Pita not worried over EC submitting iTV share case to Charter Court

[webfact]

 

Move Forward party leader Pita Limjaroenrat says he is not worried about a report that the Election Commission (EC) will submit his iTV shareholding case to the Constitutional Court for consideration today (Monday), ahead of the joint sitting of the House and the Senate this Thursday to vote on his prime ministerial candidacy.

 

Speaking to the media, after addressing his supporters at Ratchaprasong intersection Sunday evening, Pita said that the EC’s move is normal and anticipated.

 

The EC is due to decide today whether to ask the Constitutional Court to rule on Pita’s status as an election candidate while holding shares in a media company at the time he registered his election candidacy, which is against the law.

 

#news

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/pita-not-worried-over-ec-submitting-itv-share-case-to-charter-court/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2023-07-10

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

[hughrection]

What part of, he was the executor and not the owner do they not get??

[h90]

14 minutes ago, hughrection said:

What part of, he was the executor and not the owner do they not get??

he was the owner, he lied several times

But the shares are not significant and the company basically did not do any work anymore...so the ownership is a nothingburger unless the law is extreme strict which could be.

 

[MikeandDow]

8 minutes ago, h90 said:

he was the owner, he lied several times

But the shares are not significant and the company basically did not do any work anymore...so the ownership is a nothingburger unless the law is extreme strict which could be.

 

And how do you know he was the owner ???? full of rubbish again, you need to state Facts not your opinion

Edited July 10, 2023 by MikeandDow

[h90]

3 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

And how do you know he was the owner ???? full of rubbish again, you need to state Facts not your opinion

he had the shares in his name...he reported the shares previously and than he sold the shares....

Google is your friend...key in Pita has sold iTV shares....

Brings you to a BKK post article how he sold the shares......you have to be owner to sell your shares....

[cleopatra2]

The issue will be , that there will be a request for Pita to be suspended from carrying out any parliamentary duties whilst the Court adjudicates. 

 

[MikeandDow]

22 minutes ago, h90 said:

he had the shares in his name...he reported the shares previously and than he sold the shares....

Google is your friend...key in Pita has sold iTV shares....

Brings you to a BKK post article how he sold the shares......you have to be owner to sell your shares....

No you dont have to be owner, the shares where tranfered

Pita transferred his shares to his relatives sometime ago without any benefit from it. He can not sell those shares anyway because itv was not list on the SET.

Remember BP is a military newspaper they want to bring MF down

[h90]

1 minute ago, MikeandDow said:

No you dont have to be owner, the shares where tranfered

Pita transferred his shares to his relatives sometime ago without any benefit from it. He can not sell those shares anyway because itv was not list on the SET.

Remember BP is a military newspaper they want to bring MF down

BP is a military newspaper

Of course you can sell shares that are not listed.....if his relatives gives him 40.000 what they are approx. worth than it is a selling.

And not forget before he sold his share, he told they aren't his shares and before he reported them as his shares.

(That he honestly reported the shares years ago and no one had a problem with them pretty much makes the case that they are no problem. The intention of the law is that no Thaksin or Berlusconi can abuse their media empire, what is clearly not the case with iTV. But no idea how the law is exactly. Killing his premiership with this would not look good. )

[herfiehandbag]

57 minutes ago, h90 said:

he was the owner, he lied several times

But the shares are not significant and the company basically did not do any work anymore...so the ownership is a nothingburger unless the law is extreme strict which could be.

 

Nothing to do with the law being strict.

 

Everything to do with the law being used for political ends.

[MikeandDow]

20 minutes ago, h90 said:

BP is a military newspaper

Of course you can sell shares that are not listed.....if his relatives gives him 40.000 what they are approx. worth than it is a selling.

And not forget before he sold his share, he told they aren't his shares and before he reported them as his shares.

(That he honestly reported the shares years ago and no one had a problem with them pretty much makes the case that they are no problem. The intention of the law is that no Thaksin or Berlusconi can abuse their media empire, what is clearly not the case with iTV. But no idea how the law is exactly. Killing his premiership with this would not look good. )

if you dont belive thar BP is biases to the military more fool you.

In Thailand if there is a court case you can not sell the shares, and ITV is in a court case, therefore Pita could not sell the shares, pita was executor of the shares, the shares were tranfered no money passed hands,   as executor in Thailand it mean he was NOT the owner the shares, The shares where not tranfered into his name they are owned by his father

Edited July 10, 2023 by MikeandDow

[cleopatra2]

32 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

No you dont have to be owner, the shares where tranfered

Pita transferred his shares to his relatives sometime ago without any benefit from it. He can not sell those shares anyway because itv was not list on the SET.

Remember BP is a military newspaper they want to bring MF down

I understand the argument Pita only held them as executor.

However if Pita did not own the shares why were they listed as his assets on required asset declaration to the NACC

[MikeandDow]

9 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I understand the argument Pita only held them as executor.

However if Pita did not own the shares why were they listed as his assets on required asset declaration to the NACC

because he is Executor of the estate, any how he told the ec and nacc all about the shares a long time ago he got the green light all ok and they know they made a mistake as they did not think he would win the election if you look into the history of holding share you will see a lot of MP senitors   who hold shares in media companys but because they dont have a lot of share dont have influance the courst have said no problems

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

because he is Executor of the estate, any how he told the ec and nacc all about the shares a long time ago he got the green light all ok and they know they made a mistake as they did not think he would win the election if you look into the history of holding share you will see a lot of MP senitors   who hold shares in media companys but because they dont have a lot of share dont have influance the courst have said no problems

I am aware of what Pita has stated publicly.

However the holding of the shares as executor whilst applying for MP is undermined by the transfer after the election.

The transfer of the shares makes little sense when taking alongside public statements.

Pita's defence still remains the same whether the shares were transfered or not. Namely he is not the owner and/or itv is not a media company. 

If Pita possesed  the power to transfer the shares then why did he wait until after the election. 

Under Thai inheritance laws Pita would be entitled to part of the share allocation.

 

However if Pita's defence is going to be ( and I have no indication this is so), it was a mistake. And on realizing the mistake took action to rectify, then transferring the shares would make sense.

 

The issue that it is an attempt to thwart his leadership is relevant and predictable. Therefore why would Pita provide his political enemies with such ammunition.

[MikeandDow]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I am aware of what Pita has stated publicly.

However the holding of the shares as executor whilst applying for MP is undermined by the transfer after the election.

The transfer of the shares makes little sense when taking alongside public statements.

Pita's defence still remains the same whether the shares were transfered or not. Namely he is not the owner and/or itv is not a media company. 

If Pita possesed  the power to transfer the shares then why did he wait until after the election. 

Under Thai inheritance laws Pita would be entitled to part of the share allocation.

 

However if Pita's defence is going to be ( and I have no indication this is so), it was a mistake. And on realizing the mistake took action to rectify, then transferring the shares would make sense.

 

The issue that it is an attempt to thwart his leadership is relevant and predictable. Therefore why would Pita provide his political enemies with such ammunition.

I totaly agree, I can not see any reason why he transfed the shares, the ec and naac knew about the shares a long time ago and gave the green light.

the courts have ruled on other MP and senitors holding media shaes and because the share holding is very low can not  influence the media company the court ruled all ok,but i know the thai courts do not use Precedent, but i think he should have just carried on and not done anything

, but this is thailand . Look at the latest because he wrote a couple of books they are saying he is running a media compay !!!! there id a differance books are literature nothing to do with media but thai's will be thai;s

[ikke1959]

IMO the shares are not the problem. I think the problem is is ITV a media company as they don't broadcast anything since a long time

[hotchilli]

2 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

And how do you know he was the owner ???? full of rubbish again, you need to state Facts not your opinion

He has openly stated that he owned the shares and at some point sold them.

[MikeandDow]

32 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

He has openly stated that he owned the shares and at some point sold them.

He has said that he is the executor of his fathers estate the shares are NOT in his name, dont know where you have gotten this from, please ref your source as iam not aware of this ???The shares have NOT been sold as this would be breaking the law, the company ITV is in litigation with  the goverment and shares can not be sold, your info totally incorrect.

 

[eisfeld]

12 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

He has said that he is the executor of his fathers estate the shares are NOT in his name, dont know where you have gotten this from, please ref your source as iam not aware of this ???The shares have NOT been sold as this would be breaking the law, the company ITV is in litigation with  the goverment and shares can not be sold, your info totally incorrect.

 

Sorry but it seems a bit you drank too much of the koolaid. If he is the executor and assigned to him then yes they are in his name. That there is a separate contract (the will) makes him a nominee and the heirs the beneficial owners. As he is one of the heirs, that makes him also beneficial owner of part of those shares. You are incorrect in stating that shares in a company that is involved in a court case can't be sold. This is not the case unless the court issues an order specifically prohibiting this. ITV has been delisted from the SET so they can't *publicly* be traded there. But it's perfectly fine to privately sell the shares. IF he transferred the shares to someone else (his family as claimed) then there should be a papertrail to prove that.

[Srikcir]

At one point I thought the disqualifying issue was that Pita held shares in an operating media company. A company that was to have one client the PM Prayut government but contract (using UHF to broadcast) was cancelled by the government before any performance by iTV and iTV was suing. 

Now it seems the issue has broaden into a diversity of alleged disqualifying issues post-election triggered it appears by Pita/MFP's election success that the EC didn't anticipate. 

[Cake Monster]

4 hours ago, hughrection said:

What part of, he was the executor and not the owner do they not get??

Oh ! They understand " Executor " well enough

But this Guy is vying to become the next PM, which adds a whole new level of not understanding

[MikeandDow]

29 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Sorry but it seems a bit you drank too much of the koolaid. If he is the executor and assigned to him then yes they are in his name. That there is a separate contract (the will) makes him a nominee and the heirs the beneficial owners. As he is one of the heirs, that makes him also beneficial owner of part of those shares. You are incorrect in stating that shares in a company that is involved in a court case can't be sold. This is not the case unless the court issues an order specifically prohibiting this. ITV has been delisted from the SET so they can't *publicly* be traded there. But it's perfectly fine to privately sell the shares. IF he transferred the shares to someone else (his family as claimed) then there should be a papertrail to prove that.

Total load of Rubbish that may happen in the us or where you come from but not in Thai law Google is your friend

[eisfeld]

7 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Total load of Rubbish that may happen in the us or where you come from but not in Thai law Google is your friend

You could start by substantiating your claims. Google is your friend too.

[MikeandDow]

1 minute ago, eisfeld said:

You could start by substantiating your claims. Google is your friend too.

Your total post is completely full of misnomers, no facts, all hearsay, Misleading term, should i go on !!!

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, h90 said:

he had the shares in his name...he reported the shares previously and than he sold the shares....

Google is your friend...key in Pita has sold iTV shares....

Brings you to a BKK post article how he sold the shares......you have to be owner to sell your shares....

Not necesssarily, perhaps the other 'owners' had given him the authority (power of attorney) to sell the shares  on behalf of all the family owners?  

Edited July 10, 2023 by scorecard

[eisfeld]

3 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Your total post is completely full of misnomers, no facts, all hearsay, Misleading term, should i go on !!!

Well that's just more claims and not subtantiating your prior ones or any of the new ones. I'm happy to engage in a discussion but if you tell people they are talking rubbish and making various claims about what Thai law says then better be prepared to subtantiate your claims.

 

PS: why so emotionally charged?

Edited July 10, 2023 by eisfeld

[Brickleberry]

Is it not clear that iTV has not been a functioning media company for over 10 years? It matters not whose name these worthless shares they are in. The company is not functioning, and can not function as it does not have a TV spectrum license. It is only in existence because the company is not allowed to dissolve until the court case against them has been concluded. They have no listing on the SET either, because they are not an active company.

 

This is just an excuse that the yellow shirts are using to get rid of him. One of the whiniest little rodents is that chap nicknamed "The Giant Killer" who managed to take down a Prime Minister because he once deigned to appear as a guest on a cooking show. He's now submitted a further petition to the court, because Pita wrote a book or two a while back, and is using this to say he's part of a media empire. Giant Killer? I think he sounds like a ridiculous little boy, throwing his toys out of the pram to get what he wants.

 

Laws in Thailand are not there to protect the people, or even the country. They are used as weapons by the elite to silence voices they do not wish to hear.

 

Personally, I'll be watching the exchange rate with glee if Pita's bid to become the PM fails. Protests, no government and the potential for another coup? The dollar could go through the roof against the Thai Baht. 

[h90]

9 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Not necesssarily, perhaps the other 'owners' had given him the authority (power of attorney) to sell the shares  on behalf of all the family owners?  

true..that would be possible

[eisfeld]

14 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Is it not clear that iTV has not been a functioning media company for over 10 years? It matters not whose name these worthless shares they are in. The company is not functioning, and can not function as it does not have a TV spectrum license. It is only in existence because the company is not allowed to dissolve until the court case against them has been concluded. They have no listing on the SET either, because they are not an active company.

 

This is just an excuse that the yellow shirts are using to get rid of him. One of the whiniest little rodents is that chap nicknamed "The Giant Killer" who managed to take down a Prime Minister because he once deigned to appear as a guest on a cooking show. He's now submitted a further petition to the court, because Pita wrote a book or two a while back, and is using this to say he's part of a media empire. Giant Killer? I think he sounds like a ridiculous little boy, throwing his toys out of the pram to get what he wants.

 

Laws in Thailand are not there to protect the people, or even the country. They are used as weapons by the elite to silence voices they do not wish to hear.

 

Personally, I'll be watching the exchange rate with glee if Pita's bid to become the PM fails. Protests, no government and the potential for another coup? The dollar could go through the roof against the Thai Baht. 

I don't think it's 100% clear if ITV should be seen as being active in media or not. They are raking in dozens of millions of Baht a year so it's doing *something*. But it's beside the point because nowhere in the relevant law does it speak about active vs inactive company. Instead the court should IMHO consider the small size of the shareholding and throw the case out because Pita doesn't hold enough to excert any control which is what the spirit of the law tries to prevent. The other stuff like the company being inactive, him being a nominee for some of the shares, him having transferred them now etc help paint a picture but that's it.

Edited July 10, 2023 by eisfeld

[h90]

8 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Is it not clear that iTV has not been a functioning media company for over 10 years? It matters not whose name these worthless shares they are in. The company is not functioning, and can not function as it does not have a TV spectrum license. It is only in existence because the company is not allowed to dissolve until the court case against them has been concluded. They have no listing on the SET either, because they are not an active company.

 

This is just an excuse that the yellow shirts are using to get rid of him. One of the whiniest little rodents is that chap nicknamed "The Giant Killer" who managed to take down a Prime Minister because he once deigned to appear as a guest on a cooking show. He's now submitted a further petition to the court, because Pita wrote a book or two a while back, and is using this to say he's part of a media empire. Giant Killer? I think he sounds like a ridiculous little boy, throwing his toys out of the pram to get what he wants.

 

Laws in Thailand are not there to protect the people, or even the country. They are used as weapons by the elite to silence voices they do not wish to hear.

 

Personally, I'll be watching the exchange rate with glee if Pita's bid to become the PM fails. Protests, no government and the potential for another coup? The dollar could go through the roof against the Thai Baht. 

The company itself is a joke...you are right.

But it is active, it has turnover (minimal one) and it is registered as Media company. So technical it is an active media company. Practical it is nothing. And the value of the shares is also very low.

I don't know how much room the law gives here.

Someone said, it is not the problem that he has the shares, the bigger problem is that he is so stupid and ignorant to not get rid of them long time ago. I kind of agree.

[h90]

1 minute ago, eisfeld said:

I don't think it's 100% clear if ITV should be seen as being active in media or not. They are raking in dozens of millions of Baht a year so it's doing *something*. But it's beside the paint because nowhere in the relevant law does it speak about active vs inactive company. Instead the court should IMHO consider the small size of the shareholding and throw the case out because Pita doesn't hold enough to excert any control which is what the spirit of the law tries to prevent. The other stuff like the company being inactive, him being a nominee for some of the shares, him having transferred them now etc help paint a picture but that's it.

Depend on how the law can be interpreted...if it says he can not have any shares. Than it is a violation. If it says he can't have any relevant shares than it is not.