Well strike me with a bolt of lightning, I would never have thought that decision would be given.

I would love to know the accumulated wealth of PM and fatty since May 2018, not suggesting any wrong doings of course.

They are both upstanding impeccable citizens of Thailand.

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Really? I mean really?! Ok, let me makes this perfectly clear then. Borrowing something from someone with their consent is in my opinion absolutely legal. The only question I’m still having, and I know I’m repeating myself now, is how it could possibly be illegal! Forget about wether the story is true or not and wether I believe the guy, which I actually do, because it is absolutely irrelevant to my question! I would’ve asked the same thing if it had been about something completely different. So, if you can answer that question then please reply, if you can’t then please stop wasting my time, and most of it all - don’t put words in my mouth! 

You have asked then answered your own question. Sorted.

As for believing him, that's fine but beware African princes who email you. Not all of them are on the up and up, apparently...

22 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Your last sentence rings true. "Loans" to family (extended), friends or colleagues here seems to mean the same as 'gift". When pressed to repay a business loan my S-i-L reaction was "oh you are so poor now are you"? No thought of ever having to pay/give back.

 

But if they have, as they've said, obtained all the warranty cards, original purchase information, and checked with Customs if any were directly imported; and located all but one watch, then they would have all the information and evidence to show who bought the watches, when, and from where. But that won't be made public.

If they had any of that it would of been produced 11 months ago publicly i am sure.

On 12/28/2018 at 11:01 AM, HAKAPALITA said:

Dam It, ill have to find another rich person to whinge about in my cash strapped Fan Room existence.Must do quick Scan for Benz Drivers.!!

That's most of Thailand.  What's your point ? 

As expected  from NAAC, innocent of corruption. The only people in Thailand who get locked up are the poor and hapless citizens. The rich and the influential continue to rob the public money without any shame.

I reported a corrupt contractor  to the NAAC sometime ago, yet to hear anything from them not even an acknowledgement from them. Why have NAAC when it never finds the truth and no one gets punished? God save this country from the corrupt contractors who are plundering millions and millions of baht in government contracts.

On 12/27/2018 at 6:09 PM, Ctkong said:

Ever wonder why there is no outstanding Thai on the world stage ? Because there is not a single bone of integrity in their bodies. I wonder if there will come a day when an upright and honest thai politician rise above this quagmire political landscape ? A sad day indeed. 

Absolutely true. Unless a democratically elected government headed by a person of character, honesty and integrity comes to power, this country will suffer. Under this regime the only motive seems to be make millions from public money. I know of a woman contractor who bags government contracts by bribing 25%. She is making 8 to 9 million profit  in just 5 months from a government contract. She is so greedy that she stops at nothing and wants to grab as much as possible till this corrupt regime is in power. 

Ok, I will say it, 

corrupt little fat guy got away with it.

well done Thailand, the rest of the world have seen this goose is a corrupt little evil man that the rest of the government are covering for, that makes them equally corrupt.

back to stage 1 for integrity

On 12/29/2018 at 11:01 AM, smutcakes said:

If they had any of that it would of been produced 11 months ago publicly i am sure.

Depends on whose name is on the "warranty cards, original purchase information, and checked with Customs if any were directly imported;" surely?

An inflammatory troll post has been removed. 

On 12/29/2018 at 8:37 AM, pacovl46 said:

Really? I mean really?! Ok, let me makes this perfectly clear then. Borrowing something from someone with their consent is in my opinion absolutely legal. The only question I’m still having, and I know I’m repeating myself now, is how it could possibly be illegal! Forget about wether the story is true or not and wether I believe the guy, which I actually do, because it is absolutely irrelevant to my question! I would’ve asked the same thing if it had been about something completely different. So, if you can answer that question then please reply, if you can’t then please stop wasting my time, and most of it all - don’t put words in my mouth! 

Of course, borrowing something from a friend is not illegal. However, the issue is about declaring assets when taking up a post in government.

 

If he owned the watches at the time he took office they should have been declared, nobody has disputed this.

 

If he borrowed the watches, should they also be declared as assets? I think so but I don't know what Thai law says about it.

 

Think of it this way - If a friend lends a government minister a Rolls Royce for 4 years, it is not owned by the minister, but it does have a significant value (i.e.- the cost saved of hiring the car).  Similarly, if the minister accepts a luxury condo, rent-free, for the duration of his term in office, which could be considered a valuable asset.

 

12 hours ago, chickenslegs said:

Of course, borrowing something from a friend is not illegal. However, the issue is about declaring assets when taking up a post in government.

 

If he owned the watches at the time he took office they should have been declared, nobody has disputed this.

 

If he borrowed the watches, should they also be declared as assets? I think so but I don't know what Thai law says about it.

 

Think of it this way - If a friend lends a government minister a Rolls Royce for 4 years, it is not owned by the minister, but it does have a significant value (i.e.- the cost saved of hiring the car).  Similarly, if the minister accepts a luxury condo, rent-free, for the duration of his term in office, which could be considered a valuable asset.

 

That’s a very good question! I guess it all comes down to how they interpret assets. My guess would be that it’s not an asset if it isn’t owned by that person. If someone has debts and doesn’t pay them back and the debt collector shows up and that person can prove that certain items in his possession belong to someone else, then the collector can’t take those items, right? At least that’s the case in Germany. 

 

I never doubted he would be considered innocent 

Watch collecting must be common in certain types of people. Josephin Stalin collected watches, too