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

[Chris Lawrence]

21 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

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.

 

 

At the auction nothing happened and I think there were two auctions? I did read the history on the Real Estate case and found her actions were within the market. Auctions test "Spencers Theory" reasonable well as to willing seller and willing buyer. Saw a similar deal years ago, block of land was expected to reach over $1 million, got $920,000 at auction. Being sold by a state body. There was a limited zoning on the land, but the new buyer put in a DA for a golf course and sold it to the Japanese for $2.1 million. All within 9 months. I also bought a block of land, off a bank, got a delayed settlement and owned it for one month selling it and doubling my initial outlay. That's how quick a market can change.

 

Also I am a retired Real Estate Valuer. 

[Eric Loh]

17 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

At the auction nothing happened and I think there were two auctions? I did read the history on the Real Estate case and found her actions were within the market. Auctions test "Spencers Theory" reasonable well as to willing seller and willing buyer. Saw a similar deal years ago, block of land was expected to reach over $1 million, got $920,000 at auction. Being sold by a state body. There was a limited zoning on the land, but the new buyer put in a DA for a golf course and sold it to the Japanese for $2.1 million. All within 9 months. I also bought a block of land, off a bank, got a delayed settlement and owned it for one month selling it and doubling my initial outlay. That's how quick a market can change.

 

Also I am a retired Real Estate Valuer. 

If I recollect, the initial open bid didn't get the desired bidders and changed to close bid auction. I am not a real estate person and maybe you with your knowledge can correct me.

 

In a close bid, I don't think the bidders identities are revealed. Only the winning bid need to reveal their identity. 

 

In that auction, there were 3 bidders. Potjaman bid 772 M Baht and other bidders were Noble at 750 M Baht and Land and House at 730 M Baht. I think the bidding aspect was above board. 

[Artisi]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

If I recollect, the initial open bid didn't get the desired bidders and changed to close bid auction. I am not a real estate person and maybe you with your knowledge can correct me.

 

In a close bid, I don't think the bidders identities are revealed. Only the winning bid need to reveal their identity. 

 

In that auction, there were 3 bidders. Potjaman bid 772 M Baht and other bidders were Noble at 750 M Baht and Land and House at 730 M Baht. I think the bidding aspect was above board. 

Maybe so, but using "Thaksin"  and "above board"  in the same sentence or even the same story, can be a bit of a stretch. 

[wakeupplease]

Some think they are above the law, but it will catch up with both of them one day, Mr T was driven out so the rich can prosper and the poor get poorer, lets hope it does not take as long as Mugabe or Radovan Karadzic. As for little p's supporters here,  just mind your not on that list.

[candide]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I think the bidding aspect was above board. 

So did the judges in the final judgement in appeal, as they did not convict him or anyone for irregularities in the bidding process. Only for conflict of interest.

[Artisi]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

So did the judges in the final judgement in appeal, as they did not convict him or anyone for irregularities in the bidding process. Only for conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest can cover most eventualities and is an easily applied cop-out. 

[Eric Loh]

23 minutes ago, candide said:

So did the judges in the final judgement in appeal, as they did not convict him or anyone for irregularities in the bidding process. Only for conflict of interest.

Buzzword was and still is retroactive. Can’t go wrong if they want to nail anyone. 

[robblok]

Not sure about the numbers given the hunger of Thais in general for money, but the principle I readily agree with. I also live in Isaan, and in my village there are reportedly perhaps a dozen yellow supporters who might vote for the army. The problem is, nobody knows who they all are, one or two perhaps but the rest keep their gobs shut. Wisely.
 

That shows how fair the elections are if you admit people voting for the democrats have to hide.



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Sid Celery]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

 

That shows how fair the elections are if you admit people voting for the democrats have to hide.



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

You're really reaching now friend. What you say is arrant nonsense, but we should recognise that you use the words you do because you fully expect that nice Mr Prayuth is going to get his bottom kicked. As do I. I just hope he also gets a firing squad as well, that being the traditional penalty for treason as an army officer.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Sid Celery

[robblok]

You're really reaching now friend. What you say is arrant nonsense, but we should recognise that you use the words you do because you fully expect that nice Mr Prayuth is going to get his bottom kicked. As do I. I just hope he also gets a firing squad as well, that being the traditional penalty for treason as an army officer.

Read what you wrote that the people voting yellow better not tell people they vote yellow in your red Isarn village.

Sounds to me that if they tell anyone they vote yellow they have to fear repercussions. That is how i read that part of your post.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Sid Celery]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Read what you wrote that the people voting yellow better not tell people they vote yellow in your red Isarn village.

Sounds to me that if they tell anyone they vote yellow they have to fear repercussions. That is how i read that part of your post.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Yes, I re-read what I wrote and I did not say what you suggest I said.

 

Sorry friend, I don't have time for BS discussions.

[Becker]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

 

 

That shows how fair the elections are if you admit people voting for the democrats have to hide.



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

 

So what are you saying? Are you saying that elections shouldn't be held because the Dems/Army/Old Elite are hugely unpopular in certain areas?

[Chris Lawrence]

12 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

If I recollect, the initial open bid didn't get the desired bidders and changed to close bid auction. I am not a real estate person and maybe you with your knowledge can correct me.

 

In a close bid, I don't think the bidders identities are revealed. Only the winning bid need to reveal their identity. 

 

In that auction, there were 3 bidders. Potjaman bid 772 M Baht and other bidders were Noble at 750 M Baht and Land and House at 730 M Baht. I think the bidding aspect was above board. 

Eric, all I can say is markets change. The parcel of land was for sale for a while. Mrs S had a look after it had been tested on the market and she bought it. 

 

I remember sitting in meeting with a union rep. He started to tell how the NSW Health would make a huge profit on a block of land with an old Medical style building on it. I disagreed and bit my lip. There are a lot of disgruntled government and union types out there claiming they have an insight to the workings of real estate. Their main experience is owning a home.

 

There are a lot of reasons why some sales go thru. Then again some people are more observant to the market or can see trends happening. It comes back to knowledge of the market place and who you are talking too. Most Government officials don't have the circle of confidants Mrs S would have. That's the short and sweet of it.

 

Please if someone has the details of Mr T's involvement and exactly what he did, not mumbo jumbo that he was convicted, but what was the evidence this may shed some light on things. All I hear is that he was guilty, but as we all know anyone can be found guilty in the Thai legal system.

[pornprong]

34 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Eric, all I can say is markets change. The parcel of land was for sale for a while. Mrs S had a look after it had been tested on the market and she bought it. 

 

I remember sitting in meeting with a union rep. He started to tell how the NSW Health would make a huge profit on a block of land with an old Medical style building on it. I disagreed and bit my lip. There are a lot of disgruntled government and union types out there claiming they have an insight to the workings of real estate. Their main experience is owning a home.

 

There are a lot of reasons why some sales go thru. Then again some people are more observant to the market or can see trends happening. It comes back to knowledge of the market place and who you are talking too. Most Government officials don't have the circle of confidants Mrs S would have. That's the short and sweet of it.

 

Please if someone has the details of Mr T's involvement and exactly what he did, not mumbo jumbo that he was convicted, but what was the evidence this may shed some light on things. All I hear is that he was guilty, but as we all know anyone can be found guilty in the Thai legal system.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com.au/

 

http://www.newmandala.org/a-response-to-vanina-sucharitkul/

Edited November 23, 2017 by pornprong

[Chris Lawrence]

13 hours ago, pornprong said:

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com.au/

 

http://www.newmandala.org/a-response-to-vanina-sucharitkul/

Good post.

[William C F Pierce]

On 21/11/2017 at 10:36 AM, robblok said:

So you think Thaksin should get away with his crimes ? He can pay for the best lawyers money can buy to contest his innocence.

Its true they will never get him extradited but it will shut all the defenders of Thaksin up if he is convicted in a few more substantial vases with good evidence. Then it gets harder to deny he is a criminal now they often cite that he is only convicted for a minor crime.

I have no pitty with guys like him he can use his money to defend himself from a distance. Others dont have that luxury.

I do not agree that this law is only for political office holders. It should apply to all, fleeing a country should not mean you get an advantage over those that dont flee or cant flee.



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

He did not flee. He was away on political business and has as yet not returned. Though he now holds no political office. Learn some English comprehension. Learn what the act of fleeing means.

 

[SoulWater]

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com.au/
 
http://www.newmandala.org/a-response-to-vanina-sucharitkul/

I read those and they are very concise with very good references (if the inferences in the articles are correct) it still doesn't mean however that other people aren't doing the same under different guises

[Kieran00001]

On 21/11/2017 at 3:00 PM, 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.

 

The statute of limitations is just the same after conviction if the offender absconds.

[Kieran00001]

39 minutes ago, William C F Pierce said:

He did not flee. He was away on political business and has as yet not returned. Though he now holds no political office. Learn some English comprehension. Learn what the act of fleeing means.

 

 

He skipped bail and went to the UK claiming he had received death threats, by definition that would be fleeing.

[SoulWater]

 
He skipped bail and went to the UK claiming he had received death threats, by definition that would be fleeing.

I disagree I would term it 'self imposed excile'

[Kieran00001]

On 23/11/2017 at 5:16 PM, Sid Celery said:

You're really reaching now friend. What you say is arrant nonsense, but we should recognise that you use the words you do because you fully expect that nice Mr Prayuth is going to get his bottom kicked. As do I. I just hope he also gets a firing squad as well, that being the traditional penalty for treason as an army officer.

 

The new constitution provides generals who start coups immunity, handy that.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, SoulWater said:

I disagree I would term it 'self imposed excile'

 

To flee means to escape danger, he claimed his reason for leaving was due to receiving death threats, you may choose to disagree but he did by definition flee, sure he has ended up in a self imposed exile but in order to get there he had to flee.

 

[SoulWater]

 
To flee means to escape danger, he claimed his reason for leaving was due to receiving death threats, you may choose to disagree but he did by definition flee, sure he has ended up in a self imposed exile but in order to get there he had to flee.
 

I much prefer the urban dictionary definition of 'flee' as opposed to yours

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flee

And I am sure they both are with their money :)

[Sid Celery]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The new constitution provides generals who start coups immunity, handy that.

 

We're now in the realm of retrospective legislation, frowned upon by the real world outside the Thai reality distortion zone. And what is made retrospective once can be made retrospective twice, the second time to cancel the first time. I wouldn't be putting my trust in Thai law if I were the good general, especially if I made the law.

 

The boss only has to nod or wink and that nice Mr Prayuth will be suiciding in an army prison cell. Just like the soothsayer. That knife has two edges. A risky game this guy is playing, I wouldn't be on that field for quids.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Sid Celery

[Ricardo]

8 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

He did not flee. He was away on political business and has as yet not returned. Though he now holds no political office. Learn some English comprehension. Learn what the act of fleeing means.

 

"He was away on political business and has as yet not returned."

 

With respect, I believe you are forgetting that he did indeed return for some months in 2008, while his nominee-party PPP was leading the post-2006-coup elected coalition-government, and then left (with permission from the court) to watch the opening-ceremony at the Beijing-Olympics, but chose not to return as-promised afterwards.

[sjaak327]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 12:55 PM, 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. 

Sorry for writing your name wrong. At least you understood I was referring to you, which means the communication was effective.

 

You go on and on about Thaksin's crime, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the current lot are criminals as well, and have no valid mandate to change any law.

 

In this case, Thaksin did allegedely commit these crimes a decade before the law has been changed by a parliament that has no mandate whatsoever, apart from a few guns.

 

A person with a brain would ask questions why trials in absentia are only possible for political office holders (or at least the political officeholders that did not have the luxury of granting themselves a far reaching amnesty without a valid mandate) not for ordinairy criminals. 

 

The selective targetting and application of this particular law is not seen in any real democracy, anywhere in the world.

 

Bottom line, Thaksin commited the crimes over a decade ago, when trials in absentia were not possible, therefore in the interest of justice, these cases should not be restarted. This new law should only apply to cases comitted after the law was changed.

 

Edit: I do hope you are not trying to suggest that I am one of the posters that thinks, or tries to imply that Thaksin was innocent. 

 

He is without a doubt a crook. However deposing him via coups and applying new laws retroactively to his cases commited over a decade ago is something I cannot support. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by sjaak327

[halloween]

14 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Sorry for writing your name wrong. At least you understood I was referring to you, which means the communication was effective.

 

You go on and on about Thaksin's crime, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the current lot are criminals as well, and have no valid mandate to change any law.

 

In this case, Thaksin did allegedely commit these crimes a decade before the law has been changed by a parliament that has no mandate whatsoever, apart from a few guns.

 

A person with a brain would ask questions why trials in absentia are only possible for political office holders (or at least the political officeholders that did not have the luxury of granting themselves a far reaching amnesty without a valid mandate) not for ordinairy criminals. 

 

The selective targetting and application of this particular law is not seen in any real democracy, anywhere in the world.

 

Bottom line, Thaksin commited the crimes over a decade ago, when trials in absentia were not possible, therefore in the interest of justice, these cases should not be restarted. This new law should only apply to cases comitted after the law was changed.

 

Edit: I do hope you are not trying to suggest that I am one of the posters that thinks, or tries to imply that Thaksin was innocent. 

 

He is without a doubt a crook. However deposing him via coups and applying new laws retroactively to his cases commited over a decade ago is something I cannot support. 

Oh dear me, you state it is "in the interest of justice" that a known criminal should escape prosecution, not because the laws he broke were not in existence at the time, but because it was not possible to prosecute him because of his absence. And justify it be a few biased irrelevancies.

[sjaak327]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Oh dear me, you state it is "in the interest of justice" that a known criminal should escape prosecution, not because the laws he broke were not in existence at the time, but because it was not possible to prosecute him because of his absence. And justify it be a few biased irrelevancies.

Applying new laws retroactively to crimes commited over a decade ago is not justice, end of story. That is of course a very relevant point when justice is concerned. But what do you know about justice or democracy for that matter. 

 

The irony is that you openly support known criminals, that escape prosecution because they wrote themselves a far reaching amnesty. Therefore I believe you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

Edited November 27, 2017 by sjaak327

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Therefore I believe you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

Maybe as a leg to stand on, Prayut is following the proverbial it takes a thief to catch a thief.

Even then, hypocritical and not very noble when one thief wields absolute power from all wrongdoing.

[Sid Celery]

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

Applying new laws retroactively to crimes commited over a decade ago is not justice, end of story. That is of course a very relevant point when justice is concerned. But what do you know about justice or democracy for that matter. 

 

The irony is that you openly support known criminals, that escape prosecution because they wrote themselves a far reaching amnesty. Therefore I believe you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

 

You're undoubtedly right and you may already know this but trying to have a sensible discussion with this guy is a forlorn hope. There aren't many junta-huggers around these days, just newbs who don't understand anything and people like this guy. God knows where they got their opinion from, though I can guess. "You don't hire a bargirl to listen to her political views" seems like appropriate advice.