Web Of Intrigue

[losworld]

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.

Precisely arrow straight to the heart.  Do this and Thaksin is finished.  Additionally, I really don't understand why the current government is not playing hardball with this guy.  They should use the Cambodian alliance with Thailand against him.  Where are all the rumours about Thaksin and Cambodia?  There is ample opportunity to politically harm him in the rumour mill.

[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?

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

I take very little on the forum seriously purely a form of entertainment in between games of golf and the movies.

[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

I take very little on the forum seriously purely a form of entertainment in between games of golf and the movies.

..it's nice to meet a wise man.

LaoPo

[xminator]

I want to see a similar nice graph about some Democrat campaign donations...

[TAWP]

I want to see a similar nice graph about some Democrat campaign donations...

Smokescreen 101?

Campaign donations aren't illegal. Asset concealment is.

[NCFC]

Just a question. How come this "evidence" is appearing in a newspaper during the course of a trial? I always thought that such matters were "sub-judice" and could not be discussed until a case was over, for fear of unduly influencing public opinion.

Or maybe the cynic in me says that this information has been released into the public domain in order to influence public opinion. Sort of trial by newspaper, I would say.

Whatever you call it, democracy it isn't

[hammered]

Just a question. How come this "evidence" is appearing in a newspaper during the course of a trial? I always thought that such matters were "sub-judice" and could not be discussed until a case was over, for fear of unduly influencing public opinion.

Or maybe the cynic in me says that this information has been released into the public domain in order to influence public opinion. Sort of trial by newspaper, I would say.

Whatever you call it, democracy it isn't

Depends what system you compare it to. Some western democracies have very strict rules on evidence. Others do not and trial is almost by media. It is always a difficult thing to balance the right of freedom of information and the right to fair trial

[TAWP]

Well, in most western countries you can get details from the trials as they are given, as the trial-journalists will be on location and blogging about the events for the newspapers...

[steveromagnino]

the way in which the Shin assets were concealed is relatively widely known so not much of that chart was a surprise upon seeing it (although it is nice and clear).

The way in which transactions were done - some already came out already in the case against Pojaman when she accidentally signed as a Khunying in a backdated falsified statement prior to being given the royal title 2 years later - some came out in the asset concealment case against Thaksin in 2001-03 when he admitted to concealing the assets in his maid's names etc but said it was 'an honest mistake' despite that being a non admissable defense in the 1997 constitution which Thaksin and red shirts wish to bring back despite his own failure to pass even the most basic of tests to stand as a representative of the people.

The issues of Shin/government policy to favour one telco over others is widely known and even analysts pro Shin used to write regularly that Shin had a premium thanks to (and this is a direct quote from one of the most pro TRT analysts i know at the time) the well known fact that 'Shin enjoys more than their fair share of regularatory benefits and connections' - using government time to renegotiate Shin Sat in India for instance; the Australian/Thai FTA for telcos, etc etc.

Therefore the charts shown are probably evidence but also most likely accepted as being in the public sphere already.

It probably also doesn't help that for the first few months, Temasak were saying they had bought 93% of Shin as well; well above the legal limit that TRT had implemented a month prior to sale, raising the bar from 25% to 49%.

Back then in 2004-5 the TRT heavyweights were so brazen in some of their actions, because there had been no real media or judicial or oversight since 2002. It was only once they somehow annoyed Sondhi and the big corruption deals started becoming so much clearer (trees at the airport worth 1,000b each but costing 100,000b; CTX, roads built to the doors of SC Asset developments) that anyone cared. The problem is that in the electronic issue, the lack of care in arranging and backdating evidence was not always done......and so the papertrail isn't lining up with the words being spoken.

Didn't matter in the asset concealment case in 2003, where details and huge scale intimidation of the justices involved was very much conducted in the public eye using every media channel under the control of TRT at that time (all public TV channels, most print media) in order to ensure a political risk should the decision be decided on the basis of the letter of the law alone. Might matter a whole lot more this time, where justices are being encouraged to focus on the letter of the law (and hel_l, this time it suits to do so, let's be honest).

As a lover of the letter of the law, I see nothing wrong with that.

Edited November 25, 2009 by steveromagnino

[Samuian]

deleted - double posting...

Edited November 25, 2009 by Samuian

[Samuian]

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

Excerpt from above post:

"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"

I find it quite funny or better sort of "canny" how some would try to twist a News reporting Media into being "biased" and then using the "biased" reporting as to point towards the plaintiffs innocence despite all the overwhelming mountains of clear evidence - just to hold on to their statements based on their very individual point s of view, not on facts and evidential circumstances but on mere emotions as it seems - "He is a good man and has done a lot of good for the country"

This is the very commonly used phrase to outline that he must be innocent, because he was so "good" - Where, when and what exactly?

Some even claim "clever" - sorry, he was neither!

He was/is a rather blunt and scrupulous opportunist, who would g o to any length to make his dreams come true!

He was toppled because he believed that he was the "chosen one" and was ruthlessly pursuing his highly questionable aim, which certainly wasn't close to something resembling anything like "genuine democracy" he is supposedly so strongly advocating, this was never in his mind, remember how often he says things he doesn't underpin with his deeds and vice versa!

HIS mistake was that he thought he is more clever and smarter then everybody else, tel 'em this and do that!

Obviously it didn't work, he got very, very close though...

Edited November 25, 2009 by Samuian

[slimdog]

NCFC

In most countries, rules surrounding witness testimony is fairly open. When a court does wish for secrecy for some reason, then testimony of individual witnesses are normally in-camera. When high profile cases are being tried, then Justices can and frequently do tell a jury what information, be it newspapers or television they can and cannot see. How effective this is, no one really knows...

In Thailand, where there is no Jury system it is supposedly less of an issue.

One of my biggest complaints about cases like these, is that invariably the reader or listener gets very little information, and what information they do get is normally what the newroom view as the more juicy parts. As a result of this, when a verdict is finally given, readers are left wondering how this verdict could be possible. It takes a considerable amount of time and effort to get even some of the basic facts such as Who are the defendants, what are the actual charges, and who are the witnesses for each side, let alone the testimony.

Whether the Justices are swayed by public or personnel opinion is another issue.

Looking at the two main cases finalised against Thaksin, I would say that there was no clear right or wrong verdict. Under these circumstances, Justices maybe swayed more to one side than the other.

In the Ratchada-Phisek case; all of the criminal charges were cleared, which just left the conflict of interest verdict. This was really a matter of interpretation. Four of the Justices viewed that there was no conflict of interest, whilst five said there was. Whether it was public opinion, or Thaksins own actions,(Jumping bail, Giving negative interviews about the justice system and attempting to remove his lawyers from the trial) which finally resulted in the Justices not giving him the benefit of the doubt will never be known, but I am sure they did play a part, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.

In the asset concealment case you had a strange situation. The law was designed to check if a politician had more assets when he left office than when he went in, it was equally designed to prohibit politicians from owning more than a certain percentege of a company whilst in office. The problem was that when Thaksin took office in mid August 1997, he did so under the 1991 Constitution, where no such requirements were required, and on leaving office two months later (26 days after the 1997 Constitution became law), he was forced to fill out an Asset declaration form which didn't exist, and give it to a non existing agency. (The NCCC which was named in the 1997 Constitution only came into existance in April 1999. And the laws governing the procedure for Asset declaration were finally made law in Octover 1999). On this instance, the Justices gave him the benefit of the doubt, and again I am sure that both personal and public opinion did come into the final decission, and again it doesn't mean the decision was wrong.

I am equally sure that when the verdict is read out for this case, there will be people surprised by the outcome, but it doesn't mean it's wrong...

Anyway thats my humble opinion

[SiamWallaby]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this, it sure puts it into perspective.

The question that begs to be asked, in my mind is...why does he want back in the country? If he made a mint why not hang out and enjoy his ill gotten gains? Does he just want MORE? Seems pretty clear the time to prove his innocence or restore his reputation has long passed.

[jayjayjayjay]

I want to see a similar nice graph about some Democrat campaign donations...

Smokescreen 101?

Campaign donations aren't illegal. Asset concealment is.

If this was a real process for Thailand to go through then Thaksin's wealth is truely visible and everyone know's when and how he got rich. What would and should be done is running the Chunavan Family assets, Theungsuban assets, Thiengthong assests, Yongchaiyut assets and Banhan Silapachar etc. These are families that GOT rich from the public coffers!

[slimdog]

Campaign donations aren't illegal.

Whilst political donations are legal (and encouraged), there are still a multitude of laws which have to be followed. Failure to abide by these laws can lead to serious consequences where the party can be dissolved, individuals jailed and fines meted out to those concerned.

In this instance a 258 million baht donation is alleged to have been made by TPI Polene to the Democrat Party prior to the 2005 General Election. As with all political donations, (in many countries) there is a law which allows the donator to use this as a basis for a tax deduction. When the administrators of TPI Prolene tried to do this they were informed by the revenue department that the donation was not registered with the Election Commission, and therefore no deduction would be allowed.

This matter was mentioned quite extensively in parliament during the censure debate and the Election Commission are currently investigating this matter, although they have issued a statement that they have no record of any such donation.

If the allegation has grounds then the Democrat Party will be looking at violation of the Organic law on Political Parties (1998):

Sections 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51

The combination of these violations could be grounds for dissolution under Section 94 of the current Organic law

For 37 & 39 the penalty is a fine of 100,000 baht for each

For 43 & 44 the penalty is a jail sentence of not more than 6 months and a fine of 500,000 baht for each

For 45, 46 & 51 the penalty is a jail sentence of not more than 3 years and a fine of not less than three times the money donated for each

For 49 & 50 the penalty is a fine not less than 100,000 baht for each

The basis for this is that all donations must be fully reported, receipts issued and the money transfered to the Parties official bank account. In addition to this the Election Commission sets very strict rules on the amount of money a Political Party may spend in an election. Undisclosed donations are viewed as a way of circumventing these rules.