Fair enough. You think it's "suss", you are suggesting the...

Fair enough. You think it's "suss", you are suggesting the significant possibility that a crime has been committed. That's indisputable Utopian. But, you don't think there's anything in it, else you would have sold, wouldn't you. Who would hold shares in a company they believe is being run by an ongoing criminal family? Certainly not you, certainly not me.

"If he sold one month or so......but just days....." then you have no problem at 30 days but have a problem with (say) 5 days? Utopian, he sold on (from memory) 13 September and the announcement dropped on 3 October. That's 21 days. So at 30 days you have no problem, but at 21 days it's a crime?

You still haven't addressed why you would think there's any problem with a director selling just 3% of his holding 21 days out? It's not as though he's getting out while the going's good, is it, Utopian? Or do you think it does? If you think it does, where in your pattern of logic are you accounting for the fact that this 80-year-old man hung onto 97% of his holding despite knowing that it was going to halve in value? Doesn't really sound like the actions of a malicious "suss" director, does it?