Running to the rescue of the big end of town yet again, my trans pacific friend.
1. I don't have to know who is doing the trading. Presumably BOA/ML knows who was doing the trading and they can join those people and can then can say it was all a ghastly accident in third party proceedings. If they fail they pay the costs of the joinder. The information is readily available in any event.
2. You can't tell what the price action is because you cannot see the context unless you have done a spreadsheet of your own, looked at the chart and the volumes as I have done.
3. The news flow... Actually I have. What drew my attention to it was that I noticed that BOA/ML already owned shares prior to the big announcement on the 23-9-21
https://themarketonline.com.au/kingsgate-consolidated-asxkcn-shares-soar-as-chatree-restart-approaches-2021-09-23/. There appeared to be some insider trading before hand. The HC threads on 15 and 16 September suggest as much.
| 9/22/2021 | SELL | -636 | -771 | -771 | 2547 | 2547 | ACCUM | 127,538 |
|---|
| 1 | 9/22/2021 | BUY | 2721 | 3318 | 3318 | | | | |
|---|
4.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1041C
False trading and market rigging--artificially maintaining etc. trading price(1)Apersonmust not (whetherin this jurisdiction or elsewhere)enter into, or engage in, a fictitious or artificial transactionor device if thattransactionor deviceresultsin:
(a)the price for trading infinancial productson a financialmarketoperated in this jurisdictionbeing maintained, inflated or depressed; or
(b)fluctuations in the price for trading infinancial productson a financialmarketoperated in this jurisdiction.
Note that there is no intent required for this offence that incurs a civil as well as a criminal penalty.
Please note the test here is proof on the balance of probalities, that's all that need be proven. Note also "
differing investment goals and objectives". do not feature in the proof of the above.
You can plead a defence of (inter alia honesty), but I have the suspicion the BOA/ML would have taken advantage of the dump. Good luck with that.
I point out that these transactions are undisputed. I am not infallible, but I don't have to be. These are inferences I draw on the balance of probabilities from the conduct everyone agrees happened.
As Rumpole of the Bailey opined, "Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied,"
And nothing is more official than a denial from Rattlehead.
Then there is the tort of deceit. You can look that one up
Fundamentally people have lost money as a result of this chicanery and they have remedies.
(20min delay)