Potjaman Shinawatra Found Guilty Of Tax Evasion

[Old Man River]

Courts might soon send Thaksin packing for England

Thursday's verdict against Pojaman Shinawatra is not simply about the tax-evasion case, but it also has far-reaching implications for the political scene.

- The Nation

The last part on the factions is quite interesting. If and it is a big if Thaksin withdraws from poltical life, who will be willing to fund the PPP. It will take deep pockets to keep such a large party together and how many truly wealthy peopel want to get down and dirty right now. It may be that the PPP will split into two or three regionally based parties if Thaksin withdraws.

The scenario of party fractures and split funding is the most likely outcome if Thaksin stops funding the PPP, but in politics the most likely scenario rarely happens. In this case it will be power for sale and when that happens we may well see Banharn et. al. getting more directly involved.

[12DrinkMore]

"Might apply for political asylum"

WHAT! Political asylum is granted to persons for political opinions or religious beliefs.

Thaksin and his family (why not spell it Taxin? Just doesn't look so good, I guess, the same as Pucket or Pee Pee) are being convicted/accused of criminal charges, including corruption and tax evasion. I have no idea whether he could be extradicted from the UK for this, but certainly there is no way that a western country will grant him political asylum.

[Tony Clifton]

Courts might soon send Thaksin packing for England

Thursday's verdict against Pojaman Shinawatra is not simply about the tax-evasion case, but it also has far-reaching implications for the political scene.

- The Nation

The last part on the factions is quite interesting. If and it is a big if Thaksin withdraws from poltical life, who will be willing to fund the PPP. It will take deep pockets to keep such a large party together and how many truly wealthy peopel want to get down and dirty right now. It may be that the PPP will split into two or three regionally based parties if Thaksin withdraws.

The scenario of party fractures and split funding is the most likely outcome if Thaksin stops funding the PPP, but in politics the most likely scenario rarely happens. In this case it will be power for sale and when that happens we may well see Banharn et. al. getting more directly involved.

That snake Banharn made a statement yesterday where he said that he had joined the PPP coalition as it was useless to join the democrats since he could infiltrate the PPP and help his country by spying on them. What a scumbag.

[marshbags]

Thaksin daughters say Potjaman feels better

Pinthongta Shinawatra, daughter of ex-PM Thaksin, said her mother Potjaman is feeling better now after she was found guilty in tax evasion case.

Kin hel_l John, i,ve just had my tea

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=129228

================================================================================

I'm glad that the Criminal Court was able to ease her troubled conscience.....

No comment on the political asylum she said............................Ditto the nation

No denial as previously stated by the family and their unlawful orientated well paid lawyers

Quote The Nation

Pojaman feels better: daughter

Pintongta Shinawatra, a daughter of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, said Saturday that her mother, Pojama, felt better following conviction ruling against her.

Pintongta said Pojaman felt better after getting moral support from her children.

Pintongta declined to comment on speculation that her father would seek a political asylum.

The Nation

Unquote

Thanks for the updates and comments as always S.J.

marshbags

Edited August 2, 2008 by marshbags

[tracer]

And all I am saying is that if it's JUSTICE we are looking for, there should be a lot more people in these court rooms, not only the Thaksins.

When Democrats were embroiled in a petty land scandal in Phuket they resigned themselves. and set a standard.

Did they have a choice? You sound like they resigned due to their goodness. As I understand it, it was due to that Chuan appointed one of the land scandal attendents to be a minister in their government, and that only a few day's after scandal came out! As I see it, they had to resign! Looks like a typical case of "we see what we like to see, and not really like things really are" Nevermind, I know your views on this, and I do not share them.

I live in Phuket and if thats the case I know off it was not quite what was reported...

I donot want to get back into it but essentially several of the current goverment guys were also involved...

[tracer]

But Thaksin's fall after a coup in September 2006 has left her - as well as her brother and two of her children - in the sights of corruption-busters.

She is also under investigation in a slate of corruption cases, including one over Thaksin's sale of Shin Corp to Singapore's Temasek Holdings in January 2006.

- Electric News

sorry to ask but is it reasonable to let them relocate to the UK. All the goverment has to to is cancel their passports... secondly nobody mentioned it but what they have in cash is peanuts compared to what they have in LAND. Just ask anyone in Phuket where Thaksins land is or in Buriram etc etc.

[baanthale]

And all I am saying is that if it's JUSTICE we are looking for, there should be a lot more people in these court rooms, not only the Thaksins.

When Democrats were embroiled in a petty land scandal in Phuket they resigned themselves. and set a standard.

Did they have a choice? You sound like they resigned due to their goodness. As I understand it, it was due to that Chuan appointed one of the land scandal attendents to be a minister in their government, and that only a few day's after scandal came out! As I see it, they had to resign! Looks like a typical case of "we see what we like to see, and not really like things really are" Nevermind, I know your views on this, and I do not share them.

I live in Phuket and if thats the case I know off it was not quite what was reported...

I donot want to get back into it but essentially several of the current goverment guys were also involved...

Yeah, if you live on Phuket, you should know Maybe you should double check it, as I understand Chuan even announced the land thiefs promotion to minister on national Tv

[Plus]

And all I am saying is that if it's JUSTICE we are looking for, there should be a lot more people in these court rooms, not only the Thaksins.

When Democrats were embroiled in a petty land scandal in Phuket they resigned themselves. and set a standard.

Did they have a choice? You sound like they resigned due to their goodness. As I understand it, it was due to that Chuan appointed one of the land scandal attendents to be a minister in their government, and that only a few day's after scandal came out! As I see it, they had to resign!

That was a standard to follow - one minister embroiled in scandal, the cabinet resigns. That scandal has never even left the newspaper pages, there were no people on the streets and no court cases.

By comparison half of the current cabinet are either convicts or court defendants and Samak keeps on appointing people with a shaky legal status, let alone bruised public image.

There's simply no comparison.

Also please note the power of the independent media under Democrats, compare this to multibillion lawsuits Thaksin used to shut them up, or Samak's use of NBT to broadcast his political propaganda, a program run by people standing a court trial for inciting violence, nonetheless.

I'm not typing this for your benefit, you are surely aware of all these facts, but for the people who might not know the background, if happened nearly fifteen years ago. I don't want to leave your gross distortion of history unanswered.

[baanthale]

And all I am saying is that if it's JUSTICE we are looking for, there should be a lot more people in these court rooms, not only the Thaksins.

When Democrats were embroiled in a petty land scandal in Phuket they resigned themselves. and set a standard.

Did they have a choice? You sound like they resigned due to their goodness. As I understand it, it was due to that Chuan appointed one of the land scandal attendents to be a minister in their government, and that only a few day's after scandal came out! As I see it, they had to resign!

That was a standard to follow - one minister embroiled in scandal, the cabinet resigns. That scandal has never even left the newspaper pages, there were no people on the streets and no court cases.

By comparison half of the current cabinet are either convicts or court defendants and Samak keeps on appointing people with a shaky legal status, let alone bruised public image.

There's simply no comparison.

Also please note the power of the independent media under Democrats, compare this to multibillion lawsuits Thaksin used to shut them up, or Samak's use of NBT to broadcast his political propaganda, a program run by people standing a court trial for inciting violence, nonetheless.

I'm not typing this for your benefit, you are surely aware of all these facts, but for the people who might not know the background, if happened nearly fifteen years ago. I don't want to leave your gross distortion of history unanswered.

It was you who brought the case up, not me Yes, no protests on the streets, nobody wanted to pay for protests? Other times, other rules Democrats all saints

[Plus]

So, I guess we can put the matter to rest. Nothing to put Democrats and PAD in jail for. Can we return to real criminals now?

How do you think Ratchada case will turn out? There will be no appeals and no bail after that one.

Judging from news reports, the defence has got its shit together, there's no sign of corruption or lost money or foul play, just the principle - the PM can't buy state auctioned land. If the prosecutors stick to that line and let everything else go, they might have a good chance. Avudh, Nation's columnist, thinks it's practically a done deal, I'd give it 60-40 for conviction.

Personally, I think that after all concerned parties knew of Pojamarn's interest in this land, the whole auction had to become a farce. No one in his right mind would go into a bidding war with that lady, and Shinawatras didn't need to personally remind the officials to speed up the process - so no evidence, but it surely would have been different if Pojamarn wasn't a bidder, the whole auction process would have been different, not just the results. I think it's a waste of time to speculate whether the state would lose or save money if Shinawatras weren't there.

I think that's why the law states "no contracts with the government whatsoever" and there's no "it's legal if there's no evidence of corruption that could stand in court" clause.

[Loaded]

I think, like most court cases involving pu yai, that the result is decided before the evidence is presented and then the judges spend the time during the investigation linking the evidence to their result. They have to earn their 'kanom' money donated by kind solicitors for the defence - I think that was a set up anyway as no way would a solicitor be stupid enough to just walk in to a court and pass on a cash bribe unless he/she was confident the judge was waiting for it.

[animatic]

In the Ratchada case it is pretty cut and dried.

a ) He MUST give permission for the wife to do the deal legally.

b ) He MUST have known his Mrs. was spending $750 million baht...

and on what.

c ) As PM he was the boss of the financial department's boss,

he being the power above the ones in charge of accepting the bids.

No 'degrees of removal' of offices ,or buildings, or titles, or job descriptions

would prevent the worker bees from knowing the all powerful PM's WIFE

wants the land at a good price.

Since kowtowing to the top is endemic, then pleasing the PM's wife would

seem like a logical thing to do, if you EVER wanted job advancement...

This is the exact reason for having the law.

d ) The bids were accepted WAY below market value, not a little, but 1/3 of it.

Only someone high up can make a decision like that. And since it is basically

counter to their normal job function, it would likely not be undertaken unless

there was a 'pressing reason'...

e ) As Prime minister it was his responsability to search out

an KNOW the laws of the land as pertaining to international

and national rules of law. To do less is dereliction of duty at best,

or active corruption at worst. He can't argue he didn't know the laws

because he had multiple departments under him to interpret those law

as a daily job, and report same FACTS to him.

(Samak & cabinet have this problem in spades with the Cambodian Temple Treaty row.)

f ) There is a paper trail to prove they did the deal,

not to mention talking heads from several departments.

g ) There is a trail of legal documents to prove this was not allowed.

Like the constitution, and the fine print on the sales documents

and the books of Finance Department rules. They should know their

own rules also, if they are to administer them over others...

h ) His only possible excuses are bad legal advice... HAH!

Yeah those lawyers are in jail already... DUH

Think THEY might want a deal by now... That is not an excuse anyway,

because THEY didn't sign the papers Mr. T. and the Mrs. did.

Or play the personal incompetence in office card... for not knowing the law.

Oh, the lose of face with that one!

Arrogance, nay, HUBRIS, again comes back on it's owner, like a

lighted trail of gas fumes to a leaking gas tank slowly departing.

Or a cur dog beaten one time to many.

How much face can one ego lose to save money.

If half your face is gone, but you get half the money, is that a good trade.

Or is the power that face gives MORE important than the money.

Money, the tool can build face, but not replace it once lost.

Face, the power behind it once lost is lost.

Power is EVERYTHING! In some circles...

Destroy the face and the tool becomes exponential less useful...

As we see PPP devolving slowly

Well there was no face saving this week to be observed.

Edited August 3, 2008 by animatic

[sriracha john]

In the Ratchada case it is pretty cut and dried.

a) He MUST give permission for the wife to do the deal legally.

He MUST have known his Mrs. was spending $750 million baht...

and on what.

c) As PM he was the boss of the financial department's boss, him being the power above the ones in charge of accepting the bids.

No removal of offices or buildings or titles or job descriptions would

prevent the worker bees from knowing the all powerful PM's WIFE

wants the land at a good price. Since kowtowing to the top is endemic

then pleasing the PM,s wife would seem like a logical thing to do if you

EVER want job advancement..

d) The bids were accepted WAY below market value, not a little, but 1/3 of it.

Only someone high up can make a decision like that.

e) As Prime minister it was his responsability to search out

an KNOW the laws of the land as pertaining to international

and national rules of law. To do less is dereliction of duty at best,

or active corruption at worst. He can't argue he didn't know the laws

because he had multiple departments under him to interpret those law

as a daily job, and report same FACTS to him.

(Samak & cabinet have this problem in spades with th Temple treaty row.)

f) There is a paper trail to prove they did the deal,

not to mention talking heads from several departments.

g) There is a trail of legal documents to prove this was not allowed.

Like the constitution, and the fine print on the sales documents.

h) His only possible excuses are bad legal advice... HAH!

Yeah those lawyers are in jail already... DUH

Think THEY might want a deal now... That is not an excuse anyway,

because THEY didn't sign the papers Mr. T. and the Mrs. did.

Or play the personal incompetence in office card... for not knowing the law.

Oh, the lose of face with that one!

Arrogance, nay, HUBRIS, again comes back on it's owner, like a

lighted trail of gas fumes to a leaking gas tank slowly departing.

Or a cur dog beaten one time to many.

How much face can one ego lose to save money.

If half your face is gone, but you get half the money, is that a good trade.

Or is the power that face gives MORE important than the money.

Money, the tool can build face, but not replace it once lost.

Face, the power behind it once lost is lost.

Power is EVERYTHING! In some circles...

Destroy the face and the tool becomes exponential less useful...

As we see PPP devolving slowly

Well there was no face saving this week to be observed.

*Mods... Please consider moving the preceding excellent post to the specific case thread:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Arrest-Warra...in-t137480.html

Arrest Warrants Issued For Former PM Thaksin And His Wife

and also please consider the recommendation posted there:

Might I suggest to the mods that rather the thread being re-titled to reflect the specifity of the case involved as per the OP, eg.

Thaksin And His Wife Issued Arrest Warrants Over Ratchadapisek Land Case

This thread has covered it since its beginning and I'd hate to see the continuity and completeness of it lost. I realize, however, that other cases have been posted in it and I'm guilty of this as well for mistakenly putting articles regarding other cases in it. Perhaps if it was re-titled it would help all of us to remember to keep the various other threads sorted out. I'd really to keep this one open as its the next one to likely take center stage... and has been actually active.......

Thank you.

Edited August 3, 2008 by sriracha john

[A_Traveller]

Just slightly tongue in cheek, perhaps a separate sub-forum for infelicitous legal activities which could allow a set of threads 1 per case against the Thaksin family, and a couple relating to the ever changing legal status of the cabinet members.

Regards

[animatic]

Sriracha John, no problem with me.

I read, and I watch, and I wonder even more.

[sriracha john]

Sriracha John, no problem with me.

I read, and I watch, and I wonder even more.

oh, it was certainly nothing on you... I too post in the wrong place sometimes. I'm hoping the re-titling will help all of us to keep them straight as it really is beneficial to the varied discussions if we can keep things compartmentalized to the extent possible.

Edited August 3, 2008 by sriracha john

[Thaising]

US twist to Thaksin court case

Thailand's Supreme Court decided this week to proceed with a criminal conflict-of-interest case against former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra over his role in approving a 4 billion baht (US$119 million) government-to-government loan made to Myanmar's military-run government to purchase satellite services sold by his family-owned communications business.

The trial, set to start on September 16, will examine Thaksin's formerly family-owned telecommunications company, Shin Corp, and its then 53% majority-owned subsidiary, Shin Satellite, and his alleged role in approving the loan by the state-controlled Export-Import Bank of Thailand to help improve Myanmar's primitive telecommunications infrastructure.

The Asset Examination Committee, which investigated the charge, claims the loan was extended at an unusually low interest rate and that the grace period for the loan was inexplicably extended from two to five years. Thaksin supervised the Ex-Im Bank at the time the loan was made and strenuously defended the decision to make the loan when criticized at the time in the local press.

The criminal case represents one of several now hanging over the former premier, his family and political and business allies. Thaksin's wife, Pojaman, was sentenced on Thursday to three years in prison on tax evasion charges related to a 1997 Shin Corp share transaction she made with her brother. Three other criminal corruption and abuse-of-power related cases against Thaksin, who was ousted in a 2006 military coup, are now in court.

The Thai Ex-Im Bank loan case, however, is notable for its international dimension, including a US government role in financing Shin Satellite's business activities. During Thaksin's five-year tenure, his family-owned Shin Satellite, now known as Thaicom and majority-owned by Singapore's Temasek Holdings, developed and in 2005 launched a US$350 million satellite known as iPStar, which now beams satellite broadband services throughout Southeast Asia, China and Australia.

Myanmar's government allowed the company to run trials of IPStar's ground stations in 2003, providing the company a live but closed environment to test the technology without heavy market scrutiny. A portion of the 2004 Thai Ex-Im Bank loan to Myanmar was allegedly used to purchase those same Shin Satellite iPStar satellite terminals and other services.

Although the upcoming criminal case is expected to examine the terms of the loan and how it was allegedly devised to provide maximum benefits to Thaksin's family-owned Shin Corp, the US State Department as well as the US Export-Import Bank will be nervously watching the proceedings. That's because American taxpayers effectively helped to finance iPStar's construction by a US company, Space Systems/Loral, through roughly $190 million in US Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees. (The French government, which has also recently been a strong critic of Myanmar's regime, also provided loan guarantees for the launch services for the satellite.)

At the same time the Thai Ex-Im Bank approved its controversial loan to Myanmar in 2004, the actual satellite was still sitting on the ground in the US awaiting delivery by Loral to a launch facility in South America. Because of the Myanmar government's abysmal human rights record, US companies are legally forbidden by US government trade and investment sanctions from doing with the country any business that was not established before 1997.

Questionable US role

In this particular case, and for unknown reasons, the US State Department and the US Ex-Im Bank stood by silently as the controversial iPStar transaction with Myanmar unfolded. This is much more than an awkward omission: the iPStar project was a high-profile affair from the start. Among other things the head of the US Ex-Im Bank traveled to London in 2003 to accept an award related to the project, which Shin Satellite executives at the time promised would revolutionize the global satellite business through greater transmission efficiency.

Powerful members of the US Congress had a heated exchange with the US Ex-IM Bank in 2002 over how the satellite project was taking shape, although not over the possibility that its mission would benefit Myanmar's junta. As the court case against Thaksin unfolds, the US Congress and even the White House, which in recent years has been strongly critical of Myanmar's military regime, including President George W Bush's own reference to the country as an "outpost of tyranny", will be left to answer how this transaction apparently slipped under their radar screens.

Days before the Thai Supreme Court announced its decision to hear the case, the US House of Representatives voted to freeze certain junta members' assets and ban the importation of all Myanmar-sourced jade and rubies to the US. American gem dealers had previously avoided trade sanctions by importing Myanmar gems from second countries which processed or in other ways added value to the raw stones.

The new measures are the latest of a wide range of trade and investment sanctions imposed by the US government against Myanmar. In 2007, Bush extended for another year the trade sanctions that were first signed by president Bill Clinton in 1997. Add to that list the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and another executive order on new investments in Myanmar signed by Bush that same year. The Bush administration's tough message to Myanmar's generals has been clear, while the gap dividing the US's and Thailand's policy towards the regime has grown ever larger.

Indeed Shin Satellite and its iPStar satellite continue to make steady inroads into Myanmar. In early 2008, Myanmar Posts and Telecommunications announced that Thaicom had expanded its business ties through the signing of a pair of new capacity contracts. Thailand's new Thaksin-aligned government, led by prime minister Samak Sundaravej, announced earlier this year that the remaining portion of the 2004 Thai Ex-Im Bank loan would be handed over to Myanmar's generals, despite the political controversy surrounding the loan.

The bottom line however is that Thaksin and his family are not the only ones feeling the legal heat. While the US State Department looked on, the US Ex-Im Bank wrote checks that effectively extended badly needed satellite services into Myanmar - and in apparent violation of the sanctions Washington has long imposed against the military regime.

Now Myanmar's junta is likely using US-funded wireless broadband technology to perpetuate its repressive policies and harassment of pro-democracy groups. Not only does the oversight represent a shameful stain on US government accountability, it also sets back the broader cause of promoting human rights and democracy in military-run Myanmar.

Asia Times Online

Are we going to see more conspiracy theories uncover????

[cloudhopper]

Are we going to see more conspiracy theories uncover????

I hope so, but the reality appears to be that most of the outrages that occurred during W's regime will be left un-investigated, at least officially.

[sriracha john]

Will Thaksin battle on like a caged animal?

By now, everyone should have heard about the shocking prison sentence handed down by the Criminal Court against Potjaman Shinawatra, Bannapot Damapong and her secretary Kanchana Honghern after they were found guilty of tax evasion. The sentence itself, three years for Potjaman and Bannapot and two for Kanchana, was not as hard-hitting and embarrassing as was the court's written reproach against the former first lady and Bannapot. It reads: ''The second defendant [Potjaman] was the wife of a holder of the top national political office who aside from being bound to behave like a decent citizen was expected to set a good example befitting her economic and social status... The amount of taxes to be paid by the first defendant [bannapot] in accordance with the law and was finally paid by the second defendant [Potjaman] on his behalf could not be compared with the amount of assets held by the second defendant and her family at the time.'' Although the case is not final and will definitely drag on up to the Supreme Court, all I can say about the case and its key players is that it is just the Buddhist law of karma. But the karma does not end there for the Shinawatra family. Potjaman and her husband, former PM Thaksin, are being tried in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions for alleged wrongdoing in the Ratchadaphisek land scandal. Two other cases against Thaksin, namely the lottery case and the Exim Bank's Burma loan case, are still pending in the same court. Five additional cases, all involving alleged abuse of authority, are pending with the Office of the Attorney-General against Thaksin and his cronies. With the odds seemingly piling up against Thaksin _ including the conviction of his wife, the recent imprisonment of three members of his legal staff in connection with 2.2 million baht in bribe money stuffed in a lunch box, plus a series of legal cases against him _ the questions that most people want to know are: What will Thaksin do next? Will he, this time, throw in the towel and quit politics for good? Or will he fight on like a cornered animal? Some analysts believe Thaksin is discouraged by the legal odds against him and may really want to wash his hands of politics to save his own skin and that of his family. They cite the latest cabinet shakeup, almost completely handled by the so-called Gang of Four _ Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, his Secretary-General Theerapol Nopparampa, Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, and Newin Chidchob _ with scarcely any interference from the real boss. It will be a blessing for the country if Thaksin really quits politics and doesn't continue to pull the strings. It will also be much better if he takes a long leave of absence *about 45 years would help tremendously* from the country to let the political situation settle peacefully and the political divide gradually heal. Like it or not, Thaksin himself is the only real problem with our political predicament. So will the legal mess change Thaksin? Despite his earlier pledges to leave politics, that now ring hollow, and his occasional sweet words for the country, there have been no concrete actions to back up the rhetoric.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/040808_News/04Aug2008_news14.php

[ilyushin]

Why is she not in jail?

[sriracha john]

Thailand's tax fraud verdict marks 'new trend'

The recent verdict against the wife of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra for tax evasion, as well as other cases against Thaksin and his associates, marks a major new trend in Thailand in dealing with charges of high level corruption.

Thailand's Auditor-General, Jaruvan Maintaka, played a key role in a special investigation committee into the cases against members of the former Thaksin led government.

Presenter: Ron Corben

Speaker: Thailand's Auditor-General, Jaruvan Maintaka; Panitan Wattanayagorn, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.

CORBEN: The Thai criminal court's verdict against Pojaman Shinawatra, wife of the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, of three years jail for tax evasion, is being seen as a landmark decision with the Thai judiciary playing a central role in efforts to curb corruption.

Thaksin, the multi-billionaire businessman and owner of Manchester City football club, now faces the fight of his life with several court cases pending or underway over allegations and charges of corruption while he was Prime Minister.

Soon after the military coup in 2006 that ousted Thaksin's from power led to the military leaders setting up a special committee to investigate allegations of corruption. The committee, known as the Assets Examination or Committee, comprised senior judges as well as Thailand's Auditor-General, Jaruvan Maintaka. The committee also carried out the initial work into the tax evasion charges against Pojaman.

I asked Mrs Jaruvan whether she saw the investigations as ground breaking, given the high profile of the people under scrutiny.

JARUVAN: I think this will mark another standard for the use of public funds, anyone who comes into public positions, they need to be clean and clear and they have to open to be examined; Even I myself.....the people examine also. I think from now on Thailand the Thai people will get up and to look through the country who is wrong and who is right. Then the public will learn to know that they have the right to yell out and they have the right. They have to tell those who want to come in as political man that now you have watch out we are going to examine you thoroughly by the Auditor-General, by the anti-corruption committee or even by the public. I think this is starting a good time, new things for the society in Thailand.

CORBEN: In another case, the Thai Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down a verdict in September on abuse of power charges linked to the purchase of state-owned land by Potjaman when Thaksin was prime minister.

Other cases include charges connected to a 120-million-dollar loan to Burma's military government which was seen as benefiting Thaksin's businesses, bank loans to politicians and corruption allegations linked to Bangkok's new four-billion-dollar international airport.

.

The assets examination committee completed its work in March. Outstanding cases were handed over the National Counter Corruption Commission to continue the cases' prosecution.

Mrs Jaruvan says she is confident the Commission will be able to continue the work of the AEC.

JARUVAN: They (the commission) will take over the case and from what I understand they have already divided the cases into different committees already. So I am quite sure the case will go on and then we will be able to tell the public what is correct and what is wrong. All the public funds should be taken care of not just to be used illegally and then things pass by. I don't think that will happen but I think all the cases should be taken care of.

CORBEN: But Panitan Wattanayagorn, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University, says for Thailand the series of court decisions mark crucial point for both Thailand and its judiciary.

PANITAN: The stakes are quite high for Thailand to have this judicial branch to get involved in pushing the transparency issue to move forward. If this system fails I think the possibility is that we may end up with coups or riots in the streets again because contestation will continue without any system of rule of law. So the stakes are very high at the moment and it is important to see that the judicial system is effectively working in solving the current political crisis.

CORBEN: The key implication, as Dr Panitan sees it, is that Thailand could now be entering a new era in dealing with official corruption.

PANITAN: If this case proceeds further successfully and legally some ex-leaders, members of the ex-leader's families if they are convicted it's going to be a new beginning of transparency, legitimacy and counter corruption efforts in Thailand.

- Radio Australia

[TAWP]

Just a note...it looks like he colors his hair, from the larger closeup picture there.

A lot of males here color it black when they start going gray/silver, it seems.

[Moonrakers]

Just a note...it looks like he colors his hair, from the larger closeup picture there.

A lot of males here color it black when they start going gray/silver, it seems.

Must be the hard life that he has lead.

[Old Man River]

Thailand's tax fraud verdict marks 'new trend'

While Thaksin may be on the ropes, this in no way starts a trend on stamping out corruption. Thai law is still based on codified law only. There are no legal precedents created when decisions are rendered. Each time it is up to the interpretation of the judge and interpretations change as rarely are two cases exactly alike.

[blaze]

Thailand's tax fraud verdict marks 'new trend'

While Thaksin may be on the ropes, this in no way starts a trend on stamping out corruption. Thai law is still based on codified law only. There are no legal precedents created when decisions are rendered. Each time it is up to the interpretation of the judge and interpretations change as rarely are two cases exactly alike.

Absolutely correct- it may be that in Asia law is regarded, not as a guarantor of individual rights (as it has come to be in the west)- but rather as a guarantor of social harmony- which would suggest that in complex cases- the risk to society of a verdict one way or another will always be weighed into the equation (classic example was the judge who voted in Thaksin's favor when he was under fire for concealing assets- the reasoning being that if the majority of Thais doesn't think he's done anything wrong- then he hasn't). If that's the case (and I may be totally wrong)- then for judges to effectively do their job, they must weigh into the equation, not just the facts as they stack up in the context of the law- but as they stack up in the context of the 'greater good'.

[steveromagnino]

Thailand's tax fraud verdict marks 'new trend'

While Thaksin may be on the ropes, this in no way starts a trend on stamping out corruption. Thai law is still based on codified law only. There are no legal precedents created when decisions are rendered. Each time it is up to the interpretation of the judge and interpretations change as rarely are two cases exactly alike.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the common law has changed with regards to legal precedents; because with regards to statute, the law is the law.

Rather that it is now acceptable and possible to go after 'big fish' because let's face it this is about as big as has come up in recent years.

As for precendents, yes law is generally by the statute and not by the precendent, but people DO look to precedents, in fact the Shinawatras tried to use precedents to support their sale of Shin to the Singaporeans via DTAC company structure. Precedents are only considered if the statute is ambiguous, and yes, it isn't used to the degree as the west, but let's also bear in mind that precedents in the west are not the be all and end all; there is always the chance that a judge can reinterpret as well. If two cases are exactly alike, then who knows, maybe in the west it is more important to follow past decisions than the underlying statute compared to here. Not sure, and might need to discuss with some Thai lawyers regarding this.

Blaze:

' Asia Law....not as a guarantor of individual rights (as it has come to be in the west)- but rather as a guarantor of social harmony- which would suggest that in complex cases- the risk to society of a verdict one way or another will always be weighed into the equation (classic example was the judge who voted in Thaksin's favor when he was under fire for concealing assets- the reasoning being that if the majority of Thais doesn't think he's done anything wrong- then he hasn't). If that's the case (and I may be totally wrong)- then for judges to effectively do their job, they must weigh into the equation, not just the facts as they stack up in the context of the law- but as they stack up in the context of the 'greater good'.'

Interesting you should say this, I am not aware of the reasoning in the judge voting in Thaksin's favour - can you provide a link? AFAIK there was never any mention of the majority of Thais in the decision EVER. Rather, it was felt by many that some judges were persuaded to rule not guilty via payments/support from Thaksin and a final judge was possibly persuaded behind the scenes by someone; however there certainly would be no precedent to simply rule on the basis of the majority other than to avoid getting shot/beaten up/killed (a very real possibility based on the kind of people that Thaksin henchmen like Newin Chidchob might attract to do this sort of thing).

Certainly, in the past judges have tended not so much to worry for public good, but more for their own personal enrichment or personal suffering; as the Auditor General and countless others discovered during the TRT years, you are either a suck up, or you are out of a job.

If you have an academic POV on this, would be curious to read, as I have a few issues with the idea that there is such a thing as 'Asian law' when you have legal systems ranging from Japan to Singapore to Islamic Law to Thailand to lawlessness e.g. Burma/Cambodia. I'm also not that convinced this idea of the purpose of law being social harmony vs. individual rights and the further idea that somehow the west is uniform in supporting individual rights; there are numerous cases where foreign ownership or rights have been blocked; the trade decisions in USA vs. WTO rules etc that seem solely aimed at pandering to social harmony of interest groups.

Fascinating to consider however, and appreciate the thoughts - definite food for thought :-)

[hammered]

Thailand's tax fraud verdict marks 'new trend'

While Thaksin may be on the ropes, this in no way starts a trend on stamping out corruption. Thai law is still based on codified law only. There are no legal precedents created when decisions are rendered. Each time it is up to the interpretation of the judge and interpretations change as rarely are two cases exactly alike.

I think Thai law is a lot closer to the Roman code than English common law and you are right that each case is decided upon the merits of the evidence rather than precedent. Very similar cases can be found very differently. It is said by some Thai lawyers that the supreme court do try to keep a record of cases so that their decisions do not contradict too much although that is not the case in lower courts.

We also have the example of precedent not being used in the Thaksin 2001 asset concealment case which was very similar to the earlier Sanan asset concealment case where a guilty verdict was forthcoming.

As to the point of interference or consideration of politcal necessity or ghreater good in the courts by Blaze it probably happens in more countries than just Thailand indeed in some European ones. However as the 2001 asset concealment case has been mentioned a certain banned book has an interesting take on that and the repercussions for the legal system of Thailand at that time. It was an arguement also heard in certain Thai circles at the time. There is now an almost Karmic sense about what is happening now weighed in terms of what happened then, and in that way it may be an East Asian form of "justice".

[steveromagnino]

However as the 2001 asset concealment case has been mentioned a certain banned book has an interesting take on that and the repercussions for the legal system of Thailand at that time. It was an arguement also heard in certain Thai circles at the time. There is now an almost Karmic sense about what is happening now weighed in terms of what happened then, and in that way it may be an East Asian form of "justice".

Agreed - there was a relative oddity of the way in which Prem was treated within the first 2 years of the TRT administration as well as a few other holdovers whose loyalties were perhaps not so easily purchased as the various factions; hence the also banned article by McCargo while fiction (IMHO) for the most part seems to make sense with regards to the plays behind the scenes that allowed an almost certainly guilty business man to still avoid the arm of the law with regards to asset concealment.

Karma indeed. A little more humility and common sense, and we would have seen a LKY like dynasty, well at least until the money ran out and economy crashed.

Edited August 4, 2008 by steveromagnino

[Old Man River]

Thailand's tax fraud verdict marks 'new trend'

While Thaksin may be on the ropes, this in no way starts a trend on stamping out corruption. Thai law is still based on codified law only. There are no legal precedents created when decisions are rendered. Each time it is up to the interpretation of the judge and interpretations change as rarely are two cases exactly alike.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the common law has changed with regards to legal precedents; because with regards to statute, the law is the law.

Rather that it is now acceptable and possible to go after 'big fish' because let's face it this is about as big as has come up in recent years.

I know it sounds like I am just being cynical, but going forward I will believe it when I see it. To me, I think it will revert right back to business a usual. Similar court cases will depend on which side of the fence you are on. Clearly, Thaksin was on the wrong side.

[baanthale]

Thailand's tax fraud verdict marks 'new trend'

While Thaksin may be on the ropes, this in no way starts a trend on stamping out corruption. Thai law is still based on codified law only. There are no legal precedents created when decisions are rendered. Each time it is up to the interpretation of the judge and interpretations change as rarely are two cases exactly alike.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the common law has changed with regards to legal precedents; because with regards to statute, the law is the law.

Rather that it is now acceptable and possible to go after 'big fish' because let's face it this is about as big as has come up in recent years.

I know it sounds like I am just being cynical, but going forward I will believe it when I see it. To me, I think it will revert right back to business a usual. Similar court cases will depend on which side of the fence you are on. Clearly, Thaksin was on the wrong side.

I agree with you. That's what many here said from the start, it's just theatre. No end of any corruption, only if you are on the wrong side, for the other once business as usual.