Share
6,681 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1545
clock Created with Sketch. 24/11/20
12:02
Share
Originally posted by ChillingOut:
↑
This is not a criminal case so the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't arise. If it was a criminal trial, a 'no bill' submission would have been made by now and any charge(s) would've been dropped due to failure to serve a prosecution brief of evidence in a timely manner. It wouldn't have even got that far because there's insufficient evidence to underpin a charge being laid and if there was, it should have been done and dusted by now. The best ASX have had are spurious non-disclosure allegations and even the initial suspension remains shrouded in mystery.What was it that ISX has done that made you all believed in its innocence ?", but rather, what reasonable and cogent evidence can ASX bring to the table to justify the initial and the ongoing suspension, and why has this not been done? It's not for ISX to prove innocence here.
Expand
Okay, let me explain and then rephrase my question. A lot of holders have been expressing their beliefs that ISX has done nothing wrong and thus the suspension has been unjustified. The ASX has published the statement of reasons and it outlines all of the reasons for the suspension as well as evidence of wrongdoings by ISX. The same holders, however, keep refusing to read the document because they dismissed it as full of lies. So the question is: why do they believe in ISX more than they do the ASX, ASIC, and the media? What is it that ISX has done that serves as the basis of that faith?
