Thailand seeks to prosecute ousted PM Thaksin in absentia in two graft cases

[Oziex1]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

Living in exile in luxury while most Thais are looking for their next meal ....   disgusting ...  !! 

As are Thai hisos and members of the Military, Police And other assorted wealthy riff raff. 

[Chris Lawrence]

1 hour ago, Sid Celery said:

 

Thaksin's ill-gotten gains' were a tiny fraction of the ill-gotten gains of the Thai kleptocracy. But none of that matters if you've drunk down the propaganda.

 

For satupid people who are full-of-avarice-and-hate to persuade others to their satupid and full-of-avarice-and-hate viewpoint, you need an army of satupid and full-of-avarice-and-hate conscripts, each armed with a very large straw to suck up the KoolAid handed to them by people who think they're satupid enough to believe it. Then you can win.

 

And oddly enough, even though they're only about 10% to 15% of the audience, they make up for that with hate and volume. But I suppose empty vessels...

Great post Sid, fluent and well spoken. I even learned two new words. 

[geoffrobbo]

20 hours ago, ramrod711 said:

This amendment is the best thing to happen in years. Prosecute the Red Bull heir in absentia and the flying monk and everyone else that thought the status quo would remain long enough for them to come back free as a bird when the statute of limitations expired. It may, I hope , lead to wealthy criminals thinking  before they act. I say wealthy because the poor don't have the option of jetting off to greener pastures.

Yes, if the Shinawatra's can be prosecuted in absentia (whether or not this is a politically invented case) then surely Mr Red Bull should be prosecuted for killing a cop. Let's not forget that, he killed a policeman, and that is not politically invented.

 

[sjaak327]

5 minutes ago, geoffrobbo said:

Yes, if the Shinawatra's can be prosecuted in absentia (whether or not this is a politically invented case) then surely Mr Red Bull should be prosecuted for killing a cop. Let's not forget that, he killed a policeman, and that is not politically invented.

 

Red bull guy has nothing to fear, this new law only targets political office holders, and in practice only targets political office holders aligned with Shinawatra.

 

Yet the likes of bearbox and scorecard are screaming justice, quite hillarious..

Edited November 22, 2017 by sjaak327

[Chris Lawrence]

12 hours ago, Sid Celery said:

 

As I recall, the charge for which Thaksin received a jail sentence, had to do with a plot of land somewhere near Fortune Town, which his wife bough.

It was widely reported in the press at the time that Thaksin played no part in the purchase, that approval or otherwise was the responsibility of an external agency, and that in fact Potjaman paid more than the expected price for the land. 

 

None of that made any difference, he was found guilty of abuse of power. Not corruption or theft, abuse of power (as I recall).

 

In my opinion, this was a put-up job from start to finish, the first put-up job I had ever come across from within the judiciary of any country, so was was sort of shocked at what appeared to be malfeasance. I do not think that anyone who has sincerely read the reports of the time could be in any doubt that as much as Thaksin was dishonest (Chinese Thai so the odds are high that he would be dishonest), the guilty verdict was pre-arranged and absolutely against tha facts in the case.

 

If I understood it all correctly of course.

 

Odd how some things appear when you don't look deeply enough into them and just uncritically believe what other people say. People perhaps close to one? With whom one has a 'special' relationship... if you see what I mean.

You are exactly right Sid. Out the five cases he was tried for it was this one they got him on. His wife was also tried but due to a run out of time the case was dismissed. So what does that tell you.

 

The land deal was something that had been up for sale for years and just couldn't be sold. Along came Mrs S, and bought the land. I think it even went to auction and drew a blank. Mrs S has her own money and although trying to prove an arms length deal, the boys at the top of the hill wanted to drag Mr T in. They didn't have the guts to go after his wife. 

 

That was in 2008.

[Sid Celery]

7 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

You are exactly right Sid. Out the five cases he was tried for it was this one they got him on. His wife was also tried but due to a run out of time the case was dismissed. So what does that tell you.

 

The land deal was something that had been up for sale for years and just couldn't be sold. Along came Mrs S, and bought the land. I think it even went to auction and drew a blank. Mrs S has her own money and although trying to prove an arms length deal, the boys at the top of the hill wanted to drag Mr T in. They didn't have the guts to go after his wife. 

 

That was in 2008.

And still being held up as 'proof' of Thaksin's corruption by people who really don't seem to understand very much at all. It's no such thing of course, but they are given a fig-leaf by the fact that Thaksin was indubitably a dishonest bugger, even if it was never proved. But he was a product of Thailand so what (I wonder) should one expect?

 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Keesters said:

 

All my family, friends, acquaintances, business colleagues, anybody I meet etc have brains. I do not, generally, communicate with the ill-informed.

 

I see that you made an exception in Sid Celerry's case.

[Sid Celery]

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I see that you made an exception in Sid Celerry's case.

Tsk. If you are going to take my name in vain, the very least you could do to retain any shred of dignity, is to spell it correctly. Now, what was that you were saying about the ill-informed?

[billd766]

10 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

Tsk. If you are going to take my name in vain, the very least you could do to retain any shred of dignity, is to spell it correctly. Now, what was that you were saying about the ill-informed?

 

I do owe you an apology for mis-spelling your name.

 

I normally check the text both before and after I post but I missed that one.

 

Please accept my apology.

[Sid Celery]

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I do owe you an apology for mis-spelling your name.

 

I normally check the text both before and after I post but I missed that one.

 

Please accept my apology.

 

Cheerfully accepted. Thank you. I am not above the odd typo myself.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Sid Celery said:

You're right, it was conflict of interest. The main points were (as I recall) as above in #56. And it was indeed a very weak charge, a sign of desperation on behalf of those for whom, ultimately, Thaksin was just too popular.

 

Another point of ridicule of the Thai way of doing things.

 

Hmm. Let's see. A chunk of prime government land is auctioned off. All the bids are massively below the market price. The highest of these massively under value bids is the one by the PM's wife. She gets the land and then resells it for a massive profit. Unfortunately for the lovely couple, someone noticed that the PM committed a conflict of interest offense by countersigning for his wife, something prohibited by law.

So first they offer to give the land back (and presumably get their purchase money back). But it goes to court and his lawyers are later convicted of trying to bribe the judges with a gift of pastries that turned out to be a box stuffed with money. He get's found guilty and legs it.

 

So you see no wrong in the sitting PM working a flanker to make a very large amount of money for his wife (at the time)?

 

And you don't think these cases serious enough where in one others have been convicted and sentenced to lengthy sentences already?

 

Btw - what was your old avatar name Sid?

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Chris Lawrence said:

You are exactly right Sid. Out the five cases he was tried for it was this one they got him on. His wife was also tried but due to a run out of time the case was dismissed. So what does that tell you.

 

The land deal was something that had been up for sale for years and just couldn't be sold. Along came Mrs S, and bought the land. I think it even went to auction and drew a blank. Mrs S has her own money and although trying to prove an arms length deal, the boys at the top of the hill wanted to drag Mr T in. They didn't have the guts to go after his wife. 

 

That was in 2008.

 

Nothing funny that bids were massively below market valuation then? Or that Mrs T's was the winning of the very low bids? Or that the land that couldn't be sold was then quickly resold by Mrs T for a huge profit. Amazing that. 

 

Poor innocent souls.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Sid Celery said:

And still being held up as 'proof' of Thaksin's corruption by people who really don't seem to understand very much at all. It's no such thing of course, but they are given a fig-leaf by the fact that Thaksin was indubitably a dishonest bugger, even if it was never proved. But he was a product of Thailand so what (I wonder) should one expect?

 

 

Well well. A new boy poster who wants us to believe Thaksin was totally honest! Nothing wrong in lending the country's money to a neighboring military junta at low interest rates so they can buy equipment from your family business then? Or perhaps the Krungthai Bank Fraud was all a big misunderstanding? And the asset hiding where he got off 3-2 and one of the judges who voted in his favor later admitted he thought he was guilty but thought he deserved a second chance as he'd just been elected PM. 

 

Anyone who reads your post will understand the reality and value of it. Just like when Thaksin was on CNN saying he'd never done anything wrong, never ever, in his entire life!

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

Red bull guy has nothing to fear, this new law only targets political office holders, and in practice only targets political office holders aligned with Shinawatra.

 

Yet the likes of bearbox and scorecard are screaming justice, quite hillarious..

 

Show me where I screamed justice? Another made up remark? And at least try to get the name right.

 

What I said is that all laws, and this will be no different, are applied selectively here. And I also make the point that this selective application is not unique to Thailand, unfortunately becoming more apparent, but very common practice here.

 

None of which however, means Thaksin, or anyone else's crimes, should be dismissed or swept under the carpet. These laws should be applied to all. But they won't be. That's an injustice but not a defense for Thaksin or anyone else.

 

What's hilarious are certain posters wanting to pretend Thaksin was totally innocent, of everything, and dismiss the reality of cases against him and then expecting anyone to believe them. 

[Srikcir]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

The highest of these massively under value bids is the one by the PM's wife.

"Prosecutors had argued that the amount his wife [Pojaman] paid, about $22 million, was well below market value, but that argument appeared to fail. Ms. Pojaman was acquitted of all charges and the judges did not order the couple to forfeit the land, as prosecutors had requested."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22thai.html

 

15 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

So you see no wrong in the sitting PM working a flanker to make a very large amount of money for his wife

Look no further than Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha’s brother General Preecha who as the defence ministry’s permanent secretary helped his son be granted (no auction) two military contracts worth a total of almost Bt28 million.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/09/thailand-nothing-wrong-awarding-army-contracts-pms-nephew-says-defence-minister/#wkAKvqval40WCKVy.97

Son allegedly had no construction experience.

 

[Sid Celery]

24 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Hmm. Let's see. A chunk of prime government land is auctioned off. All the bids are massively below the market price. The highest of these massively under value bids is the one by the PM's wife. She gets the land and then resells it for a massive profit. Unfortunately for the lovely couple, someone noticed that the PM committed a conflict of interest offense by countersigning for his wife, something prohibited by law.

So first they offer to give the land back (and presumably get their purchase money back). But it goes to court and his lawyers are later convicted of trying to bribe the judges with a gift of pastries that turned out to be a box stuffed with money. He get's found guilty and legs it.

 

So you see no wrong in the sitting PM working a flanker to make a very large amount of money for his wife (at the time)?

 

And you don't think these cases serious enough where in one others have been convicted and sentenced to lengthy sentences already?

 

Btw - what was your old avatar name Sid?

 

As I recall, Potjaman did not bid in an auction, she submitted an offer after the auction failed. Might be wrong but that's what I recall.

 

Also as I recall, Thaksin signed approving the recommendation for purchase from the external selling agancy.

 

I doubt it was the first time someone had attempted to suborn the court. Thaksin must have had some reason to think it would be accepted (past history or a nod and a wink).

 

You have not shown he worked a flanker so the question is moot. Regrettably I am muh less vulnerable to suggestion and misdirection than most.

 

I think the case was serious but the conviction unsafe. Sorry I didn't rise to your misdirection again.

 

part from those points, you seem to have been pretty much on the money.

 

Last avatar? Whats an avatar? Oh I see... you're hoping the mods will see if I've been a member before. Try a direct message to one. Google 'ThaiVisa +moderator' - see whose name comes up most often. Try him. For the avoidance of doubt, I have not been a member previously and your post suggests that was wise of me.

[Sid Celery]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

<snipped for relevance to the reply>

 

What's hilarious are certain posters wanting to pretend Thaksin was totally innocent, of everything, and dismiss the reality of cases against him and then expecting anyone to believe them. 

Straw man. I've never seen anyone say that. Your point fails.

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Srikcir said:

"Prosecutors had argued that the amount his wife [Pojaman] paid, about $22 million, was well below market value, but that argument appeared to fail. Ms. Pojaman was acquitted of all charges and the judges did not order the couple to forfeit the land, as prosecutors had requested."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22thai.html

 

Look no further than Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha’s brother General Preecha who as the defence ministry’s permanent secretary helped his son be granted (no auction) two military contracts worth a total of almost Bt28 million.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/09/thailand-nothing-wrong-awarding-army-contracts-pms-nephew-says-defence-minister/#wkAKvqval40WCKVy.97

Son allegedly had no construction experience.

 

 

Interesting examples of the selectivity on the law.

 

Look to the acquitted lady's maiden name, which she has reverted to.

 

The other example also highlight selectivity; and that some are untouchable. You missed off the bit about setting up the new business in an army base and using army assets too. Never adequately explained or pursued.

 

We see that those in power can, and do, do what they please. Only when out of power might things catch up with them and only then if they aren't a member of a connected important feudal family or they rock the boat.

 

Thaksin won't lie down and give up. So they continually battle with him. Others keep quiet and enjoy their ill gotten gains. 

 

 

 

 

[Sid Celery]

19 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Well well. A new boy poster who wants us to believe Thaksin was totally honest!

<snipped to excise the rant>

 

 

I never said that so it's another straw man. Your point falls at the 'honesty' hurdle.

[Sid Celery]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Interesting examples of the selectivity on the law.

 

Look to the acquitted lady's maiden name, which she has reverted to.

 

The other example also highlight selectivity; and that some are untouchable. You missed off the bit about setting up the new business in an army base and using army assets too. Never adequately explained or pursued.

 

We see that those in power can, and do, do what they please. Only when out of power might things catch up with them and only then if they aren't a member of a connected important feudal family or they rock the boat.

 

Thaksin won't lie down and give up. So they continually battle with him. Others keep quiet and enjoy their ill gotten gains. 

 

 

 

 

 

Down but not out eh? 

 

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

Straw man. I've never seen anyone say that. Your point fails.

 

It's against forum rules to doctor posts. As a newbie (555!) you might not be too familiar with the rules.

 

Good - so you agree Thaksin is a crook, has been involved in various frauds and scams to enrich himself, family and cronies and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

[Artisi]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Show me where I screamed justice? Another made up remark? And at least try to get the name right.

 

What I said is that all laws, and this will be no different, are applied selectively here. And I also make the point that this selective application is not unique to Thailand, unfortunately becoming more apparent, but very common practice here.

 

None of which however, means Thaksin, or anyone else's crimes, should be dismissed or swept under the carpet. These laws should be applied to all. But they won't be. That's an injustice but not a defense for Thaksin or anyone else.

 

What's hilarious are certain posters wanting to pretend Thaksin was totally innocent, of everything, and dismiss the reality of cases against him and then expecting anyone to believe them. 

You really need to go easy on some posters, I know that you are aware that some have a grandeous belief in their own intellect, flawed or otherwise. 

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Artisi said:

You really need to go easy on some posters, I know that you are aware that some have a grandeous belief in their own intellect, flawed or otherwise. 

 

A good point - well made. And point taken thanks.

 

Cheers,

 

BB

[Bill Miller]

Statute of limitations has long since expired, I believe.
Most nations do not permit post facto changes of legislation to impact previously accused individuals.
Forget any chance at all of Interpol co-operation in such a blatantly obvious witch hunt.
And what was that about getting some money back in lawyer's fees? Do you really think  Mr. Thaksin will even bother to respond, much less pay to "defend" against this peculiar action?
The extradition treaty with  Great Britain, for instance, specifically declines to move against individuals convicted in absentia if I read it correctly.
I think this is more "face saving" maneuvering , which in the 21st century global perception is perhaps more likely to look even more foolish.
My opinion is that the current regime would be best served by writing off their feud with the whole family and move on.
I wonder what the average Thai citizen thinks?

Edited November 22, 2017 by Bill Miller

[robblok]

And still being held up as 'proof' of Thaksin's corruption by people who really don't seem to understand very much at all. It's no such thing of course, but they are given a fig-leaf by the fact that Thaksin was indubitably a dishonest bugger, even if it was never proved. But he was a product of Thailand so what (I wonder) should one expect?
 

Your post is exactly why these cases should go on. You cant pretend he is not a corrupt criminal anymore.

Your side keeps using this excuse.

As for sjaak with going after Prayut first. Lets do things chronologically. These case were started a long time ago but paused as he fled. There is not even a case against Prayut.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Sid Celery]

12 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

It's against forum rules to doctor posts. As a newbie (555!) you might not be too familiar with the rules.

 

Good - so you agree Thaksin is a crook, has been involved in various frauds and scams to enrich himself, family and cronies and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

 

I didn't doctor your post, I selectively quoted from it, tough I appreciate why you might be looking for points the mods might pick up on. First you say I've been a member before, then you call me a newbie. Confused?

 

Thaksin was definitely a crook and should be prosecuted wherever possible. On this occasion however I do not believe he was guilty and I do believe that it was a put-up job, as has happened many times before with crooked judiciaries. Also, I happen to know you agree with this but would not say in a forum such as this, where you have a reputation to protect.

 

If it was me with that reputation, I wouldn't bother but hey, strokes for folks yes?

Edited November 22, 2017 by Sid Celery

[Baerboxer]

14 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

Straw man. I've never seen anyone say that. Your point fails.

 

Really Sid? But perhaps you will see the ones if they repeat. Being so new you won't have much history of reading the posts prior your recent joining.

 

I see from your posts, that you say he was undoubtedly bent, but only stole "a fraction of the Thai kleptocract" - how would you know that?  You also make the point that your opinion of his corruption hasn't been proven. Which is down to fact he fled before some cases came to court perhaps?

 

So whilst you don't claim he's totally innocent, as he himself does, you do try and dismiss his corruption as not being as serious as others and make the point he hasn't been convicted.  But the truth is, we don't really know the true extent do we?

[Sid Celery]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Your post is exactly why these cases should go on. You cant pretend he is not a corrupt criminal anymore.

Your side keeps using this excuse.

As for sjaak with going after Prayut first. Lets do things chronologically. These case were started a long time ago but paused as he fled. There is not even a case against Prayut.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

 

Straw man. I never said that so your point fails.

[Baerboxer]

18 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

 

I never said that so it's another straw man. Your point falls at the 'honesty' hurdle.

 

My mistake. You just want to diminish his possible crimes when compared to others, who have never been charged with anything.

 

 

[Sid Celery]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Really Sid? But perhaps you will see the ones if they repeat. Being so new you won't have much history of reading the posts prior your recent joining.

 

I see from your posts, that you say he was undoubtedly bent, but only stole "a fraction of the Thai kleptocract" - how would you know that?  You also make the point that your opinion of his corruption hasn't been proven. Which is down to fact he fled before some cases came to court perhaps?

 

So whilst you don't claim he's totally innocent, as he himself does, you do try and dismiss his corruption as not being as serious as others and make the point he hasn't been convicted.  But the truth is, we don't really know the true extent do we?

 

1. My history is not relevant to you creating straw men. Which I do wish you would stop doing. They're not even very good straw men...

 

2, Another straw man. I never said that. I don't know that, it's what I conclude from what is known.

 

3. And another one. A hat-trick if I'm not mistaken. I never said that either.