Jump to content

SRT may have found a Bt12-bn loophole in Hopewell debacle


webfact

Recommended Posts

SRT may have found a Bt12-bn loophole in Hopewell debacle

By The Nation

 

800_4001be6932624a1.jpg?v=1565092889

 

Fresh evidence in the costly Hopewell-versus State Railway affair of the 1990s has the Office of the Attorney General trying to reopen the vexing case in the Supreme Administrative Court.

 

New Transport Minister Saksayam Chidchob said on July 26 that his predecessor, Akom Termpittayapaisit, had two weeks earlier granted the Attorney General power of attorney in the Hopewell case on his behalf.

 

Saksayam said new evidence had emerged that could convince the court to reopen the case and ultimately rule in favour of the State Railway of Thailand (SRT).

 

If it did, there could be a windfall in the form of a Bt12-billion compensation charge being waived.

 

Saksayam arrived in office on July 10 vowing to review the matter. “I think if the new evidence gives the government a fighting chance, we might as well fight as hard as we can,” he said.

 

The Supreme Administrative Court on April 23 upheld an arbitration committee’s ruling in favour of Hong Kong-based Hopewell Co, whose Bt80-billion elevated road-and-train project in Bangkok was scrapped by the government in 1998.

 

Most of the concrete support structures have remained in place ever since, ghostly reminders of a plan gone wrong, the line never to be completed.

 

The court ordered the SRT, which had signed a 30-year concession contract with Hopewell (Thailand) Co, to pay Bt11.88 billion in compensation plus 7.5 per cent interest per annum.

 

The fresh evidence hints at an irregularity on Hopewell’s list of shareholders.

 

The original contract signed on November 9, 1990, dictated that Hopewell Holding Ltd (Hong Kong) must have shares in Hopewell (Thailand) worth at least 30 per cent of its registered capital throughout the period of the contract.

 

However, the shareholders list submitted by Hopewell (Thailand) to the Department of Business Development indicates that Hopewell Holding and Gordon Wu, the businessman who pitched the project to the Thai government, were shareholders in Hopewell (Thailand) only until December 6, 1991.

 

The minutes of a 2005 shareholders’ meeting do not mention Hopewell Holding or Wu as shareholders.

 

Mauritius-based United Success Ltd, listed as a service provider, was at that time the majority shareholder with 1.49 billion out of 1.5 billion shares.

The latest shareholders’ meeting, held last September 30, showed United Success maintaining the majority, followed by Malaysia-based FSN Consulting Co with 50 million shares. Five individuals of Thai nationality held five shares.

If it could be proved in court that Hopewell violated the terms of the contract, the SRT might not have to pay the Bt12 billion in compensation.

 

The Office of the Attorney General submitted the argument to the court on July 19 and the court is expected to take 30 days to announce whether the matter will be reopened or that the evidence is rejected.

 

timeline06.jpg

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30374350

 

nation.jpg

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2019-08-07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clutching at straws. More bad publicity to deter potential foreign investors.

The Thai government will try any trick in the book to get out of paying foreign investors the money the courts have awarded to them. Same with Kingsgate's Chatree gold mine which was shut down by PM Prayut using Article 44. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is that the SRT got greedy & wanted to charge Hopewell with further costs as 

"air rights" which never had been in the contract. Hopewell refused & subsequently walked away & as they had just secured a very big road contract in China did not argue too hard.

As a previous poster said,,,,,, clutching at straws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, webfact said:

could convince the court to reopen the case

Remember that 7.5% annual interest on the Bt12-billion that began 15 years ago will continue through the time the case is re-opened.

Lose again and add another couple hundred million baht to the already owed compensation. Such a loss might also be considered malfeasance negligence by Saksayam who should, as in the case of Yingluck, personally pay such additional compensation to Hopewell for financial damage to the nation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...