts were not verified which will proof no basis, and some how a legal charge took place as if the government officers are controlled by Protasco Bhd officers.)
The charge under Section 131(1) of the Companies Act 1965 punishable under Section 131(8) of the same Act, carries a maximum seven years imprisonment or RM150,000 fine or both, on conviction. (Here comes the main objective of fabricating a legal charge in order to discredit the victims Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee, so as to defame and cause damages to their business, in hope truth of unfaithful investee Chong Ket Pen be over shadowed by negative impression hand-made by Chong Ket Pen himself. Curiously wasn’t Chong Ket Pen is supposed to be charged? Moreover, the entire board is acting in concert hand-made a story and led by Chong Ket Pen to take control of Protasco Bhd from the substantial shareholders Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee.)

Ampang Sessions Court judge Azrul Darus set RM15,000 as bail with one surety for each of the accused, and Aug 26 for re-mention.
Prosecuting officer Mohd Zulkhairi Kamaruzaman from the Companies Commission of Malaysia conducted the prosecution while counsel Datuk Sukri Mohamed represented the two accused. — Bernama (Senior journalist had tried to find Mohd Zulkhairi Kamaruzaman, has the facts and board minutes, as well as black and white dates and records in Companies Commission Malaysia (SSM or CCM) being “verified”, before such charge be secretly manufactured. The process of legal system could be blind sighted, fabricated and controlled following a puppet master or maybe “pay master” will, even with obvious facts showing other wise, a charge could be manufactured. “Black and white record in SSM could be “skipped” and pretend didn’t existed and slip through a charge. Thumbs up for Mystery land story.” commented a civil servant.)

The peculiar jaw dropping, and mind blowing lies, as well as lost of humanity and dignity of Chong Ket Pen and the Protasco Bhd board of directors acting in concert to cover up Chong Ket Pen wrong doing by scarifying Chong’s own investors, signals the death of credibility in that part of the world.
Study the Bursa Malaysia announce would found clear evidence and motive of the suspect master mind Chong Ket Pen causing series of unfortunate events surrounding his victims Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee. The saga started on June 2012 when Chong Ket Pen was removed from his power by Protasco Bhd former owner, replacing him with new directors such as See Ah Sing, Ibrahim Mohd Nor and few more directors. On November 2012, new shareholders Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee emerges, and the former owner left Protasco Bhd together with the newly appointed directors. See Ah Sing the most obvious, only sat as executive director for less than 5 months. Chong Ket Pen was retained and repositioned to Protasco Bhd executive director post. The one and only executive director, according to Bursa Malaysia public announcement. It would be peculiar not to study this background, before any public servant in the authorities to find the motive of the prime suspect of such conspiracy, in this case Protasco Bhd’s board of directors, led by Chong Ket Pen to buy himself back into power after being demoted, and led by Chong Ket Pen to enter an oil deal, and further led by Chong Ket Pen to conduct due diligence and later also led by Chong Ket Pen to manufactured evidence and find excuse to fully control Protasco Bhd after he used the investors Ooi Kock Aun and Tey Por Yee to ousted his former boss. If such incident were to occur in the West, Chong Ket Pen together with the board of directors from Protasco Bhd would have been prosecuted before even a charge could be fabricated.

Newspaper in that country is also as good as blind cookie-cutters. Whatever produced, just report as per pay masters. Don’t fall off the chair if you read another such conspiracy happens in the land of mystery.

Jessica, Chicago. August 2016.
The one and only executive director, according to Bursa Malaysia public announcement.
Victims got charged, criminal walks. Wonderful country legal system ran by cow boy.
The only executive director was Chong Ket Pen of Protasco. Anything goes wrong, wasn't he is the only person should be charged? How much money he spent to fake a charge and put blame on others?
The one and only executive director, according to Bursa Malaysia public announcement. It would be peculiar not to study this background, before any public servant in the authorities to find the motive of the prime suspect of such conspiracy, in this case Protasco Bhd’s board of directors, led by Chong Ket Pen to buy himself back into power after being demoted, and led by Chong Ket Pen to enter an oil deal
How much money he spent to fake a charge and put blame on others?
Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Stock charts are updated at the end of the trading day. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Tradesignum is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Tradesignum website, you agree not to redistribute the information found herein.