slimdog

For anyone remotely interested...

Grand Jury Indictment CR 09 0081

USA vs Juthamas Siriwan & Jittisopa Siriwan

Indictment:

Count One

18 U.S.C 1956 (h): Conspiracy to Money Launder

Count Two to Eight

18 U.S.C 1956 (a)(2)(A): Transporting funds to promote unlawful activity

18 U.S.C 2: Aiding and Abetting and causing an act to be done

Count Nine

18 U.S.C 982 (a)(1), 21 U.S.C 853, 28 U.S.C 2461 ©: Criminal forfeiture

Whilst all of these offences are violations according to US laws, the indictment also pointed out the Thai laws (Criminal code: section 149 and criminal code: section 152) which were also violated by the accused...

There was an excellent article in the Nation yesterday about exactly why the military are playing things this way, the alleged aim is for them to allow the battling to continue whilst they ride in on their white steeds to take over, telling the Thai citizens that it is clear that democracy will not work here and the only way forward and for peace would be for the military to run the country. let me see if I can find a link to it, nope can not find it in the online version.

Tony

Are you sure you are not getting mixed up with the opinion piece by Voranai Vanijaka in the paper which may never be named....

Well yes, i'm sure they do disagree, but isn't a far more important reason for trying to prevent (or at least slow down) it reaching its intended destination is that it will be putting someone right slap bang in the middle of the most divisive and contentious issue this country has seen in a very long time - this was obviously not a concern for the petitioners, but for other Thais i rather think it is.

Do you think that these people had similar feelings in 2006 when the petition to invoke section 7 of the Constitution was presented? Should Thaksin have used all his powers to ensure that the petition was prevented or slowed down?

I am 100% certain, that like the 2006 petition, this current one will be turned down if it is ever presented, and probably for exactly the same reason.

I have no problem with that, and actually fully agree that the petition should be rejected, but like all petitions, it should be seen.....

Still, they are verifying the signatures at the very reasonable pace of 30,000 persons PER day. If they hadn't submitted so many signatures, it would have been completed by now. The submitter's mistake, not the reviewer's.

Actually, not one signiture has been verified yet...

The Department of Justice, decided that they would enter all the names, id numbers, addresses, phone numbers etc into a computer database. Only after this has been completed, which will take approx 3 further months, will the information be given to the Interior Ministry for verification.

All petitions, regardless of their subject will be controvesial, when it involves peoples political views, then more so. Some will totally support the petition, others not.

For me, the question isn't about whether the petition has merit (In this instance, I don't believe it does), but whether the Government of the day has the right to stop a petition from reaching the person to whom it was addressed, because they disagree with what the petitioners want ?

Given the Thai government has been in no rush to prosecute Juthamas for receiving the bribes despite the proof being put in their laps, it is highly doubtful they will declare to the US courts that they have suffered any damage. Without this, the Greens will get a slap on the wrist and Juthamas will walk away all the richer (crime does pay).

Dont forget the charges the Greens are facing not totally related with FCPA, but on the same indictment.

26 USC 7206 (1) (False subscription of a tax return)

18 USC 1519 (Obstruction of Justice)

Juthamas daughter is also mentioned by name in the Green Indictment (along with Kitti Chambundabongse) with concealing payments (1.8 million Dollars) on her own income tax return.

If there is no case to answer and he is guilty,apart from pleading guilty can a lawyer help him at all..

Simple answer... YES

There are many different charges your nephew can be facing:

Section 288

Whoever, murdering the other person, shall be imprisoned by death or imprisoned as from fifteen years to twenty years.

Normally this charge would be used if a dangerous weapon such as a knife or gun was used

Section 289

Whoever commits murder on:

(4) The other person by premeditation, shall be punished with death.

Normally this charge would be used if any form of weapon was purposely brought to the scene. There are a total of 6 other reasons to be charged under section 289, and other ways to determine premeditation but none would be applicable to you nephew.

Section 290

Whoever, causes death to the other person by inflicting injury upon the body of such person without intent to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.

Normally this would be used in the case such as a brawl where someone died and would be the most likely charge that your nephew would face. With such a large difference between the upper and lower punishments, a good lawyer could make a considerable difference. Obviously your nephew will be encouraged to plead guilty, as this will result in whatever sentence is imposed being reduced, sometimes by as much as 50% if he fully cooperates.

Hope of some help...

Actually, at this point, it is not known what the indictment covers. The original report in the US said that the Thai's have been indicted for taking bribes, but the fact is that, according to the FCPA blog, bribe-takers are not subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

In addition, the US government would have no interest in getting some of the money back since the funds originated from payments by TAT to the Greens and then the bribes paid back into the offshore accounts.

The Greens were also convicted of money laundering, but I would think that would be hard to prove against foreign nationals who were not involved in money laundering to begin with. At this point, it is hard to see what they possibly could be indicting the Thai's for based on US laws.

From what I understand, the main charge is Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371). The Greens were also charged with this.

18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense.

So the Thai couple are probably charged with conspiring with others to commit some of the Federal Crimes Patricia and Gerald Green were found guilty of:

15 USC 78dd (FCPA)

18 USC 1956 (Transportation Money Laundering)

18 USC 1957 (Transaction Money Laundering)

18 USC 2 (Aiding and Abetting causing acts to be done)

For the Greens there was also the charges of:

21 USC 853, 28 USC 2461 & 18 USC 981 (Criminal forfeitures)

The Money laundering Transportation charge for the Greens is defined as:

Transporting money from within the United States to outside the United States with the intent to carry out illegal activities.

Hope of some help..

Obviously if any of the transactions, or even agreements took place on American soil, they could be charged with a crime. However, over the last decade there has been more and more of scary precedents being set for US DOJ to be able to charge people for committing crimes abroad, but until now I have only seen that applicable to US citizens.

SB, I think there is more involved in this than just Americans bribing foreigners. For sure, as I have already mentioned, GE Invisions (actually the company they acquired) was found guilty in an American court of bribing a Thai sub-contractor, but the American courts had no interest in involving the Thai sub-contractor. Here, they indict. No doubt, there is more to it. Look at your above statement and then think about it. OK, it is only a guess, but you never know.

For Reference:

InVision were taken to court in Northern California, by the SEC (Civil Action No. C-05-0660 MEJ) for violation of the FCPA, however no verdict was reached, as GE Invision (The new owners) settled the case for approx 1.1 million without accepting or denying guilt. Two factors which makes this case different to the TAT case are:

• The violation was exposed by the owners themselves (GE Invision)
  
• In the case of the Thailand charge, there was no evidence that corruption had actually taken place, only that, had the sale continued through the agent, then there was a high probability that money or gifts would be paid through the commissions. (The contract was later changed so that the purchase had to be direct with GE InVision)
  

Civil Action: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp19078.pdf

SEC Statement: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19078.htm

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand BE 2550

Section 6

The Constitution is the supreme law of the State. The provisions of any law, rule or regulation, which are contrary to or inconsistent with this Constitution, shall be unenforceable.

Section 59

A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration without delay.

Section 191

The King has the prerogative to grant a pardon.

i want to take her over to the UK, will her Uk passport be enough or will i need something or rather (document) saying that her thai mother approves of this as she is still a minor....

Don't forget that if your daughter is returning to Thailand after the visit, then it would be a good idea to ensure she has a valid Thai Passport as well...

If you make an allegation; there will be some people who believe it, some people who don't, and many people who are simply unsure whether an allegation is true or false or has at least some basis to it.

In the past, only two options were used by people to fight these allegations:

• Publically deny the allegation
  
• Take legal action
  

Neither of these have proved particularly sucessful.

Even in extrememly serious cases like the Finland Declaration, where the denials were coming from many people and where the criminal court last year passed a guilty verdict against The Manager group, the fact remains that few people actually heard the verdict, and even those that did, many may not have changed their opinions. The damage was done.

If public denials or legal action are found to be unsucessful, there really are few options open to high profile people to successfully fight against rumours, allegations or published works. I guess that means that un-conventional methods need to be used.

I wonder how many people today are searching the internet, scouring over court records, and making calls to the anyone in the U.K to prove that the British Government really did seize 4 billion dollars from Thaksin, in the hope that they will be able to pick up the 1 million baht reward.

This may prove a far more effective way..

Whilst I agree with what you are saying Jingthing. Perhaps a G2G deal with a neighbouring country like Venezula, Cuba or even Jamaica would work better. The promise of a certain quantity of rice to be despatched soon, in return for a similar amount (value wise) in essential foods and medicine to be sent immediately to Haiti

Some would argue that the 'fortune' he declared when he entered parliament was gained by dubious means - by gaining a monopoly telecom licence (from the leader of a previous coup, and whilst the same coup leaders were controlling Thailand) when nobody even knew such a licence was available and there was no bidding announcement or process.

AIS got the telecom licence from TOT on March 27th 1990 almost a year prior to the Coup d'etat of 1991.

The concession became vacant after the previous holder (Siam Cement) forfeited on the concession.

On a different point, does anybody know whether the judgment to be handed down on 26 Feb is:

- A decision whether to hold or return his 'fortune' or perhaps some split,

or

- Will there also, if he's found guilty, be a punishment as well as confiscation?

This is a civil case, there are no penalties other than assets devolving to the state. The criminal cases, EXIM, TOT & Shinsat have been filed separately. Bearing that in mind, the court will have no interest whether an action taken by Thaksin was legal or illegal, only whether the assets of him, his former wife or minor children increased in value as a direct consequence of these actions. This could be in the form of either an increase in share value, or higher dividends.

For this reason the essence of the case is to prove that Thaksin, his former wife or minor children had a stake in Shin corporation during the time he was in office*.

* Do not confuse this with the asset declaration case, as that concerned concealing assets in 1997

I voted the court will rule that Thaksin must lose all or most of the assets - probably most.

In public statements Thaksin's lawyer presently is begging the court for Bt 40 billion of the total 76bn, claiming that's the legitimate amount Thaksin had before becoming PM. So it's clear Thaksin himself expects to take a big hit from the impending court ruling, probably even a huge hit.

And considering the prosecution also has tied money Thaksin made up to the 40bn to shady deals that date back to the 1990s, Thaksin's claims based on the supposed legitimacy of the 40bn before he became PM are dubious.

If the court accepts the prosecution's case, or most of it, the answer might be found in considering the question of what Thaksin might have been essentially worth circa 1995. 

The court can only rule on the case which is presented to it.

That is, that according to the NCCC Act, he used his position as Prime Minister to become unusually wealthy. What Thaksin may or may not have done prior to this would be for a different court, and for a different charge.

Section 4 of the counter corruption act states:

"unusual wealthiness" means having an unusually large quantity of assets, having an unusual increase of assets, having an unusual decrease of liabilities or having illegitimate acquisition of assets in a consequence of the performance of duties or the exercise of power in office or in the course of duty.

It is now up to the court to decide whether his assets or those of his wife or minor children increased as a direct consequence of actions he carried out whilst in office.

Because some of the assets were in a form were it was possible to move, hide, transfer or transform, the assets were placed under temporary seizure, as allowed under both the NCCC Act (section 78) and an announcement of the Military Junta. This does not mean that if the amount of unusual increase in assets is judged to be greater than those frozen, that additional assets cannot be seized up to the value of the judgement (section 83).

Like you, I am curious, but so far this story of the USD 4 billion in England is a year old and nothing has surfaced about it and if true would be a political bombshell, not to mention the field day the taxing authorities would have with it.

If true, Thaksin's attorneys would be all over the British government on this given the alleged amount is even higher than what he stands to lose in Thailand. If made up, Thaksin's attorneys would show no interest in it, as they haven't, as he hasn't suffered any damages from this story (nobody believes it).

The Original story by Anil Bhoyrul was published in Arabianbuisness.com. on 30th November 2008.

source: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539714-catch-me-if-you-can

This was used by Thanong in an article a month later.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/19...on_30091373.php

When Anil was contacted by Bangkok Pundit soon after, he admitted that he got it confused

source: http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...ins-assets.html

But for now, it's good to hear they are at least thinking about the education of the less fortunate.

Without taking anything away from Jurin, who I believe is an extremely good Minister of Education, he (or his Successor) are Constitutionally bound to implement this program.

Section 49.

A person shall enjoy an equal right to receive education for the duration of not less than twelve years which shall be provided by the State thoroughly, up to the quality, and without charge.

The indigent, the disabled, persons of infirmity or persons suffering a state of difficulty shall be accorded the right under paragraph one and entitled to such support from the State as to enable them to receive education comparable to that received by other persons.

The provision of education by professional organisations or the private sector, alternative education by the people, selftuition and life-long learning shall be protected and promoted by the State as appropriate.

Phongpaichit and Baker's analysis ends at 2004,

we now have 5+ more years of data, and analysis of

greater amounts of older data, to work with.

Just for reference..

Chris and his wife do political analysis of the current political situation frequently, and can be found every couple of weeks in The Nation under the by-line "Chang Noi". Always worth a read..

Thaksin & his family have been taken to court for violations of the Organic Act on Counter corruption, and in particular Chapter 7, "The request for property to devolve to the state"

The basis of this case is that the Asset Examination Committee, with the full power of the NCCC, decided that Thaksin and his family became "Unusually Wealthy" this is defined in section 4 of the organic Act as:

"unusual wealthiness" means having an unusually large quantity of assets, having an unusual increase of assets, having an unusual decrease of liabilities or having illegitimate acquisition of assets in a consequence of the performance of duties or the exercise of power in office or in the course of duty.

Having decided that there was a case against Thaksin and members of his family, assets from the sale of Shin Corp were frozen. This was to cover the losses to the state (which were classified as gains to the Shinawatra family). Should the court decide that the any of the gains to the Shinawatra family were acquired legally then that money will be returned.

Should the court decide that the money frozen by the AEC was acquired illegally then that money (After any rewards) will be handed over to the state to go into the central fund.

Should the court decide that the amount obtained illegally was greater than the amount which has been frozen, then additional assets may be taken, up to the amount ordered by the court.

In this particular case, the prosection has outlined a series of actions taken by Thaksin during his time in office which they feel has caused him and his family to be "unusually wealthy". These are mostly concerning using his position to change telecom & Satelite concession payments, tax liabilities and concession terms.

According to the law; the defendants in the case have already been given an opportunety to clarify whether the assets frozen were acquired through legal means, and have failed to convince the AEC of this fact. Therefore in the court case, the burden of proof lies with the defendants to prove that the AEC made a mistake, and that the assets were legally acquired.

I think that means that Leo can distribute the nud_e calenders, and the government have no power to stop them. That's how I understand it.

What the ruling states is that up to now the Government hasn't actually stopped Leo from distributing the calandars, they have merely issued a warning that it might be illegal to distribute the calandars.

Until the Government actually takes action to either ban the calandar or takes the company to court over the calandars, then there is no case to answer.

It is now up to the brewery whether they distribute the calandars or not.

After two years since the last election it is probably a good idea to have a re-cap of what the actual situation is at present:

Members of Parliament

The Constitution states that there will be 480 members of Parliament. Consisting of 400 constituency MP's and 80 Party list MP's. Whenever a Constituency MP leaves office, either through legal means, death or resignation then a bi-election is held to fill the vacancy. When a Party List MP leaves office, then the next candidate on the list automatically takes the position.

With three political Parties being dissolved (People Power, Chart Thai and Matchima), it has resulted in the number of MP's dropping down to 469 with just 69 Party list MP's. Peau Thai, Chart Thai Pattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Social Action and Ratsadorn Parties didn't contest in the 2007 General election and therefore have no Party list members of their own to use in case of a vacancy.

There are two bi-elections scheduled for this month. Both of these elections are being contested by Bhum Jai Thai and Peau Thai. They are in Prachin Buri (Formerly Democrat MP) and Maha Sarakham (Formerly Peau Thai MP).

At the moment the breakdown of Political Parties is:

Democrat.......171 (19)

Peau Thai.......185

Chart Thai.......24 (3)

Bhum Jai Thai..31 (7)

Peau Pandin.....31 (4)

Ratsadorn.........3

Pracharaj..........8

Social Action.....5 (1)

Ruam Jai Thai....9 (2)

Total 467 MP's (with 2 still to be contested)

The figures in brackets are the number of cabinet seats which have been assigned to each Party in the coalition Government.

Source: http://www.parliament.go.th/main01.php

So how much am I now going to have to pay for my Beer Lao in the 7, when it finally arrives?

If my maths is correct....A can of beer (0.330 ml) with 5% alcohol will cost an extra 6 baht

For Thailand as a whole this works out at additional revenue of 18 billion baht per year for local beer alone*.

*Based on a 2008 report quoting 1999 figures which states that Thailand manufactures approx 1 billion litres of beer per year

Beer Chang = 607.5 million litres

Singha/Leo = 364.9 million litres

Heineken = 45 million litres

Carlsberg = 17.4 million litres

Tiger/Kloster = 13.1 million litres

source: http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v43/v43-90.pdf

1 billion litres of beer @ 5% = 50,000,000 litres of alcohol x additional 360 baht = 18 billion baht (+/- depending on difference between imports/exports)

Thaksin is a high stakes kind of guy, all or nothing gambler, he could have got his money back by now if he agreed to disappear but he's deluded by popularity and firmly believes that one way or another he will win and regain it all, perhaps greed sullies our senses

You are of course totally ignoring Section 30 of the NCCC act.

This amount is massive (nearly 27 billion baht). Do you think that people are going to simply walk away from a chance of pocketing this amount of money....

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

The source of the second line of thought is a former defense councilor for Thaksin.

It is irrellevent as to whether or not AOT handed over the airport or the airport was seized.

AOT filed for an injuction the following morning demanding that the PAD leadership immediately leave the airport. After giving the two sides all day to enter into negotiations, the injunction was formally granted at 5.00 pm. From that moment, all actions by the PAD leadership were illegal and in contempt of court.

All Thai Airways needs to prove is that during this period additional costs arose as a direct consequence of the failure for the PAD leadership to abide by the injunction.

Some TV members could be impolite with the Cambodian monarch (LawnGnome is not so kind) and if you accept such insulting remarks against Cambodian monarch it would be outrageous.

It would also be illegal. Lese Majeste extends to all Monarchs.

Criminal Code section 133

Whoever, defaming, insulting or threatening the Sovereign, Queen, Consort, Heir-apparent

or Head of Foreign State, shall be imprisoned as from one year to seven years or fined as

from two thousand to fourteen thousand Baht, or both

Whilst the particular crime is not mentioned it is probably section 391 of the Criminal code:

Whoever, commits an act of violence not amounting to bodily or mental harm to the other

person, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one month or fined not

exceeding one thousand Baht, or both.

Other cases of assault where there are circumstances of bodily harm or grievous bodily harm are punishable with far more severe punishments.

As for the case you highlighted regarding contesting an election. Under the 2007 Constitution, only Cabinet Ministers are now required to hold a bachelor degree (or higher) qualification. An ordinary member of parliament is exempt from this requirement.