Thaksins Son Grilled For Two Hours

[Jet Gorgon]

The pics of Panthongtae show him to be almost unrecognisable from the days when Daddy was PM, and he sported a mohican haircut. "I just signed the documents" blah.....how old is he?

Old enough to know better. Bet he sures knows how to spend millions.

Hair? That's a wig.

[John K]

Same old style to delay. They requested a delay for how many weeks just to say I only signed papers. I think the quick solution is put them all in jail and watch the finger pointing begin. By the time a week goes past the picture should be very clear.

[johnnyk]

The pics of Panthongtae show him to be almost unrecognisable from the days when Daddy was PM, and he sported a mohican haircut. "I just signed the documents" blah.....how old is he?

Old enough to know better. Bet he sures knows how to spend millions.

Hair? That's a wig.

Obviously he had the image makeover artistes in.

1) No more spiky, hair-gelled, poser-punk look

2) Put on the yellow polo shirt (subtle move, that one)

3) No jean jacket

4) Ditch the pimpy mirrored shades in favour of scholarly lenses

Let them see what a fine upstanding specimen of young Thai manhood you are, pillar of the community, future of the nation etc

[kmart]

What was the point of bringing his younger sister with him? She was not scheduled to testify, and he was supposed to testify alone. Did she endure the media crush just to sit outside the interrogation room door for two hours?

She can cook some burgers?

I don't why everyone seems to have it in for the siblings? They are largely innocents whatever you might think of their Dad / Mum. What's next; Spanish Inquisition for the maids too?

[pampal]

Taksin used his children to hide his profits.

His children are accessories to his money laundering.

They are as guilty as he is, if not more.

They should be made to pay.

[sbk]

What was the point of bringing his younger sister with him? She was not scheduled to testify, and he was supposed to testify alone. Did she endure the media crush just to sit outside the interrogation room door for two hours?

She can cook some burgers?

I don't why everyone seems to have it in for the siblings? They are largely innocents whatever you might think of their Dad / Mum. What's next; Spanish Inquisition for the maids too?

And the driver. After all, when Thaksin became PM he avoided the conflict of interest law by placing shares in the names of his wife, kids, housekeeper and driver. The joke at the time was that he had the richest driver in the world.

[Prakanong]

Maybe I am being a naive fool but ;-))))

I see nothing wrong

Thailand has no capital gains tax unlike say Britain

Shin Corp was Taksins

He sold it - so what

Many on here say they own a business which one day they will possible sell to gain a profit for their work

Are they volunteering to pay tax which is not due on capital gains?

(Edited to rectify spelling mistake)

Edited January 11, 2007 by Prakanong

[John K]

Maybe I am being a naive fool but ;-))))

I see nothing wrong

Thailand has no capital gains tax unlike say Britain

Shin Corp was Taksins

He sold it - so what

Many on here say they own a business which one day they will possible sell to gain a profit for their work

Are they volunteering to pay tac which is not due on capital gains?

I think you are missing a big point here. Thaksin would tailor laws for his own personal needs and not for the whole of Thailand.

[Prakanong]

I agree Taksin may have done that but so have all politico's in Thailand - he is no different.

Did Thaksin introduce the "No Capital Gain Tax" law?

I think not and many have benefited from this in Thailand from the top down.

[chuchok]

I agree Taksin may have done that but so have all politico's in Thailand - he is no different.

Did Thaksin introduce the "No Capital Gain Tax" law?

I think not and many have benefited from this in Thailand from the top down.

I have to agree.Many business people in his situation do the same...all the time.He is using the law.If it was illegal, they would have nailed him already.

The point is the amount of money.If it was only THB20,000, I wonder how many people here would be upset.

I wonder how many other very wealthy Thai people have used the law in this way?

[Mid]

2 lefts don't make a right .......................

[Plus]

The kids will have mummy's secretary pay taxes from multiple misterious accounts for daddy's transactions. No big deal.

Three hours telling people that they had no clue from the start is of course more gruelling than signing papers, but they'll survive.

In fact they screwed up signing papers, too - initially there was a glitch with producing paperwork, remember?

In a country where families are the most important social and business units, these kids are a total failure. Thaksin has build the biggest company in Thailand, and his kids might just as well be mentally retarded. He wouldn't have sold it if he could pass it to his children.

All he produced is a bunch of good for nothings mediocrities. There will be no next generation Shinawatra clan.

[Plus]

If it was illegal, they would have nailed him already.

Already when? When he was the PM, his personal banker was the Finance Minister and the same time the boss or Revenue Department chief, and also the chairmen of SEC (that investigated the deal)?

At the moment they are trying to collect taxes on profit made when they bought 300 million shares at 1 baht off the market and sold them at 47 baht a day later.

[Prakanong]

If it was illegal, they would have nailed him already.

Already when? When he was the PM, his personal banker was the Finance Minister and the same time the boss or Revenue Department chief, and also the chairmen of SEC (that investigated the deal)?

At the moment they are trying to collect taxes on profit made when they bought 300 million shares at 1 baht off the market and sold them at 47 baht a day later.

Nailed him now - its months since September and no criminal charges as yet.

Are taxes due if there is no capital gains tax though?

[Plus]

Believe it or not, but it's the first time AEC got to hear "defence" witnesses. You want swift justice - shoot him in the head.

[chuchok]

If it was illegal, they would have nailed him already.

Already when? When he was the PM, his personal banker was the Finance Minister and the same time the boss or Revenue Department chief, and also the chairmen of SEC (that investigated the deal)?

At the moment they are trying to collect taxes on profit made when they bought 300 million shares at 1 baht off the market and sold them at 47 baht a day later.

Was this illegal?

[Plus]

Apparently yes, as capital gains tax exemption applies only to stocks traded on the SET. They didn't buy these shares on the marked, they'll be taxed one way or another, sooner or later.

I understand that the latest line of defence is "no transaction had actually taken place", meaning the kids didn't buy or pay for the shares from Ample Rich at all. In that case the investigators would have to look at who owned the shares and how they got in kids posession, which will take forever with an off-shore company that doesn't do any bookkeeping.

There was an interesting argument by Thailland Lawyers Assossiation President - shares that have never been trade on the stock market should become taxable as soon as they are registered with brokers.

It's in the lawyers hands now, too technical for media to report and for general public to understand.

[thedude]

wasn't ample rich a registered bvi company? i understand bvi companies operate under a 'corporate veil', which means that the identity of its shareholders are protected, or at least cannot be verified.

even so, assuming that some proof emerges on its shareholders, if a foreign company sold some shares or assets, are its shareholders liable to pay tax in their home countries?

can the thai government reach into the books of the offshore company to ascertain if any taxable profit was made? i doubt so in the case of a bvi company.

is the foreign company then obliged to follow the tax laws of thailand?

if a foreign company has its own legal entity, is it liable for any claims made againsts its shareholders?

Edited January 11, 2007 by thedude

[ilyushin]

Taksin used his children to hide his profits.

His children are accessories to his money laundering.

They are as guilty as he is, if not more.

They should be made to pay.

Agree with you pampal.

[Plus]

wasn't ample rich a registered bvi company? i understand bvi companies operate under a 'corporate veil', which means that the identity of its shareholders are protected, or at least cannot be verified.

even so, assuming that some proof emerges on its shareholders, if a foreign company sold some shares or assets, are its shareholders liable to pay tax in their home countries?

can the thai government reach into the books of the offshore company to ascertain if any taxable profit was made? i doubt so in the case of a bvi company.

is the foreign company then obliged to follow the tax laws of thailand?

if a foreign company has its own legal entity, is it liable for any claims made againsts its shareholders?

Yes, that's true, but they are not taxing Ample Rich, they are taxing Thai individuals filing taxes in Thailand. If they bought the shares off Ample Rich and sold them, they are taxable, if they DIDN'T buy those shares, it becomes only more confusing but not less taxable, ultimately.

They would have to prove that they owned the shares all alone, otherwise they will taxed on the price difference between market and par value. They can't just receive something worth billions of dollars and not pay tax on it.

[Aujuba]

No sympathy. The guy deserves it all and the rest of his fmaily do too. The worst thing about the experience is that it will probably make the him stronger.

As for him being American, he should pay tax if it is due. Where's the IRS when you need them?

Has Thaksin visited the US since he was ousted? With his diplomatic passport he was free from US law, right? Now he may be subject to it should he enter the US. Did his family have diplomatic passports too?

Edited January 11, 2007 by Aujuba

[PhilHarries]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm only a dumb half assed engineer, but if you sign a document you are essentially approving the contents of said document and are you not thus legally bound to any details contained therein?

If I sign a contract and later find that there is a glaring ommission I cannot change the contract without agreeing to a contract change with the other party and paying the commercial penalty.

The fact that the guy signed documents without intimate knowledge of the contents surely does not relieve him of ultimate responsibility even if it does point to gross stupidity of a truly biblical scale?

Or should I keep out of business ethics and stick to the day job?

[Plus]

It was a fact finding interview, he simply told them that he doesn't know anything, which is what his handlers coached him to say.

At least he didn't say anything incriminating as he is not smart enough to lie, that is his lawyer's job.

[Old Man River]

wasn't ample rich a registered bvi company? i understand bvi companies operate under a 'corporate veil', which means that the identity of its shareholders are protected, or at least cannot be verified.

even so, assuming that some proof emerges on its shareholders, if a foreign company sold some shares or assets, are its shareholders liable to pay tax in their home countries?

can the thai government reach into the books of the offshore company to ascertain if any taxable profit was made? i doubt so in the case of a bvi company.

is the foreign company then obliged to follow the tax laws of thailand?

if a foreign company has its own legal entity, is it liable for any claims made againsts its shareholders?

Yes, that's true, but they are not taxing Ample Rich, they are taxing Thai individuals filing taxes in Thailand. If they bought the shares off Ample Rich and sold them, they are taxable, if they DIDN'T buy those shares, it becomes only more confusing but not less taxable, ultimately.

They would have to prove that they owned the shares all alone, otherwise they will taxed on the price difference between market and par value. They can't just receive something worth billions of dollars and not pay tax on it.

The transactions are broken up as follows: First, there was a separate sale (outside of the SET) by Ample Rich to the kids at a verly low (below market) price. Then there was a sale by the kids of these shares within the SET to Temasek at the market price. The Revenue Dept. originally opined that since no monetary gain was realized by the kids on the Ample Rich transaction (i.e. the shares had not yet been sold at market value), that no taxes (capital gains or income taxes) was due. The Revenue Dept has since opined that despite no monetary gains being realized, wealth was gained and therefore income taxes should have been paid on this increase in wealth (note, this follows US tax laws, but not necessarily Thai tax laws - to be determined in court). Once the shares were sold to Temasek, the financial gain was realized, but since these shares were sold within the laws of the SET, no taxes on this transaction are due as there are no capital gains taxes for trades within the SET.

I find it interesting that this tax structure was devised by the guru of tax structuring in Thailand, that being Dr. Suvarn, who as architect has been explaining it to the courts. For those of us that are familiar with Dr. Suvarn's work, he uses the letter of the tax laws and devises structures which may or may not be in accordance with the spirit of the law, depending on your politics at that time. Despite his involvement, his reputation in all this has only increased, while the Thaksin children's reputation in following his advice has decreased. Interesting.

The Dude, for general info only, typically the offshore companies are beneficially owned by onshore shareholders. That is, the offshore companies would have a separate board of directors, separate shareholders and therefore separate management teams. There would be nowhere on paper that could tie the offshore companies' ownership and management to the true onshore owners and management. The onshore management issues instructions to the offshore company, pursuant to separate documents that are not a matter of record that indemnifies (holds harmless) the offshore ownership and management. Therefore, there is more than just the normal corporate veil on these companies. Public record never shows that the onshore owners have anything to do with the offshore company, whose attorneys draw up all necessary documents for the offshore board of directors to approve, all done at the request of the onshore owners. For some countries, based on their corporate and/or individual tax laws, this is all legal. However, for other countries (the US being one), this is a scam and is not legal.

[Jai Dee]

Over Shin Corp 50 queries prepared for Mrs Kanchanapa

The Asset Examination Committee (AEC) has prepared over 50 questions to ask Mrs Kanchanapa Honghern (กาญจนาภา หงษ์เหิน), Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra’s secretary, about Shin Corp’s share distribution.

Mr.Klanarong Chantig (กล้านรงค์ จันทิก), an AEC committee, said that AEC today invited Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra\’s secretary to clarify Shin Corp’s share distribution at 10.00 hours.

A list of 50-60 questions has been prepared for Mrs. Kanchanapa, adding that the questions will focus on details of the deal between Shin Corp and Ample Rich Investments Ltd. All questions that Mr. Panthongtae Shnawatra claimed that he does not know the detail and refused to answer will be requested for answer from Mrs. Kanchanapa as well.

In the meantime, Mr. Theerapat Srichaiya (ธีรภัทร ศรีไชยา), Mrs. Kanchanapa’s lawyer, reportedly arrived at the Office of the Auditor General at 10.00 hours.

As for Mrs Kanchanapa, press members reported that she is already at the Office of the Auditor General; however, she refused to meet the media.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 12 January 2007

[samtam]

I see nothing wrong

Thailand has no capital gains tax unlike say Britain

Shin Corp was Taksins

He sold it - so what

(Edited to rectify spelling mistake)

Yes, but the point is he said he didn't own the company, (because as a minister it would have been illegal for him to do so), and this whole exercise is to prove that in whoever's name he put it, he did beneficially own and run it. I think the facts are pointing to that. Therefore he has broken the law, which is quite serious when you're the prime minister; well, it would be in most countries.