Thaksin's Judgement Day

[webfact]

BT76-BN ASSETS SEIZURE CASE

Thaksin rebuts all charges

By The Nation

Published on January 22, 2010

Lawyers representing ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday submitted a closing statement in the Bt76-billion asset-seizure case to the Supreme Court, which is due to deliver its verdict on February 26.

Thaksin, who undersigned the 162-page statement, rebutted all charges in the landmark case in which he was accused of illegally concealing his massive wealth and abusing his authority while holding the public office to benefit his family's business empire.

According to the closing remarks of fugitive Thaksin, the Asset Examination Committee (AEC), which investigated the case, was biased and distorted facts to support its charges.

The defence team also insisted that the Bt76 billion resulting from the sale of Shin Corp's majority shares to Temasek Group of Singapore in 2006 did not belong to Thaksin and his former wife, Khunying Pojaman.

Since that huge amount of money belongs to other family members and relatives - those who obtained the shares transferred by Thaksin and his wife prior to taking public office in 2001 - the state could not forfeit the money as requested by public prosecutors.

The defence also told the court in the closing statement that the funds were accumulated by Thaksin and his family in a lawful way before the taking of public office.

While holding public office, Thaksin said he had never abused his powers to benefit his family's business empire as alleged by prosecutors, who, however, cited five instances in which Shin Corp had gained from government measures during 2001-06.

The defence also counter-charged that the asset-seizure case was politically motivated in the wake of the September 2006 coup which overthrew his government.

As a result, the case should be dismissed.

Chat-tip Tanprasat, a Thaksin lawyer, said the former premier is innocent as far as the charges are concerned and it is untrue that the UK had forfeited Thaksin's other overseas assets.

Meanwhile, Surasak Trirat-trakul, the public prosecutor in charge of this case, said the prosecution's closing remarks will be wrapped up shortly before the court's deadline.

-- The Nation 2010-01-22

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[animatic]

Thaksin rebuts all charges

Now there is a surprise!

Must have researched that factoid for hours.\

[yoshiwara]

Thaksin's instruction for closing statement on asset seizure case

The closing statement will rigorously reiterate a rebuttal that Thaksin had no involvement in abusing policies to enrich himself or his family.

-- The Nation 2010-01-15

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Hilarious!

[boris52]

its a somewhat predictible response by Taksin, i cna see tthe humor in it, howerver thsi is serious stuff for him, im sure he hsa a team of experts worknig arround tthe clock maikng tthe evidnece as watertight as posible.

do i think tthey cna succeed ? no i dont.

[SomTumTiger]

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.....

[Fishbucket]

BT76-BN ASSETS SEIZURE . Meanwhile, Surasak Trirat-trakul, the public prosecutor in charge of this case, said the prosecution's closing remarks will be wrapped up shortly before the court's deadline.

-- The Nation 2010-01-22

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

public prosecutor? which element of the public? wouldn't elite prosecutor be more apt.

[hammered]

Shawn Crispin has an interesting piece up on A-Times which also links (at the end of the article) to a very interesting piece of research into Big Business Owners in Politics. Imho the whole piece and research are worth a look

Crispin at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LA23Ae01.html

[geriatrickid]

Animatic, did you ever work in one of those Carnival cruise shows, you know where they do over the top theatrics? What's next, you posing in a loin cloth and carrying a giant cross as you do the Calvary tour? Seriously, dawg you have your views and I don't think those of us that disagree with you are losing any sleep over them, but you and all the other blame it on Thaksin crew need to get a grip on reality. You shouldn't take these forums personally. Whether or not Mr. Thaksin is around, the political situation isn't going to change anytime soon. The country needs a major political enema and everyone has to be cleaned out. Thaksin serves as a convenient target to blame all the ills of the nation upon. It's time to step up and accept that the problems you cite were there long before Mr. Thaksin and are still here despite his present exile.

Oh, and who is the evil one you reference in your sermon from isle? You've piqued my curiousity. Does the title come with any cash prize money? How about an amorous kiss from a buxom lady?

Edited January 23, 2010 by geriatrickid

[yoshiwara]

The country needs a major political enema and everyone has to be cleaned out. Thaksin serves as a convenient target to blame all the ills of the nation upon. It's time to step up and accept that the problems you cite were there long before Mr. Thaksin and are still here despite his present exile.

In reality a meally-mouthed cover for Thaksin. 'They're all the same', 'why pick on him'...and so on.

[SomTumTiger]

Thaksin deserves all the crap thats being piled on him, and then some. He's not a martyr, he's a thief, and a coward.

[geriatrickid]

The country needs a major political enema and everyone has to be cleaned out. Thaksin serves as a convenient target to blame all the ills of the nation upon. It's time to step up and accept that the problems you cite were there long before Mr. Thaksin and are still here despite his present exile.

In reality a meally-mouthed cover for Thaksin. 'They're all the same', 'why pick on him'...and so on.

No it is not. If he is believed to have undertaken illegal acts then the authorities should undertake a transparent prosecution free of political interference. The accused should receive a fair trial. That's the issue you and others don't seem to grasp. I have the impression that Mr. Thaksin was targeted because he is currently out of favour of some other political leaders. I also believe that the accusations are merely an excuse to get rid of him. Why is it that only Mr. Thaksin is targeted? If the government was serious about cracking down on corruption there would be hundreds of thousands of people facing prosecution, right?

[animatic]

Regardless of whether others do it, and Thaksin is targeted more than them. He still is an eminently appropriate target

and should not get a free pass just because others deserve to be targeted too. If Thaksin gets taken to book

for his crimes and abuses of power, then it will be easier to continue cleaning house here, if he gets off the

whole idea of cleaning up corruption gets thrown out with the Thaksinated bathwater.

We have seen Surayud getting a come upance, and this is possible BECAUSE of the Thaksin trial, not in spite of it.

If Thaksin gets to walk then the whole thing takes giant steps backwards, not a steady set of baby steps forward.

Edited January 23, 2010 by animatic

[hammered]

The country needs a major political enema and everyone has to be cleaned out. Thaksin serves as a convenient target to blame all the ills of the nation upon. It's time to step up and accept that the problems you cite were there long before Mr. Thaksin and are still here despite his present exile.

In reality a meally-mouthed cover for Thaksin. 'They're all the same', 'why pick on him'...and so on.

No it is not. If he is believed to have undertaken illegal acts then the authorities should undertake a transparent prosecution free of political interference. The accused should receive a fair trial. That's the issue you and others don't seem to grasp. I have the impression that Mr. Thaksin was targeted because he is currently out of favour of some other political leaders. I also believe that the accusations are merely an excuse to get rid of him. Why is it that only Mr. Thaksin is targeted? If the government was serious about cracking down on corruption there would be hundreds of thousands of people facing prosecution, right?

Try Crispins new piece and particualrly the research linked to.

[animatic]

Crispin says:

...Court-called witnesses have said that those and other alleged preferential policies caused Thaksin-linked companies - including AIS, Shin Satellite, Shin Corporation, iTV and Thai Military Bank - to outperform the stock market average in 2003 by 141%, as investors cashed in on what market analysts then referred to as the "Thaksin premium".

The five companies accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total 320 billion baht market capitalization gains recorded on the Thai bourse that year. The Shin Corp famously sued a media activist for $10 million in damages after she said in a Thai language newspaper report that the company had directly profited from Thaksin's policies....

If this is sustained by paper trails and verification the guy is toast and deservingly so.

No matter what others, have done whatever, whenever.

Edited January 23, 2010 by animatic

[steveromagnino]

Crispin says:

...Court-called witnesses have said that those and other alleged preferential policies caused Thaksin-linked companies - including AIS, Shin Satellite, Shin Corporation, iTV and Thai Military Bank - to outperform the stock market average in 2003 by 141%, as investors cashed in on what market analysts then referred to as the "Thaksin premium".

The five companies accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total 320 billion baht market capitalization gains recorded on the Thai bourse that year. The Shin Corp famously sued a media activist for $10 million in damages after she said in a Thai language newspaper report that the company had directly profited from Thaksin's policies....

If this is sustained by paper trails and verification the guy is toast and deservingly so.

No matter what others, have done whatever, whenever.

Not much of this is unknown; there's a reason why everyone piled cash into Shin and the offshoots back then; often described as 'Shin get's more than it's fair share of regulatory advantages'. Of course, no one in the media dared to speak out; for fear of losing their ad budget, being sued, and then not getting a fair trial.

CP got a fair few 'breaks' as well, but also suffered with True to some degree; Shin and SC were basically playing monopoly where they got to choose which numbers they rolled, while the rest of the players tended to just go round and round the board.

Mind you, not turning up to a meeting as a defence. Even the people who describe Thaksin as a genius (despite his massive mistakes so far in choosing Samak, returning then going away, going to Cambodia, trying to incite a revolution/riot) must surely think that such a defence is as weak as a can of Budweiser. Give me a tinnie of Chang anyday.

[animatic]

He's a smart enough chap and had a way with smoozing powerful people into deals and favors.

But it also seems his savvy falls apart under pressure and in his PM job the pressure built and

built after 2004, such that he used financial and legal repression to keep his nerves quiet.

for fear of losing their ad budget, being sued, and then not getting a fair trial.

After 2006 and things really started to fall apart for him his nerves took over for his good judgment

over and over again. If Feb 19-26, 'End Of Days' as some have called it, goes as badly as his last few efforts,

he will be in a quite irrational and desperate state and god knows what he might order in a fit of pique coupled to hubris.

Lets hope that more rational minds on the ground can see through it and avoid it's pitfalls.

[webfact]

0ne post bordering forum rule #2 has been deleted

[animatic]

This week there have been too many posts bordering on #2.

And a bag of #2 was thrown from a Landrover...into the PM's yard.

I wonder who details that Landrover afterwards?

[dranor]

The Nation

Published on January 15, 2010

Just how much money does Thaksin Shinawatra have now? Well-informed sources say the former prime minister might not have a lot left.

One source even speculated that his net worth could already have turned negative if his Bt76 billion now being frozen in Thailand is not taken into account.

In a recent interview with Times Online, Thaksin said he still had US$100 million (Bt3.3 billion) as his total net worth, trying to create an impression that he does not have any financial problems.

I read in yesterday's BP that the Central Bankruptcy Court has declared brother Payap Shinawatra bankrupt.

Shame some of that 3.3 billion couldn't be shared to save him from insolvency, but while I can understand things are tight and Payap is a poor risk for a loan, it's still family.

[animatic]

Two bancrupcies in a short year for Payap, yap yap.

And he is telling us how to deal with legal and business issues

about Brother Thaksin's financial dealings.

Right the font of business acumen!

Will we see him and Oak in business together soon?

Edited February 5, 2010 by animatic