Web Of Intrigue

[sabaijai]

WEB OF INTRIGUE

By The Nation

Published on November 23, 2009

Prosecution reveals how the Shinawatras hid and multiplied their assets while in power

Would you cheat your son out of Bt3 billion? That could happen if your assistant was in a hurry to cover up something very important to you.

That was what the prosecution in the Bt76-billion asset seizure case against ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra told the Supreme Court last week.

The story was part of the prosecution's detailed argument that Thaksin and his ex-wife, Pojaman na Pombejra, did own altogether 46.87 per cent of Shin Corp shares worth more than Bt69 billion while the former held the country's highest office from 2001-2006.

The alleged cover-up of massive wealth was in blatant violation of Article 100(3) of the National Counter-Corruption Commission Act of 1999, which bars public office holders and their spouses from owning shares in companies holding state concessions.

In this case, Shin Corp was the holding company for Advanced Info Service (AIS) and Shin Satellite, which enjoyed government concessions for lucrative cellular and satellite service businesses.

Back in 2000, Thaksin and Pojaman were busy preparing to hide their multibillion-baht assets ahead of the general election.

After winning the election by a landslide, they could have sold off the assets or put them under a "blind" trust to comply with the law, but these options were never used.

Instead, a highly complex web of offshore and onshore entities and nominees was used to conceal their tremendous wealth.

Behind the scenes, the motives were multifaceted, ranging from tax avoidance to election campaign financing and other political reasons.

The entire process of concealing such massive wealth was unprecedented in Thai history. So was the subsequent government policies and measures used to increase the value of the holdings over a period of more than five years.

Kaewsan Atibhodi, a member of the now-defunct Assets Examination Committee, which investigated this and other Thaksin cases, said the overall process of asset concealment and "policy corruption" was just intriguing.

As a key prosecution witness in the Bt76-billion asset seizure case pending in the Supreme Court, Kaewsan last week testified that the whole Bt76 billion fortune should be devolved to the state.

"First of all, Thaksin hid his vast shareholdings even after being elected the prime minister, so he intentionally violated Article 100(3) of the NCCC law.

"Secondly, as prime minister, he introduced measures and policies that benefited Shin Corp so he violated Article 100(1) of the NCCC law.

"Therefore, Thaksin abused his office to gain his wealth, resulting in a loss to the state of more than Bt100 billion. Since he and his former wife controlled as much as 46.87 per cent of Shin Corp, the benefits from such a large shareholding were therefore ill-gotten and should be forfeited."

Yet, the prosecution would have to convince the court that Thaksin and Pojaman did really conceal their wealth while the former was in office - a key point consistently countered and dismissed by the defence lawyers.

Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.

"This argument was not convincing because the documentation, such as notices of share transfers, promissory notes, annual reports of Ample Rich Co (one of the offshore nominees) could have been tampered with or backdated to alter the whole story," Kaewsan said.

"However, we're not given any hard evidence that couldn't be meddled with, such as share depositories or transaction records that Thaksin could have asked from UBS Bank (Singapore branch) to prove that his son, Panthongtae, was the authorised owner of those shares, not just his father's nominee."

Pojaman testified before the court that Panthongtae earlier paid her Bt4.5 billion in promissory notes for a total of 450 million shares of TMB Bank that were sold to her son.

Her testimony raised even more questions than answers on the contentious point of whether the son and other Shinawatra children as well as relatives were genuine buyers of Thaksin and Pojaman's shares or just their nominees.

The facts show that if the Bt4.5 billion payment by Panthongtae to her mother for the TMB shares was real as claimed by Pojaman, the mother would have probably conned her son out of as much as Bt3 billion in just one go.

Why? The entire 450 million shares of TMB Bank as cited by Pojaman included 300 million shares that Pojaman got for free via the exercise of 300 million warrants, so the actual cost of all 450 million TMB shares was just Bt1.5 billion, not the hugely-inflated Bt4.5 billion.

Any decent mother wouldn't have done this to her beloved children. In other words, it simply defies conventional wisdom.

So what could have happened? Besides Pojaman's aides, who prepared the document for court evidence, no one else would have a clear idea of what went wrong, but the glitch clearly undermines the defence's credibility as far as true ownership of all of the Thaksin-Pojaman assets is concerned.

In fact, this is one of the most fundamental points in the prosecution's argument for taking permanent possession of the Bt76 billion.

The prosecution firmly believes that Thaksin covered up his wealth illegally and then launched policies and measures that enormously benefited his financial interests over his years in office before selling those assets to Temasek Holding of Singapore at a huge gain in 2006.

Company above state

Five policies and measures |that benefited Shin Corp:

- Reduction in the concession fee of AIS from 25 per cent to 20 per cent of its revenue, resulting in state-owned TOT losing Bt70 billion.

- Amending AIS's contracts with TOT and state-owned CAT to share roaming charges resulting in a combined loss of Bt21.7 billion for the state.

- Enacting legislation to convert concession fees into excise tax on telecom services in bid to keep AIS's market lead at the expense of competitors.

- Approving Shin Sat's IP Star satellite project so that it did not have to put into orbit a Bt4-billion Thaicom 4 satellite, resulting in a Bt20-billion loss in state benefits.

- Approving a Bt1-billion increase in Exim Bank loan for Burma from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion, so the extra Bt1 billion could be used to buy satellite services from Shin Sat.

-- The Nation 2009-11-23

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[jamesjdaly]

..........Back in 2000, Thaksin and Pojaman were busy preparing to hide their multibillion-baht assets ahead of the general election. After winning the election by a landslide, they could have sold off the assets or put them under a "blind" trust to comply with the law, but these options were never used. Instead, a highly complex web of offshore and onshore entities and nominees was used to conceal their tremendous wealth. Behind the scenes, the motives were multifaceted, ranging from tax avoidance to election campaign financing and other political reasons.............

And this is the scumbag the red shirts want back as PM?

[LawnGnome]

Lets hear Jayboy explain how this was perfectly justifiable under the circumstances.

Edited November 23, 2009 by LawnGnome

[Thailand]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

[LawnGnome]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

The moment Thaksin fled the country, the defense rested its case.

[jayboy]

Lets hear Jayboy explain how this was perfectly justifiable under the circumstances.

It wasn't justifiable at all but it's not the reason he is hated and feared by the elite.

[zzaa09]

Poor old Shinawatra gang, everyone's always pickin' on them...

[mahtin]

Will Cambo now have second thoughts about Frankie?

[Thailand]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

The moment Thaksin fled the country, the defense rested its case.

Ah I see, pointless having a costly trial then as the verdict had already been decided?

[sunsamourai]

Any decent mother wouldn't have done this to her beloved children

yes, and that's a kind of motherhood they long for too.

=S

[animatic]

Lets hear Jayboy explain how this was perfectly justifiable under the circumstances.

It wasn't justifiable at all but it's not the reason he is hated and feared by the elite.

No,

that is because he wanted to take over the country and steal their money too.

[animatic]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

The moment Thaksin fled the country, the defense rested its case.

Ah I see, pointless having a costly trial then as the verdict had already been decided?

When they didn't hire better lawyers and legal/financial advisers and decided to do it themselves,

is the time the verdict got decided. They were clearly quite inept at this and it has caught them up.

Tough!

The only reason not to stay and serve the short creampuff ,2 years in luxury, but titular jail,

was because a Sword of Damoclease of all this other crap was hanging clearly in his rearview mirror.

He could have sailed through the 2 years and never felt it, from his wealth to bribe comforts in jail,

but then he would ALSO be caught in the legal web and get hung to dry for what he clearly KNOWS

was done badly. You could see this on his shell-shocked face when Potjamin got convicted. The end is nigh!

[slimdog]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

The way the system works for this type of case is actually the opposite of most types of trial.

The Asset Examination Committee (which was given the full powers of the NCCC) froze the accounts of the defendants, and then gave them the opportunity to present evidence that the assets in question did not constitute Unusual wealthiness as defined in the NCCC Act Section 4/9 :

"unusual wealthiness" means having an unusually large quantity of assets,

having an unusual increase of assets,

having an unusual decrease of liabilities

or having illegitimate acquisition of assets in a consequence of the performance of duties or the exercise of power in office or in the course of duty.

The AEC sub-committee which investigated this case was of the opinion that the evidence provided by the accused was insufficient, and presented it's findings to the full AEC, who on inspecting the evidence from both the accused and the investigators decided that there were grounds to seize the assets and passed the case to the Attorney General, who filed the case with the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Political Office holders.

During the hearing of the Supreme Court, Section 61 applies:

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.

For this reason, the defendants in the case, present their evidence, arguements and witnesses to the court first. It is upon them to prove that the assets in question were obtained legally. Once completed, the prosecution has the opportunity to present their evidence, arguements and witnesses. In total 55 witnesses appeared for the defendants, and 52 for the prosecution.

The easiest way to understand this, is to say that the people on trial here are actually the AEC. The AEC made a decission, and now the "defendants" have to prove that they made the wrong one...

As with all Supreme Court hearings, once a verdict has been delivered, the defendants do have an opportunity to appeal. But the appeal must be made within 30 days and must include completely fresh evidence which would be sufficient to change the verdict. This evidence will be put before a screening committee who will decide whether the evidence produced meets this requirement. If it does then a hearing of the full Supreme Court will sit and pass judgement. To date, no appeal has ever got passed the screening committee.

[animatic]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

The way the system works for this type of case is actually the opposite of most types of trial.

The Asset Examination Committee (which was given the full powers of the NCCC) froze the accounts of the defendants, and then gave them the opportunity to present evidence that the assets in question did not constitute Unusual wealthiness as defined in the NCCC Act Section 4/9 :

"unusual wealthiness" means having an unusually large quantity of assets,

having an unusual increase of assets,

having an unusual decrease of liabilities

or having illegitimate acquisition of assets in a consequence of the performance of duties or the exercise of power in office or in the course of duty.

The AEC sub-committee which investigated this case was of the opinion that the evidence provided by the accused was insufficient, and presented it's findings to the full AEC, who on inspecting the evidence from both the accused and the investigators decided that there were grounds to seize the assets and passed the case to the Attorney General, who filed the case with the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Political Office holders.

During the hearing of the Supreme Court, Section 61 applies:

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.

For this reason, the defendants in the case, present their evidence, arguements and witnesses to the court first. It is upon them to prove that the assets in question were obtained legally. Once completed, the prosecution has the opportunity to present their evidence, arguements and witnesses. In total 55 witnesses appeared for the defendants, and 52 for the prosecution.

The easiest way to understand this, is to say that the people on trial here are actually the AEC. The AEC made a decission, and now the "defendants" have to prove that they made the wrong one...

As with all Supreme Court hearings, once a verdict has been delivered, the defendants do have an opportunity to appeal. But the appeal must be made within 30 days and must include completely fresh evidence which would be sufficient to change the verdict. This evidence will be put before a screening committee who will decide whether the evidence produced meets this requirement. If it does then a hearing of the full Supreme Court will sit and pass judgement. To date, no appeal has ever got passed the screening committee.

A well stated and clear explanation of the system, and laws.

A nice refresher going into this high tension month of bile, mayhem and lies.

[salty]

I thought the ex Mrs. Thaskin was very careful with household expenses.

[LaoPo]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

Surely "Thailand", you as one of the oldest members of Thaivisa must know that the Farang Judges in Thailand are the best in the country? No matter what anybody says...if the Farang Judges pass their judgments it's indeed "a given" since they eat out of The Nation's hands and trough....

What The Nation writes is always true; non-biased as they are.

It's about the same as Thai Judges/Expats know what's best for the US, the UK, France, Australia or Japan

LaoPo

[animatic]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

Surely "Thailand", you as one of the oldest members of Thaivisa must know that the Farang Judges in Thailand are the best in the country? No matter what anybody says...if the Farang Judges pass their judgments it's indeed "a given" since they eat out of The Nation's hands and trough....

What The Nation writes is always true; non-biased as they are.

It's about the same as Thai Judges/Expats know what's best for the US, the UK, France, Australia or Japan

LaoPo

Actually the DEFENSE has already spoken, as is the case in this type court proceeding.

Defense goes first and states it's case, then the prosecution attempts to prove otherwise.

And the prosecution is now at bat.

I assume a rebuttle is allowed for both sides.

Is ANYTHING 'a given' in Thailand?

To imply that The Nation should not take a stance on national issues,

goes counter to most all news journals having an editorial position.

Absolutely a normal thing in most all countries.

Bias is normal in journalistic editing.

Any individual is allowed his opinion and point of view.

When should that be annulled if it isn't of seditious content.

So you pass your judgements on as you see fit,

and some may likely disagree and pass on their judgments.

To say ones judgments are irrelevant because of culture, is only invalid,

if those making the judgment have little understanding of the

greater circumstances on which they are commenting upon.

[LaoPo]

^^^ Amen

LaoPo

[oevna]

Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.

Interesting little fact slipped in there. I didn't know this!

[LawnGnome]

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

Surely "Thailand", you as one of the oldest members of Thaivisa must know that the Farang Judges in Thailand are the best in the country? No matter what anybody says...if the Farang Judges pass their judgments it's indeed "a given" since they eat out of The Nation's hands and trough....

What The Nation writes is always true; non-biased as they are.

It's about the same as Thai Judges/Expats know what's best for the US, the UK, France, Australia or Japan

LaoPo

Well, I suppose the Nation is as unbiased as LaoPo's news brand of choice - Truth Today!

[animatic]

You have all this money, prove it's provenance.

That the kid got all this stock with only a " Promissory Note" signed,

and not a baht passing hands, really pushes the issue of an actual sale.

Sorry Charlie, you don't make the Sunkist cut.

[losworld]

Now this is interesting. What if a large portion of this money were redistributed to the people of Isaan?

[LawnGnome]

Now this is interesting. What if a large portion of this money were redistributed to the people of Isaan?

If the braintrust here on TV has thought of that, I am sure the higher ups in the government have as well. It is a great idea, and the ultimate irony, in many ways.

[MILT]

As I said a while back, Mr. T barely won his first election due to corruption accusations. My Great Grandfather (whom I knew) always told me " Always do things in a clean truthful way and you will always come out smelling like a rose. Unlike some folks who stand in their own Sh*t but think they smell like a rose. I'm sure we all no someone like that

[virtualtraveller]

I'm not totally familiar with the way a publicly held company is sold but to me the strongest circumstantial evidence that Thaksin still controlled Shin was in the sale. Though he had supposedly off-loaded all ownership to various parties, they all miraculously concurred to make the sale possible, as the controlling share entity.

Anyway, arguing that the burden of proof is on the defendant is irrelevant here since the details of the various share sales that have emerged show beyond doubt that the ownership change was not real, given the vast discrepancies in the amounts paid - for example how Potjaman, 'cheated' her son out of 3billion during the transaction of shares. If you were to question her and him in the dock before a jury, they would be fumbling for a convincing answer.

Personally, if he is found guilty, I think they should give him back the amount the company was worth before he became prime minister, plus a realistic growth in value, and seize the rest, that way there won't be a backlash or charges of 'political motivation'. It will give him a war chest to bribe his supporters but ultimately proves beyond doubt that he's a criminal and not fit for politics here.

And yes, Thaksin doing a runner on a meagre two year sentence was the ultimate admission of guilt on a large scale; he simply would never get out of jail because new charges and convictions would come to bear before the previous term of sentence was up.

Sadly, none of this would have been necessary for Thaksin, or Thailand, if the man's judgement had been less arrogant and he had realised early on that the game was up and his best option would be to cut a quiet deal to fade away with his millions, and nip the whole thing in the bud. Frankly, I think they could go on for years throwing the rule book at this guy, and though he might manage to weedle his way out of some, given the legal loopholes etc., he's going to spend the next decade phoning his lawyers from Dubai, unless of course....

[snowflake]

All Thai politicians are corrupt... they all work to fill their own pockets, just like their american counterparts.

I have a feeling that the people in Isan feels that Thaksin gave something back to them. I have never liked Taksin personaly but I know quite a few people who claims that he did something for the people back in Isan.

If I were Thaksin I would also run away before my court date was due, never any doubts about the verdict. Fair trial is not on the page here, his money might have helped him to live nicely in jail, but for how long.

This is all show for the people, they are scared of him, but let us face it. He was the last person here in Thailand to win an election by the people (I am quite sure he paid them, as did the other parties too).

It smells, it smells like shit and you just cant find where it comes from- I have a feeling that he will be back, things will get worse...

The government should focus on what they should do- run the country- then the police and the justice system should focus on Thaksin. The world is watching and I am quite sure they can see that there is not a chance in hel_l that he would get a FAIR trial (if he deserves one is another question).

Ok, kill me now...

[KireB]

All Thai politicians are corrupt... they all work to fill their own pockets, just like their american counterparts.

No they are not, only the criminal ones!

[LawnGnome]

If I were Thaksin I would also run away before my court date was due, never any doubts about the verdict.

That speaks volumes about you...not much about Thaksin lol.

[hansnl]

Now this is interesting. What if a large portion of this money were redistributed to the people of Isaan?

You really think so?

Allegedly he stole money from the state.

The money "distributed" to the people from the Isan came from the state too.

Or maybe you mean the money he spent on alleged vote buying, allegedly paying the red shirts, allegedly this.....allegedly that.

So many times allegedly, I would say where there is smoke there must be fire.......allegedly

Mr T, more as all politicians, or maybe most, is not in politics for the people or even his/her voters, but in politics for money, for power or both.

Never trust a politician, anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

Edited November 24, 2009 by hansnl

[TAWP]

hansnl>> I think he meant, what if the current government took the frozen asset and distributed it in the north, as a way to gain their support. Same is done in many socialist countries. (As horrid as it is.)

As the government already has the founds they can misuse them in any way they please. I'm on the basis that they shouldn't have had much of it (the state coffins, not reg. Thaksins frozen assets) at all from the start.