Thaksin A Man Of Dwindling Means

[Thai at Heart]

The 4 billion frozen and seized by the UK sounds like a done deal. If so, records of deposits/amounts/history of accounts activity/etc, are probably a matter of record which a knowledgeable UK barrister may have had access to. The procedure and conditions for seizing funds on deposit, within certain countries are in most cases aimed at monies received/transferred as a result of very suspicious activity. For the beneficiaries of this amount of money to decline to even contest the legal procedure speaks volumes about its (money) origin. Certainly, the methods being employed in Thailand for return of deputed funds, property, etc would not work in the UK or any other responsible government of the world that I am aware of. In fact, the non response in the UK would seem to be an admission of guilt to charges of illegal gains charges which have been put forward here in Thailand. Just my humble observation of the limited information picked up via newspapers, internet, etc.

Please provide links to this, since I can't find the story anywhere.

Googling - 'Seized Assets United Kingdom Thaksin Shinawatra" gleans absolutely nothing in connection with this story. With the controversy about him owning Man City, one would imagine that the story would make at least one newspaper in the UK.

I am not saying the story isn't possible, it is just that things like this do not happen in a vacuum in the UK.

OK, via google I found reference to Arabian Magazine article which does include an interview with Thaskin and also notes the UK freezing of monies mentioned. On another note during my search another article mentioned a assets deceleration for he and wife when he became PM for the amount of 15 billion baht. I can be skeletal of news reports but when you hear so many different reports about different sums/their location, property purchases cost/location, etc for the referenced duo, my belief in the honesty and self proclaimed legal innocence of either one is shaken. Reference 8.5 on appropriate scale.

That was the original article, which was pounced on by the Thai news about a year or so ago.

Since then nothing.

Aside from some pretty good investigative journalists and newspapers in the UK (or are we to believe Thaksin has put them in his pocket too), for those of you who don't watch British TV we have a channel called Sky Sports which devotes itself to finding out such interesting things as the fact that David Beckam's aunt's nephew once kissed Gordon Brown's cousin. If there isn't something worthwhile for the main news papers to find out and print about this story, the mere fact that Thaksin once owned a soccer club would make it newsworthy as far as this channel would be concerned.

Secondly, what exactly would the UK get out of keeping this quiet?

In a day and age when Russian oligarchs and god knows who else are actively welcomed in the UK, it was odd enough that Milliband caved on his visa (I presume Tesco to reward Milliband graciously), but how and why would you keep this story quiet from the main British press?

[animatic]

If that were so, why isn't Oak's latest fling SkyNewsSports infotainment headlines?

[Thai at Heart]

If that were so, why isn't Oak's latest fling SkyNewsSports infotainment headlines?

Maybe my point was tongue in cheek.

Beside all the serious news media there is in the UK, the fact that his assets may have been frozen is news even for the sports media. If I were the writer of this piece in the Nation I would have to presume that Thaksin is NEVER coming back.

I am not denying that it is possible, it is just that something as legally complicated as freezing and confiscating the assets of a foreign prime minister deposed by a coup, who lived in the country and invested in a high profile soccer club, normally makes a headline in the domestic press. For example, the news in the UK at the moment is full of cases about international libel cases being pursued in the UK courts. There is very high transparency in the activities of courts and government in the UK. The government of the day can't even keep quiet its own private business so a leak about something like this would have happened ages ago.

As yet, from the entire media in the UK, nothing, nada, not a whimper.

Now, if it proves to be true, I would suggest that the reason for the money being seized is because it would be connected to something a lot more serious than any of us know about today and would go considerably further than a request purely from the Thai authorities. However on that basis, he wouldn't have been allowed in to just about any country in the first place.

Currently, a foreign owner and a manager of a Premier league club are formally charged with tax evasion. As yet, no case placed against Thaksin in the British courts.

These issues are not easy for the government to hide in the UK and being deposed by a coup and abuse of power judgements from a court appointed directly after you have been deposed rarely cause the UK to impound your cash.

[ballpoint]

These issues are not easy for the government to hide in the UK and being deposed by a coup and abuse of power judgements from a court appointed directly after you have been deposed rarely cause the UK to impound your cash.

These issues are not easy for the government to hide in the UK and being deposed by a coup and abuse of power judgements from a court appointed directly after you have been deposed rarely cause the UK to revoke your visa. Yet they did so with Thaksin, and it did take a while for the news of this to get out. It's currently all speculation, but no doubt will all come out eventually. The reports of the Russian loan seem pretty specific, even naming who he got it from. With 4 Billion available to him in the UK why was the loan necessary?

[Davidusaf99]

Even when all the money is seized, Thaksin will still be richer than all of us combined. My sympathy for him is nil.

[slimdog]

Like you, I am curious, but so far this story of the USD 4 billion in England is a year old and nothing has surfaced about it and if true would be a political bombshell, not to mention the field day the taxing authorities would have with it.

If true, Thaksin's attorneys would be all over the British government on this given the alleged amount is even higher than what he stands to lose in Thailand. If made up, Thaksin's attorneys would show no interest in it, as they haven't, as he hasn't suffered any damages from this story (nobody believes it).

The Original story by Anil Bhoyrul was published in Arabianbuisness.com. on 30th November 2008.

source: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539714-catch-me-if-you-can

This was used by Thanong in an article a month later.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/19...on_30091373.php

When Anil was contacted by Bangkok Pundit soon after, he admitted that he got it confused

source: http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...ins-assets.html

[astral]

My heart bleeds for anyone who is down to their last million or so.................

[ilyushin]

This will make a good movie one day.

[jayboy]

If the Financial Times in London or Washington didn't actually care to search this Thaksin stuff out,

then it will languish except in those journals with any interest in Thaksin's state of affairs.

Seems The Nation thought to dig on it, but no one else cares, and Thaksin doesn't refute the story.

It's simply a lie, and a particularly stupid one, which was exposed some time ago.Those so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that they have lost any kind of comprehension of context will try and keep the balloon floating.One wonders precisely who these people are actually posting for.

[CrossBones]

I love it... made to constantly travel so as not to outstay his welcome on visa.

[way2muchcoffee]

It's simply a lie, and a particularly stupid one, which was exposed some time ago.

Where? When? How? By whom? I don't doubt that you believe this. So there must be some reason or evidence and I missed it along the way.

[Old Man River]

Like you, I am curious, but so far this story of the USD 4 billion in England is a year old and nothing has surfaced about it and if true would be a political bombshell, not to mention the field day the taxing authorities would have with it.

If true, Thaksin's attorneys would be all over the British government on this given the alleged amount is even higher than what he stands to lose in Thailand. If made up, Thaksin's attorneys would show no interest in it, as they haven't, as he hasn't suffered any damages from this story (nobody believes it).

The Original story by Anil Bhoyrul was published in Arabianbuisness.com. on 30th November 2008.

source: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539714-catch-me-if-you-can

This was used by Thanong in an article a month later.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/19...on_30091373.php

When Anil was contacted by Bangkok Pundit soon after, he admitted that he got it confused

source: http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...ins-assets.html

Thanks for this. It is interesting that the original article in arabianbusiness.com doesn't have near the detail that The Nation's article has. For example, The Nation reports that over half of these assets are debt owed to the nominee companies (no mention is made as to who the debtor is). However, if all this was really true, given Thaksin's high profile in England, mention of any of Thaksin's assets being frozen would have been front page news, instead of being no news at all.

The bottom line is that this info hasn't appeared anywhere else other than The Nation except on a website from someone who retracted this part of his article as soon as it was questioned. While I like the guy who wrote the article for The Nation, until this is disclosed elsewhere by an objective third party, I don't believe it.

[BSJ]

I'm sure he has a few squillion hidden away somewhere. He'll never be short of a buck, even if he ends up "bankrupt".

My sentiments exactly!

[geriatrickid]

I am sure there were many securities filings from the collapse of Lehman Brothers company.

A good financial reporter looking for something specific would know where to look.

Please advise where the information is to be found, because I am unable to find it. I particularly enjoy company prospectus filings because they tell one everything about salaries, ownership stakes, legal problems and liabilities. Unfortunately, I just can't find it for this case. Thanking you in advance for your assistance.

Your pal,

[monkfish]

Just wondering what will happen to The Nation if Thaksin does return.

[animatic]

USA Securities and Exchange Commision.

There must have been more dirt than a simple request to remove Thaksin

that induced UK to revoke his visa, not something done that lightly.

Sure they do pop stars with pot violations,

and Martha Stewart, who had more balls than Thaksin and did her time,

but former PM's of friendly nations usually don't get visa's revoked.

Even Pinochet got in for some time.

Chances are there is dirt that MI5 or MI6 has knowledge of on Thaksin

and just decided to keep him at more than arms length.

Now if some of his dodgy bank and front company deals are on UK Territories,

the gov will know of it, with his high profile, but it won't come up in London registries.

Even Jersey or Gurnsey would raise flags and get him held off shore (with his cash) by UK authorities.

Edited January 15, 2010 by animatic

[Dustybin]

Can you believe anything you read in a newspaper.

As Bill Clinton said "they need to sell papers....stupid"

[animatic]

Just wondering what will happen to The Nation if Thaksin does return.

Maybe permanently station a reporter out side his cell block?

Edited January 15, 2010 by animatic

[Publicus]

I'm sure he has a few squillion hidden away somewhere. He'll never be short of a buck, even if he ends up "bankrupt".

My sentiments exactly!

The question is whether he has enuff bucks, either after the Feb 26th decision and/or if after he were to make a bankruptcy filing.

Regardless of his post 26 Feb position regarding assets, the question again would be whether he would continue to have enuff to cover his debts and keep the country hostage.

It's been suggested the Thaksin legal team is trying to send the court the signal that a return of Bt 40bn would satisfy Thaksin and family, which is the amount Taksin claims to have had before becoming PM - and even that amount is in dispute going back to 1977 or before. I'd suspect Bt 40bn would accomplish his means, which is to gain more breathing space for another drive or two at returning to seize power. 

So the return of any frozen assets on Feb 26th still would constitute an act of official state suicide, something I don't see as likely. The people at the top aren't stupid or crazy enuff to throw open the gates to the 'barbarians'.

 

[Jingthing]

Call me hopelessly naive, but I get the impression the high courts here have at least SOME DEGREE of independence. If so, the actual case in front of them and the law may be a factor in their verdict. Which isn't necessarily good news for Thaksin. However, that is not the same thing as them being "ordered" to seize all his assets for the good of the country and existing power structure.

[LaoPo]

The Nation's columnist seems to have access Mr. Thaksin's investment details and knowledge of his investment decisions.

Now I don't know about you folks, but I cannot see Mr. Thaksin providing his confidential investment details to someone from the Nation. Would any of you provide your bank balances to a small circulation newspaper? This then causes me to wonder how this information was sourced.

Did the nation's writer;

- Invent this information and use personal estimates?

- If the information is accurate, obtain the information in a manner that violated Mr. Thaksin's legal right of confidentiality? I do believe that publishing people's bank balances and investment protfolios, which have not been made public, nor have been stated in open court nor in a securities filing, is a breach of privacy.

Delicate question for some of you folks to wrestle with.

What's next, bringing back that banned weird guy to photoshop some image of Mr. Thaksin?

Khun Thanong Khanthong is Managing Editor of The Nation (but not on the Board of Directors) and the owners of The Nation, the Nation Multimedia Group* (and shareholders behind them) and Thaksin cs are known for their "dislike" (to put it mildly ) of each other.

The OP article is one in a long line and in fact, nothing new. It's more of the same and The Nation owes it to themselves to pursue on this subject.

If they would NOT write about Thaksin, few people would buy or read The Nation anymore in these difficult times for newspapers, all around the world.

That some members here take everything they read for granted, is a responsibility they take upon themselves.

It's all in the game.

Next please

* the Nation Multimedia Group has been losing serious money already since 5 years; they're listed on the SET IN Bangkok: code NMG. The daily trading in shares is low to very low although a sweep in share price from 3,12 in August 2009 to 6.00 on Jan. 11th, 2010 is quite remarkable. I wonder why such a stock almost doubles in 5 months whilst the company is making such huge losses.....something in the air;....almost 100% in 5 months? Maybe an "outsider" is buying shares?...who knows? That would be a wet nightmare for The Nation..wouldn't it? But, there's just a minority of shares, listed.

LaoPo

[mickmac]

The 4 billion frozen and seized by the UK sounds like a done deal. If so, records of deposits/amounts/history of accounts activity/etc, are probably a matter of record which a knowledgeable UK barrister may have had access to. The procedure and conditions for seizing funds on deposit, within certain countries are in most cases aimed at monies received/transferred as a result of very suspicious activity. For the beneficiaries of this amount of money to decline to even contest the legal procedure speaks volumes about its (money) origin. Certainly, the methods being employed in Thailand for return of deputed funds, property, etc would not work in the UK or any other responsible government of the world that I am aware of. In fact, the non response in the UK would seem to be an admission of guilt to charges of illegal gains charges which have been put forward here in Thailand. Just my humble observation of the limited information picked up via newspapers, internet, etc.

Please provide links to this, since I can't find the story anywhere.

Googling - 'Seized Assets United Kingdom Thaksin Shinawatra" gleans absolutely nothing in connection with this story. With the controversy about him owning Man City, one would imagine that the story would make at least one newspaper in the UK.

I am not saying the story isn't possible, it is just that things like this do not happen in a vacuum in the UK.

OK, via google I found reference to Arabian Magazine article which does include an interview with Thaskin and also notes the UK freezing of monies mentioned. On another note during my search another article mentioned a assets deceleration for he and wife when he became PM for the amount of 15 billion baht. I can be skeletal of news reports but when you hear so many different reports about different sums/their location, property purchases cost/location, etc for the referenced duo, my belief in the honesty and self proclaimed legal innocence of either one is shaken. Reference 8.5 on appropriate scale.

That was the original article, which was pounced on by the Thai news about a year or so ago.

Since then nothing.

Aside from some pretty good investigative journalists and newspapers in the UK (or are we to believe Thaksin has put them in his pocket too), for those of you who don't watch British TV we have a channel called Sky Sports which devotes itself to finding out such interesting things as the fact that David Beckam's aunt's nephew once kissed Gordon Brown's cousin. If there isn't something worthwhile for the main news papers to find out and print about this story, the mere fact that Thaksin once owned a soccer club would make it newsworthy as far as this channel would be concerned.

Secondly, what exactly would the UK get out of keeping this quiet?

In a day and age when Russian oligarchs and god knows who else are actively welcomed in the UK, it was odd enough that Milliband caved on his visa (I presume Tesco to reward Milliband graciously), but how and why would you keep this story quiet from the main British press?

If I remember correctly the Inland Revenue has put a "hold" on the monies made from the sale of Manchester City FC. The reason for this is that it appears to be owned by so many nomanee companies, and they want to know who the profit is going too, so correct tax can be applied to it.

So if you look into the sale and where the profits have/haven't gone, you may get an answer to part of your question. As to the remaining amount, maybe it has been blown up out of all proportion, urban myth.

Edited January 15, 2010 by mickmac

[Publicus]

Call me hopelessly naive, but I get the impression the high courts here have at least SOME DEGREE of independence. If so, the actual case in front of them and the law may be a factor in their verdict. Which isn't necessarily good news for Thaksin. However, that is not the same thing as them being "ordered" to seize all his assets for the good of the country and existing power structure.

True, I'd expect the Thai judiciary to pay attention to the letter of the law in the Thai way(s) and to respect the spirit of the laws of the Kingdom in making their rulings. It' also true that even independent judiciaries such as those in the UK or USA, while respecting the law and connecting their judgments to precedent relating to past cases that are material to a case before it (stare decicis), also take into account the public mood and the national interest.

No matter how independent a judiciary, it cannot isolate itself from the mood of the body politic, nor can it distance itself too far from the public mood or the national interest. Judiciaries regardless of how respected for independence they may be, none the less operate within the framework of the contemporary public mood and national interest as determined at any given particular time.   

Judges usually and generally are independently wise enuff to know how to apply law in particular cases and to consider the context of public mood and national interest. In other words, judiciaries usually apply both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

[Samuian]

from Post #53: "....judiciaries usually apply both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law"

Let's hope it's the "usual" case then!

[hammered]

Not sure about Thaksins net wealth now or whenever or whether the UK have imponded any money or the Russian mob lent any. However, and this may be totally unconnected BJT have been quietly targetting ex-PTP/UDD supporters in the Isaan that have become disilusioned or worried abotu certain leanings of the UDD. The Mahasarakham close shave in what was meant to be solid red territory may indicate with some success. Som egovernment policies are also proving quite popular which probably helps as does a tiring of conflict which is now easy to find.

Interesting to see what success the UDD have in trying to fire things up again.

[Publicus]

from Post #53: "....judiciaries usually apply both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law"

Let's hope it's the "usual" case then!

Yes, the usual please. 

[Ricardo]

Can you believe anything you read in a newspaper.

As Bill Clinton said "they need to sell papers....stupid"

I have some sympathy, with this point-of-view, however there are some exceptions, for example 'Red News' is clearly an unbiased publication, giving a rational & balanced perspective on the current situation.

Perhaps the answer is to permit a range of different views to be published, and let the buyers decide, what to trust or disbelieve ?

This appears to be happening now, more than previously in Thailand, Good ! But it does seem to mean fewer billion-baht libel-cases, for the courts to consider, than in the old days. And presumably fewer 'lunch-boxes' for the judges, poor fellows.

[Publicus]

Can you believe anything you read in a newspaper.

As Bill Clinton said "they need to sell papers....stupid"

I have some sympathy, with this point-of-view, however there are some exceptions, for example 'Red News' is clearly an unbiased publication, giving a rational & balanced perspective on the current situation.

Perhaps the answer is to permit a range of different views to be published, and let the buyers decide, what to trust or disbelieve ?

This appears to be happening now, more than previously in Thailand, Good ! But it does seem to mean fewer billion-baht libel-cases, for the courts to consider, than in the old days. And presumably fewer 'lunch-boxes' for the judges, poor fellows.

And politicians need to get votes whether they're bought by passing money hand to hand or via mass media advertising and other means.

Considering the overtly subversive nature of Red Mass media funded by the man himself, it's clear that freedom of the press in Thailand is going strong. I don't know why a flaming subversive who also works for a competing country should be allowed such press freedom, but he does get it and he gets it free of censorship.

However, as to how much longer he can finance his personal mass media and cult of personality in it, appears to be an open question. 

[hammered]

Can you believe anything you read in a newspaper.

As Bill Clinton said "they need to sell papers....stupid"

I have some sympathy, with this point-of-view, however there are some exceptions, for example 'Red News' is clearly an unbiased publication, giving a rational & balanced perspective on the current situation.

Perhaps the answer is to permit a range of different views to be published, and let the buyers decide, what to trust or disbelieve ?

This appears to be happening now, more than previously in Thailand, Good ! But it does seem to mean fewer billion-baht libel-cases, for the courts to consider, than in the old days. And presumably fewer 'lunch-boxes' for the judges, poor fellows.

And politicians need to get votes whether they're bought by passing money hand to hand or via mass media advertising and other means.

Considering the overtly subversive nature of Red Mass media funded by the man himself, it's clear that freedom of the press in Thailand is going strong. I don't know why a flaming subversive who also works for a competing country should be allowed such press freedom, but he does get it and he gets it free of censorship.

However, as to how much longer he can finance his personal mass media and cult of personality in it, appears to be an open question. 

As an aside take a look at what is happening in the Ukraine. People are setting up websites to sell their vote to the highest bidder in the upcoming presidential race! Kind of inverts the relationship.

[Dustybin]

The wisest of words

"If you know how much you are worth, you ain't worth much at all"