Well the assets case is upon us again. Will it be decided soon? How will it go? Please vote for the choices CLOSEST to your prediction.

BTW, the idea is to choose what you THINK what will happen, rather than what you WANT to happen.

OK, from the update, we are going to get a verdict on 26 February. So that begs the question, will that verdict actually be announced on that date? Will the verdict LEAK out before then? Will the redshirts risk waiting to hear the verdict or instead go for total chaos in streets in case it is bad news? The poll is still valid, I think, in the sense voting for long delays is still a real option if the verdict ruling is delayed or cancelled due to political chaos/change, etc.

"No, the courts will seize all or most of the assets"

Well I understand they are presumed not to be legally "His assets" otherwise there wouldn't be any grounds to seize them in the first place!

So all the courts, the judges will have to decide are they illegaly amassed, has he robbed and tricked the state or has he earned it all in earnest?

Well, next comes th e question, if so, why then is it all, all of a sudden owned by his daughter:

PINTHONGTA SHINAWATRA

Dad: Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra

Age: 27

Bad behavior: When Pinthongta Shinawatra became the richest stockholder in Thailand in 2004, few observers were surprised. Before Thaksin was deposed in a military coup in 2006, his family benefited tremendously from the rampant nepotism during his five-year term as prime minster, with his own children netting millions. Along with her brother Pangthongtae, she made a large profit by buying 329.2 million shares in a Thai communications company for 1 baht each from one of the family’s offshore holding company, and selling them for almost 50 times their value to a Singaporean company. The ensuing transaction netted $464 million, and Pinthongta’s father kept the transaction hidden from Thai tax officials.

Since her father lost the premiership, Pinthongta has been busy protecting both her father’s record and her own funds. A court in Thailand ordered her and her brother in 2007 to pay $293.6 million in taxes for the stock transaction, and just this February a court upheld the Thai state’s decision to freeze more than $350 million of the pair’s assets. Meanwhile, she refused to testify against her parents in their own tax-evasion case, and she continues to defend her father’s record in public, all while running the family’s still-intact property business. And with substantial portions of her fortune, as well as the rest of the family’s, likely hidden in overseas accounts, Thai authorities will have a hard time halting her life of luxury.

Source:

picture this....for how much honesty could these constructions stand, would they hold the water before any international independent panel?

Ask yourself!

I think this poll is worth bumping.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/12...cs_30120171.php

Prediction: They will take it all and give it back to the tax paying citizens in the form of a rebate.

Did he lose much money in Dubai?

Let's not forget where we are. He will get some, if not most of it back at least.

Would be very interesting how the UDD, supposedly a populist organization, would justify starting a riot because Thaksin lost a case that he (and his family) illegally profited in the sale of Shin Corp and avoided paying taxes to the tune of some 52 billion baht.

I think the court will rule against him.

TH

Would be very interesting how the UDD, supposedly a populist organization, would justify starting a riot because Thaksin lost a case that he (and his family) illegally profited in the sale of Shin Corp and avoided paying taxes to the tune of some 52 billion baht.

I think the court will rule against him.

TH

Interesting, but predictable really.

I think his money is as good as lost

Also think that February 25th is a good

day to get out of both Chiang Mai and Bangkok

I think his money is as good as lost

Also think that February 25th is a good

day to get out of both Chiang Mai and Bangkok

My feeling too, but we won't know until we know. If there is a pro Thaksin decision that could also mean total violent chaos if you think about it.

Another reason for a bump;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-s-Ju...ay-t329644.html

Interesting that the Friday 26th is payday for most folks. maybe they think that most people will be too concerned with going to Siam Square for MK than following politics?

No, the courts will seize all or most of the assets

I voted murky.

Dunno, but this country seems to run of the basis of the powers that be vacillating and never being decisive except when the military decides to stage a coup. Call it the Face thing, call it pragmatism, call it real politik, whatever it is, it always seems to produce unhappy political factions and a mess. whatever the judgement, I anticipate there being an appeal for a review by the losing side and the case continuing with everyone losing.

I voted the court will rule that Thaksin must lose all or most of the assets - probably most.

In public statements Thaksin's lawyer presently is begging the court for Bt 40 billion of the total 76bn, claiming that's the legitimate amount Thaksin had before becoming PM. So it's clear Thaksin himself expects to take a big hit from the impending court ruling, probably even a huge hit.

And considering the prosecution also has tied money Thaksin made up to the 40bn to shady deals that date back to the 1990s, Thaksin's claims based on the supposed legitimacy of the 40bn before he became PM are dubious.

If the court accepts the prosecution's case, or most of it, the answer might be found in considering the question of what Thaksin might have been essentially worth circa 1995. 

As I can recall there is a law that states "failure to pay taxes will draw a fine of 200% of the initial amount..."

So he still owes the revenue department a big chunk of money!

Well, we'll see.

As I can recall there is a law that states "failure to pay taxes will draw a fine of 200% of the initial amount..."

So he still owes the revenue department a big chunk of money!

Well, we'll see.

You're very likely correct basically, altho your statement is vague as to the language of the law and its specifics , i.e., 200% on an annual basis for each year of delinquency, or 200% on an annual basis one time only, or 200% for each month for one year, or monthly for an indefinite period - also whether there's a sunset provision in the law that says, for example, annually/monthly for not more than five consecutive years or X number of months etc.

Yeh, even if the court finds him delinquent on only half the charges, the fines he'll have to pay might equal or exceed the amount of any loot that may be returned to him. Thaksin knows better than we do that he's screwed, and certainly by how much in baht and satang, which is why his lawyer is publicly begging the court for the floor amount of 40b. Thaksin may end up owing that much or half as much.

       

I voted the court will rule that Thaksin must lose all or most of the assets - probably most.

In public statements Thaksin's lawyer presently is begging the court for Bt 40 billion of the total 76bn, claiming that's the legitimate amount Thaksin had before becoming PM. So it's clear Thaksin himself expects to take a big hit from the impending court ruling, probably even a huge hit.

And considering the prosecution also has tied money Thaksin made up to the 40bn to shady deals that date back to the 1990s, Thaksin's claims based on the supposed legitimacy of the 40bn before he became PM are dubious.

If the court accepts the prosecution's case, or most of it, the answer might be found in considering the question of what Thaksin might have been essentially worth circa 1995. 

The court can only rule on the case which is presented to it.

That is, that according to the NCCC Act, he used his position as Prime Minister to become unusually wealthy. What Thaksin may or may not have done prior to this would be for a different court, and for a different charge.

Section 4 of the counter corruption act states:

"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.

It is now up to the court to decide whether his assets or those of his wife or minor children increased as a direct consequence of actions he carried out whilst in office.

Because some of the assets were in a form were it was possible to move, hide, transfer or transform, the assets were placed under temporary seizure, as allowed under both the NCCC Act (section 78) and an announcement of the Military Junta. This does not mean that if the amount of unusual increase in assets is judged to be greater than those frozen, that additional assets cannot be seized up to the value of the judgement (section 83).

I voted the court will rule that Thaksin must lose all or most of the assets - probably most.

In public statements Thaksin's lawyer presently is begging the court for Bt 40 billion of the total 76bn, claiming that's the legitimate amount Thaksin had before becoming PM. So it's clear Thaksin himself expects to take a big hit from the impending court ruling, probably even a huge hit.

And considering the prosecution also has tied money Thaksin made up to the 40bn to shady deals that date back to the 1990s, Thaksin's claims based on the supposed legitimacy of the 40bn before he became PM are dubious.

If the court accepts the prosecution's case, or most of it, the answer might be found in considering the question of what Thaksin might have been essentially worth circa 1995. 

The court can only rule on the case which is presented to it.

That is, that according to the NCCC Act, he used his position as Prime Minister to become unusually wealthy. What Thaksin may or may not have done prior to this would be for a different court, and for a different charge.

Section 4 of the counter corruption act states:

"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.

It is now up to the court to decide whether his assets or those of his wife or minor children increased as a direct consequence of actions he carried out whilst in office.

Because some of the assets were in a form were it was possible to move, hide, transfer or transform, the assets were placed under temporary seizure, as allowed under both the NCCC Act (section 78) and an announcement of the Military Junta. This does not mean that if the amount of unusual increase in assets is judged to be greater than those frozen, that additional assets cannot be seized up to the value of the judgement (section 83).

Clarification noted, thanks.

So the bottom line is that in a worst case scenario, Thaksin could lose all of the 76bn and find himself having to cough up more than the 76bn. That's in the law as you've provided it, so I do wonder how likely that could be. That would be a real frontal kick to the family jewels.  

I voted the court will rule that Thaksin must lose all or most of the assets - probably most.

In public statements Thaksin's lawyer presently is begging the court for Bt 40 billion of the total 76bn, claiming that's the legitimate amount Thaksin had before becoming PM.

His lawyer then is admitting to further legal transgressions of perjury as the legal declarations before becoming PM stated his assets were only a relatively paltry 575 million baht.

Prediction: They will take it all and give it back to the tax paying citizens in the form of a rebate.

Since 40% of his so called assets should have been paid in Taxes had he and his Government not passed a Tax exemption law for him in particular 3 weeks before the deal with Singapore,then there is only 60% for the Law lords to consider as the peoples money duly returned,for alledged illegal business practices.

Now that the verdict is in, I thought it would be interesting to bump this thread. Given the choices, I am still not sure how to characterize the verdict. It was a loss for Thaksin, but they didn't take everything, so overall it was rather a balanced verdict.

There's enough topics on this in the news section.