Moral

You may say: But what that little superman did was certainly wrong !

Yes, you may be right - what he did was probably morally undesirable. (I would not use the word right or wrong, in order to remind myself I may not know what is absolutely right or wrong, or if there exists an objective standard for them. I shall leave this question of supreme importance some time later.)

But, it is plain simple that the verdict should not be based on whether the action is morally right or wrong, but whether there is any evidence for the thing being done against existing regulations. If there are defects in the regulation and someone takes the advantage, make the incident as a lesson and amend the regulation (rather than saying that someone is guilty). The principle is: If a certain thing is not prohibited by law, you can do it - and not, as we are so fond of freedom recently, that a certain thing could be done only if the law explicitly allows.

You think this is not important ? As Francis Bacon said: If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.

PS. I am not saying what that Mr. Li did was legally right; there is reasonable evidence to make it suspicious. The point for argument in the court, however, should focus on proving that those who voted for the buyout were people with concerted action (一致行動人士) to him.