22 hours ago, Jack100 said:

I am 100 %  sure that he also picked some illegal wild  mushrooms ....

And how many watches has he received from dead friends? 

Phil.2407

difficult? 

1- when did he transfer the shares?

2- when we're the shares received by the other party?

3- did he do it before registering to become party member? 

If so he's clean no problem if not then he's screwed it's that simple 

and EC - I have feeling that others have been speaking in their ears - look at wife of famous minister( use that word loosely) that had his wife own xxxx amount of shares but absolutely nada done - doesn't effect his job although illegal but yeah ok 

think you've got Junta leader for seeable future but then he'll be legit PM after the Senate - hand picked by guess who ??? And lower house as true and fair election <deleted>

Edited May 24, 20197 yr by metisdead
Profane acronym removed.

14 minutes ago, Artisi said:

And how many watches has he received from dead friends? 

I don't know, but if they were investigating, it would take years to complete.

2 hours ago, phil2407 said:

Phil.2407

difficult? 

1- when did he transfer the shares?

2- when we're the shares received by the other party?

3- did he do it before registering to become party member? 

If so he's clean no problem if not then he's screwed it's that simple 

and EC - I have feeling that others have been speaking in their ears - look at wife of famous minister( use that word loosely) that had his wife own xxxx amount of shares but absolutely nada done - doesn't effect his job although illegal but yeah ok 

think you've got Junta leader for seeable future but then he'll be legit PM after the Senate - hand picked by guess who ??? And lower house as true and fair election <deleted> 

Last October the Constitutional Court acquitted Mr Don, The Foreign Minister, of holding shares in excess of 5% of a company (actually his wife but spouses are included). In his defence, Mr Don cited 2 share transfer certificates to show he had transferred the shares before the deadline.

The EC rejected these, saying they could have been backdated. The EC cited the Or Bor Jor 5 form, companies' annual shareholding report as evidence for share transfers. Mr Don's had been sent to the Ministry of Commerce six months later, well beyond the deadline.

But The Constitutional Court ruled that the share transfer certificates were valid documents , thus Mr Don had transferred within the deadline.

Thanathorn used a share transfer document, like Mr Don, in his case it was dated Jan 8th to prove he had transferred the shares in time. But The EC still cited the Or Bor Jor 5 form, companies' annual shareholding report, dated  March 21 as the document for his share transfer.

Thanathorn said that was the annual report , not the document that validates the share transfer- apparently experts agree with him on this point.

So if the Constitutional Court ruled in Mt Don's case that the share transfer documents were valid, shouldn't that be the same in Thanathorn's case?

 

 

50 minutes ago, bannork said:

Last October the Constitutional Court acquitted Mr Don, The Foreign Minister, of holding shares in excess of 5% of a company (actually his wife but spouses are included). In his defence, Mr Don cited 2 share transfer certificates to show he had transferred the shares before the deadline.

The EC rejected these, saying they could have been backdated. The EC cited the Or Bor Jor 5 form, companies' annual shareholding report as evidence for share transfers. Mr Don's had been sent to the Ministry of Commerce six months later, well beyond the deadline.

But The Constitutional Court ruled that the share transfer certificates were valid documents , thus Mr Don had transferred within the deadline.

Thanathorn used a share transfer document, like Mr Don, in his case it was dated Jan 8th to prove he had transferred the shares in time. But The EC still cited the Or Bor Jor 5 form, companies' annual shareholding report, dated  March 21 as the document for his share transfer.

Thanathorn said that was the annual report , not the document that validates the share transfer- apparently experts agree with him on this point.

So if the Constitutional Court ruled in Mt Don's case that the share transfer documents were valid, shouldn't that be the same in Thanathorn's case?

 

 

Yes of course, and.. as the precedent has been set, Thanathorn should be allow to be MP up until such time that he is found guilty, at which time he can be removed. But mr Don is one of the good guys, and mr Thanathorn isn't . So you can see where it will go.

Suspend? What does that mean in Thailand, never to comeback regardless of the facts or is there a chance he can return if found to be playing the same game the other politicians are playing?

On 5/23/2019 at 9:56 AM, snoop1130 said:

Nine Constitutional Court judges voted unanimously to accept the case and eight voted to suspend Thanathorn's status as a member of parliament until the court delivers a verdict.

Code for, "The envelopes have been delivered".

Even if cleared the impact of this suspension will have long term ramifications as people will need to make decisions during the time the suspension is in place and will not be willing to risk their voices being muted because the FF party is being forced to the sidelines.

On May 23, 2562 BE at 6:18 PM, Thailand said:

The cue for dems and BJP to confirm they are the junta's bitches.

They did not disappoint!

So how is Pheu Thai getting on with their case against a guy in the Pm's party with similar problems.   (Rhetorical question)

Jonathan Head

 

So Thanathorn faces disqualification & poss prison for not reporting in time his sale of shares in a defunct media company - apparently violating law against candidates owning media. But the wife of one of the biggest media tycoons, Madame ‘Dear’, can be an MP, no problem?

On 5/24/2019 at 6:45 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Prayut removed Thaksin and his little incompetent sister.

He did? And were you the one who fixed up his Tardis in order to do so?

On 5/23/2019 at 1:30 PM, Eligius said:

There is no hope for Thai freedom, dignity and democracy - ZERO hope - unless the Thai people ACT.

But they have (massively, overwhelmingly, stunningly) done NOTHING for the past 5 years.

 

Will they now finally change the habit of half a decade? I hope so - 

but I seriously doubt it.

 

Born and raised as slaves crawling on their knees but this time without any love for their masters sadly. Those that can get out have and will.

Edited June 2, 20197 yr by beautifulthailand99