Jump to content

Former Transport Minister Disqualified for Share Concealment


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

1705483586_900540-tnamcot-768x576.jpg

 

BANGKOK, Jan 17 (TNA) – The Constitutional Court on Wednesday ruled to disqualify former transport minister Saksayam Chidchob retroactively for shares concealment in a construction firm, which were awarded state contracts.

 

The court said it found clear evidence that he used a nominee to hold shares in Burijarearn Construction Limited Partnership. The shares, held by Mr. Supawat Kasemsut, are actually still owned by Saksayam.

 

Full story: Thai News Agency 2024-01-17

 

- 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.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

  • Confused 1
  • Love It 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and quite sure there are so many,  very many more that haven't been investigated and currently holding governmental positions, the "mafia" main concern was to disqualify Pita, they didn't want to look at other potential lawbreakers, does Anutin not hold any shares on HIS variety of shareholding in different construction/media/pharmaceutical, etc., companies, what about the sleepy one and the general that just kicked out, sure they do have many skeletons in their closet... this Saksayam Chidchob guy must have stepped on somebody's toes

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charter Court rules Saksayam’s ministerial post ended on March 3rd last year

 

ศักดิ์สยาม-ชิดชอบ..jpg

 

The Constitutional Court ruled by 7 votes to 1 today that former Transport Minister Saksayam Chidchob’s post as a minister ended on March 3rd last year, after it was discovered that he owned shares, through a nominee, in a construction company that was awarded a contract with a state agency.

 

The dissenting vote was cast by Constitutional Court Judge Udom Sittiwirattham, who said that Saksayam’s position as a minister did not end in accordance with Section 170 of the Constitution.

 

The court said that the shares, which are owned, on paper, by an employee of the Buri Charoen Construction Company, identified as Suphawat Kasemsut, were actually owned by Saksayam and that Suphawat was just a nominee.

 

Caption: former Transport Minister Saksayam Chidchob

 

Full story: Thai PBS 2024-01-17

 

- 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.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The Constitutional Court on Wednesday ruled to disqualify former transport minister Saksayam Chidchob retroactively for shares concealment in a construction firm, which were awarded state contracts.

Former minister, retroactively disqualified.

Does that mean he must return his salary while in office?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

Former minister, retroactively disqualified.

Does that mean he must return his salary while in office?

 

Yes, what exactly does this decision mean, in practical terms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mikebell said:

I'm just staggered the law was upheld against this Hi-So.  No mention of any punishment which would deter the other 98% of the Government crooks.

 

The decision on Pita's shareholding case is due this month,  not sure I'd be viewing the Chidchob decision in isolation in this instance.  

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, kinyara said:

The decision on Pita's shareholding case is due this month,

 

Also a decision on his LM/amending the constitution "charge". I think both are due on 31 Jan.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, kinyara said:

 

The decision on Pita's shareholding case is due this month,  not sure I'd be viewing the Chidchob decision in isolation in this instance.  

Yep. I reckon this is a 'see, we treat all equally under our rulings" moment in readiness for their decision on Pita.

 

They have picked a very easy target to do this. 

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...