Shinawatra Wealth Not Ill-gotten, Claims Pojaman

[webfact]

Shinawatra wealth not ill-gotten, claims Pojaman

By Kesinee Taengkhio

The Nation

Published on September 16, 2009

Shinawatra wealth not ill-gotten, claims Pojaman

Khunying Pojaman Damapong, ex-wife of Thaksin Shinawatra, yesterday took the witness stand at the Supreme Court to defend the family's hard-earned gains and rebut charges of unusual wealth.

Pojaman vigorously denied any involvement in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by recounting how she and her ex-husband, the ex-premier, built the family business together.

According to her testimony, Thaksin, Pojaman and her brother Bhanapot began their business venture in 1976. The start-up trade included movie distribution, apartment development and computer leasing.

The business earnings reached Bt100 million, enabling registration of Shinawatra Computer, the flagship company for the Shinawatra business empire. Thaksin resigned from the police service in 1987 in order to devote full attention to the business.

The family business subsequently branched out to mobile phone services and telecommunications, which became known as the Shin Corp.

The growth of Shin Corp led to Pojaman's decision in 2000 to sell Bt37 million worth of equity stakes to her son Panthongtae. The deal included Thai Military Bank shares and IFCT shares, with the combined value of Bt5.1 billion. Panthongtae paid for the transactions in four instalments, completed in 2006.

In a separate deal, Pojaman sold Shin shares worth Bt450 million to Bhanapot in 2003. The payments were completed a year later.

Pojaman outlined the payments from Panthongtae and Bhanapot in order to rebut accusations the deals were genuine and not a proxy transaction to retain equity stakes through nominees.

She went on to deny that she gave shares to her daughter Pinthongta. She admitted, however, giving Bt367 million cash as a birthday gift which her daughter later used for financing the shares transaction with Panthongtae.

She said all transactions among family members were declared in asset statements filed with the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

In regard to the proxy company Win Mark, she said she and her ex-husband did not own the company as alleged. The company was under the control of Middle East businessman Mahmud Mohamed al Ansar, who is Thaksin's friend.

She said Thaksin agreed to sell Bt650 million worth of shares to the company during the process of listing Shin Corp on the stock market. Thaksin subsequently transferred his business dealings with Win Mark to Pinthongta.

She said Thaksin's earnings from the Ample Rich deal were transferred to her bank account as a loan repayment.

After Thaksin decided to enter politics with the Palang Dharma Party, she said she had no involvement in the matter.

She conceded Thaksin had asked contributions from her to form the Thai Rak Thai Party, although she was not involved in the party's affairs.

She said Thaksin had no assets stashed abroad. The Bt200 million London home belonged to her, she said.

-- The Nation 2009/09/16

[Bagwan]

Yeah. I'll believe you Missus. Millions won't.

[Sandstone Art]

You can trust that lady talk.

After all the shares transfer to the maids and drivers, does she still has any more integrity left?

[baht&sold]

Erm. HAD something to say but it was deleted...

Mai pen rai.

Chok dee TV/LeFevre

[Plus]

The longest confession is from Snoh Thienthong, who truly qualifies as an "insider"....

"He [Thaksin] placed one of his own people in every ministry. These people did not need to have a powerful post, but everybody knew who they were ... If any minister wanted to propose a project using the central budget, the minister would first have to clear it with 'his person' first. Many ministers were approached by 'his person' saying, 'The budget is coming. You can have five or six billion, but 10 per cent must go to the party ... Any minister who would not do this, could not remain."

Snoh then explained how the system worked.

"For this 10 per cent policy, the minister would have to pad the budget proposed for approval to include the 10 per cent that would go to the party. Then once it was agreed with 'his person' via Khunying, the matter could be sent to his trusted 'permanent political representative', who used to be his company employee. To date nobody knows how much this 10 per cent amounts to. Probably need to ask Khunying."

Snoh claims to have asked Pojaman what she needed so many billions for, and got this answer: "In politics you have to hand out money. It has to be considered a business." Snoh asked her what would happen if things blew up, and she replied, "If Thaksin falls, the Thai Rak Thai Party will have to stay in power for at least two more terms for safety."

Originally from the Nation, but this is the first google hit:

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showCon...90&id2=3912

[Ricardo]

She said Thaksin had no assets stashed abroad.

Did they give away an Angolan diamond-mine for free, or did he have the assets overseas, to pay for it ? If it was financed from the profits on the sale of Man-City, how was the purchase of that business paid-for, and the subsequent investments (those which were not funded by increased loans) ? How can you bid for a $20-million island in Montenegro, with absolutely no free assets, to pay for it if your bid succeeds ?

How does someone roam the world, by private jet (which stopped-over in Malaysia) or commercial-flights, staying in $500/night hotel-rooms, all of this when they have "no assets stashed abroad" ? I'd love to know how to do that !

No, we understand why she has to say this to the Supreme Court, supporting her ex-husband and trying to pull some of the financial chestnuts out of the fire. Which is fair enough IMO, since once any agreed fair taxes and court-fines have been paid upon completion of the long list of cases waiting to be heard, the balance of the funds currently-frozen should be returned to their owners.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Ricardo

[Scott]

I believe that one has to do a fair amount of searching to find someone who is really wealthy that didn't make his wealth in what some would see as a questionable manner.

[egg]

l am not really up to speed on the Thaksin saga ,, but l heard that he was a policeman in an earlier life ,, if this is true ,, l would have great doubts if his wealth was gained legitimately ,,

cheers

egg

[ukrules]

I believe that one has to do a fair amount of searching to find someone who is really wealthy that didn't make his wealth in what some would see as a questionable manner.

Inherited wealth being the exception here although I doubt in most cases you would have to look too far up the family tree to see some dubious sources.

[Scott]

Whether or not his empire got started legitimately depends on if you subscribe to a western sense of ethics or a Thai sense of ethics (at least as it relates to finances).

I had heard that early on in his business career that he received some lucrative contracts for computers from the police. Can anybody verify this information.

[geriatrickid]

I believe that one has to do a fair amount of searching to find someone who is really wealthy that didn't make his wealth in what some would see as a questionable manner.

Really? Love or hate Bill Gates, but he did and paul Allen make his billions on MS.

Larry Ellison of Oracle fame, the founders of Yahoo and Google. Even the much loved Steve Jobs was legit.

Michael Bloomberg might be a hard ass but he's as clean as they come and a pretty decent big city mayor.

Mikey Dell??? He's clean. The Von Fincks that control Allianz are clean.

Sorry, but there are plenty of people that did make their money by taking risks, working hard and being in the right place at the right time.

Maybe what you meant to say was that in Thailand that applies?

[SweatySock]

She admitted, however, giving Bt367 million cash as a birthday gift

Mum, it's my birthday soon.

Yes darling, and what would you like?

Oh how about US$10 million please.

Certainly darling.

[Scott]

Geriatrickid: Oh, I agree with you, but you will find plenty of people, including a few court rulings, that some of those people used unfair business practices, monopolies, etc. What one person considers good business, someone else considers unfair. I believe it's usually the one on the losing side that considers it unfair.

It takes more than money laundering to get the stain of exploitation out of most fortunes. Philanthropy seems to help, though.

In the case of Thailand and the former PM, I have no idea if his wealth was ill-gotten or not, but I am sure he made a few enemies along the way. As for 'stashing' his wealth outside the country, I also don't know. I am actually surprised that he got caught with the huge amount that was frozen inside the country. I would have thought that as a businessman he should have seen the tide moving in the wrong direction. He certainly has business dealings outside of Thailand and it would seem quite legitimate that that money would be kept outside of Thailand.

[webfact]

I would have thought that as a businessman he should have seen the tide moving in the wrong direction. He certainly has business dealings outside of Thailand and it would seem quite legitimate that that money would be kept outside of Thailand.

He felt too secure.... blinded by too much money....

[steffi]

Yeah and Republicans aren't racist either.

So, can somebody remind me why this woman isn't in jail for tax evasion? What happens to a Farang if they run away from a court date and later return to Thailand?

[crusty]

She failed to mention the joint venture with Mr. Monson and his Hawaiian satellite and telecoms company which Thaksin exploited and then had their team arrested and deported once he had acquired the technology. Monson has tried to sue but conveniently Thaksin's buddies kept the case on the back burner until the statute of limitations ran out of time. As I recall this was about the same time he also ripped off the Yellow Pages directory.

[hammered]

The longest confession is from Snoh Thienthong, who truly qualifies as an "insider"....

"He [Thaksin] placed one of his own people in every ministry. These people did not need to have a powerful post, but everybody knew who they were ... If any minister wanted to propose a project using the central budget, the minister would first have to clear it with 'his person' first. Many ministers were approached by 'his person' saying, 'The budget is coming. You can have five or six billion, but 10 per cent must go to the party ... Any minister who would not do this, could not remain."

Snoh then explained how the system worked.

"For this 10 per cent policy, the minister would have to pad the budget proposed for approval to include the 10 per cent that would go to the party. Then once it was agreed with 'his person' via Khunying, the matter could be sent to his trusted 'permanent political representative', who used to be his company employee. To date nobody knows how much this 10 per cent amounts to. Probably need to ask Khunying."

Snoh claims to have asked Pojaman what she needed so many billions for, and got this answer: "In politics you have to hand out money. It has to be considered a business." Snoh asked her what would happen if things blew up, and she replied, "If Thaksin falls, the Thai Rak Thai Party will have to stay in power for at least two more terms for safety."

Originally from the Nation, but this is the first google hit:

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showCon...90&id2=3912

Now Snoh is Thaksin's best buddy again no doubt this previous littel document is being painted out of ther picture in some Stalinist style airbrushing.

By the way, did anybody expect Potjaman to say the money was ill gotten? A bit of a silly headline really.

[slimdog]

By the way, did anybody expect Potjaman to say the money was ill gotten? A bit of a silly headline really.

What you have to remember is that an asset seizure case is the absolute opposite of a normal court case.

In a case of asset seizure by the state, the defendant (Pojaman) is presumed guilty, and must prove otherwise. It is prosecuted under The NCCC Act section 81 which states:

In the case in which a request is made that the property be ordered to devolve upon the State, onus of proof to the Court that the said property does not result from the unusual wealthiness is upon the alleged culprit.

likewise in a standard court case, the prosecution is called first to make it's case, and then the defence then has the opportunity to present it's arguements. In an asset seizure case, the defence is called first, and then the state.

[brahmburgers]

There are basically two ways to play the game in regard to money:

If you're asking for it, you paint a picture of how great your prospects are

If you're trying to avoid paying it back, you paint a picture of how tough everything is.

Ms Poj is/will be doing the latter.

If there was a Noble Prize for lying, the Shinawatras would have won it several years in a row.

[animatic]

The growth of Shin Corp led to Pojaman's decision in 2000 to sell Bt37 million worth of equity stakes to her son Panthongtae.

And where did the young Oak get 37 million baht?

Daughter gets a 367million baht brithday gift!!

What no gift taxes? What is the origin of the 367 mil?

How much later did said young miss buy the huge stake in the company.

This story is so full of holes it looks Swiss as in cheese, AND banking.

10% Thakin...

like Benazar Buhto's husband "10% Ali"

They put a person in each ministry...

Sound like the Communist Party Member put on every Soviet Submarine,

to make sure all things were done, and all thoughts were though, as the party wanted.

So far nothing to say this money should not be held vs policy corruption charges.

And a big yes as to "No Money Stashed Abroad" being utter ballderdash.

No need to list reasons for this view, they are soooo obvious. And party stated above.

[animatic]

I believe that one has to do a fair amount of searching to find someone who is really wealthy that didn't make his wealth in what some would see as a questionable manner.

Inherited wealth being the exception here although I doubt in most cases you would have to look too far up the family tree to see some dubious sources.

Some people just make a better product at JUST the right time, and it sells like hotcakes.

And then they properly invest that money and it continues to grow with the economy.

I have some IBM bought when they still made typwriters...

a few mainframes and home PC's later and it ain't worth the same.

Apple, Microsoft and many others also: right place, right idea, right time.

And no sweetheart government contracts through graft and kickbacks.

Not to say they didn't do hard nosed deals and end up with defacto monopolies.

Edited September 16, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Geriatrickid: Oh, I agree with you, but you will find plenty of people, including a few court rulings, that some of those people used unfair business practices, monopolies, etc. What one person considers good business, someone else considers unfair. I believe it's usually the one on the losing side that considers it unfair.

It takes more than money laundering to get the stain of exploitation out of most fortunes. Philanthropy seems to help, though.

In the case of Thailand and the former PM, I have no idea if his wealth was ill-gotten or not, but I am sure he made a few enemies along the way. As for 'stashing' his wealth outside the country, I also don't know. I am actually surprised that he got caught with the huge amount that was frozen inside the country. I would have thought that as a businessman he should have seen the tide moving in the wrong direction. He certainly has business dealings outside of Thailand and it would seem quite legitimate that that money would be kept outside of Thailand.

Scott, under Thai law if it isn't filed as income,

even while kept offshore, it is STILL ILLEGAL.

Thailand is protectionist about great wealth leaving the country,

and Thaksin clearly has broken that law in LARGE ways.

In USA we must pay taxes on income from shares owned off shore.

If we earn offshore for work, we must declare that also, but it's tax exempt up to $70k

[Thai at Heart]

Geriatrickid: Oh, I agree with you, but you will find plenty of people, including a few court rulings, that some of those people used unfair business practices, monopolies, etc. What one person considers good business, someone else considers unfair. I believe it's usually the one on the losing side that considers it unfair.

It takes more than money laundering to get the stain of exploitation out of most fortunes. Philanthropy seems to help, though.

In the case of Thailand and the former PM, I have no idea if his wealth was ill-gotten or not, but I am sure he made a few enemies along the way. As for 'stashing' his wealth outside the country, I also don't know. I am actually surprised that he got caught with the huge amount that was frozen inside the country. I would have thought that as a businessman he should have seen the tide moving in the wrong direction. He certainly has business dealings outside of Thailand and it would seem quite legitimate that that money would be kept outside of Thailand.

Scott, under Thai law if it isn't filed as income,

even while kept offshore, it is STILL ILLEGAL.

Thailand is protectionist about great wealth leaving the country,

and Thaksin clearly has broken that law in LARGE ways.

In USA we must pay taxes on income from shares owned off shore.

If we earn offshore for work, we must declare that also, but it's tax exempt up to $70k

At the end of the day, his major asset was a Thai company AIS, earning baht, but with little or no export business, hence a huge amount of the money was in Thailand. He did have satellites etc. It would be interesting to know where the invoicing entity for these services actually sat and how much "profit" was returned to the Thai entity.

We all know that the financial systems of most countries leak like sieves. Thailand's simply drains more quickly.

[Plus]

I had heard that early on in his business career that he received some lucrative contracts for computers from the police. Can anybody verify this information.

It's in her testimony - establishment of Shinawatra computers. Her father was the police general and the company got a contract supplying all police stations in Thailand.

[givenall]

Whether or not his empire got started legitimately depends on if you subscribe to a western sense of ethics or a Thai sense of ethics (at least as it relates to finances).

I had heard that early on in his business career that he received some lucrative contracts for computers from the police. Can anybody verify this information.

ell I am sure she is telling the truth------NOT

[dre1247]

I had heard that early on in his business career that he received some lucrative contracts for computers from the police. Can anybody verify this information.

It's in her testimony - establishment of Shinawatra computers. Her father was the police general and the company got a contract supplying all police stations in Thailand.

Should that not read "a" police general? I think there are nearly 400 of them?

[Donnyboy]

she forgot to start with......"Once apon a time"

[soic]

Yeah and Republicans aren't racist either.

So, can somebody remind me why this woman isn't in jail for tax evasion? What happens to a Farang if they run away from a court date and later return to Thailand?

What do Republicans have to do with this? It seems to me that only the Democrats are the ones that talk race all the time... Handouts not Handups!

[jayjayjayjay]

Errr, are you all questioning whether the Shinawatra's owned controlling internest in AIS???

This should have been settled by SET a long time ago if it was questionable?????

I've left this forum a long time because of the seriously one sided ridiculous ideals held by most of the above posters..... get a job somewhere else than The Nation or Manager pls.

[Plus]

I've left this forum a long time because of the seriously one sided...

Maybe you mean intelligent vs ignorant. Never mind, we are here to help.

Errr, are you all questioning whether the Shinawatra's owned controlling internest in AIS???

This should have been settled by SET a long time ago if it was questionable?????

The question here is WHICH of the Shinawatras controlled it. If it was Thaksin and Pojamarn, that it was illegal. If it was their children, they are clear.

AEC, together with DSI, discovered evidence that Thaksin still had the control of at least one of the companies owning Shin. If they can prove it to the court Thaksin can kiss his asset goodbye.

The case, however, is a lot more complicated than letting his wide to buy state auctioned property.

SEC, besides being run by Thaksin's cronies, does not have legal power to investigate shareholding and ownership of overseas based companies like WinMark or Ample Rich.