Possible Scenarios On The Outcome Of Thaksin's Case

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Possible scenarios on the outcome of Thaksin's case

By Jintana Panyaarvudh

The Nation

Published on January 18, 2010

All eyes are now on February 26, the judgment day for fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra. The Supreme Court is due to hand down its verdict on the Bt76 billion asset seizure case on that day.

Many people fear violence may be unavoidable as the court ruling will definitely cause both pain and joy for the two political camps - the red and yellow shirt groups around the country.

As the countdown towards Thaksin's D-Day nears, there are two scenarios for the ruling: either seizing his assets, or freeing them so he can access them again.

At present, many observers believe the latter scenario - releasing his assets - is near impossible. If the ruling is to seize his funds, there are also two scenarios: seizing all the Bt76 billion or just part of the money.

There are two points of view on why all the Bt76 billion should be seized - or just some part of it.

Thaksin's brother Payap thought Thaksin should be able to keep some of his funds.

Payap said seizing all of Thaksin's assets would not be a good way out for the country unless his brother was proven or found guilty. He suggested the assets should be returned to Thaksin first and then if his brother was found guilty in any further corruption cases he would have to pay compensation to the country.

He referred to the claim that Thaksin approved a Bt4-billion loan from the Export-Import Bank of Thailand so Burma could buy services from his family firm ShinSat. If that deal caused damage to the country - if the interest was too low, say - the government could file a lawsuit against Thaksin asking for compensation. This would be "fair game", he claimed.

Payap thought the Bt76 billion should be divided into three portions. First was the amount the ex-premier earnt before entering politics, which he claimed had been obtained honestly. This sum had to be returned to Thaksin, he said.

Second were assets obtained after he became prime minister. If such corruption cases ended without Thaksin being charged, funds related to those matters had to be returned to Thaksin. For the cases being considered, Payap suggested the agencies involved evaluate the damage and freeze the funds until those matters are heard.

Thirdly, he said, the court could seize funds for any cases Thaksin was found guilty in.

But others say anti-corruption laws would be useless if person who acts corruptly can get some of his money back. Former Supreme Court judge Udom Feungfung said that in unusual wealth cases, courts normally rule to confiscate all assets since the money obtained before wrongdoing was often used to make illegal profits.

"If only the money wrongdoers earn after corruption is confiscated, it means they don't suffer any punishment. Can a thief can walk free after he returns belongings he has stolen?" Udom said. He was head of a subpanel that scrutinised the Ratchada land scandal for the Assets Examination Com-mittee. Udom pointed out some past examples to compare to Thaksin's assets case.

Thirty years ago when he was a judge in a primary court, a police officer arrested a vendor who sold overpriced lottery tickets. The tickets were Bt10 but she sold them for Bt12. The primary court ruled to seize only Bt2 for the tickets sold, but the Supreme Court ruled to confiscate the total amount.

Another recent case was about a state official who sold land to a state agency at a higher price than the actual value. For example, the actual value was Bt10 million but he sold at Bt25 million. After the court found he was guilty the court confiscated all Bt25 million, reasoning that if it only seized the excess amount or Bt15-million profit he would have not been punished.

It remains to be seen what the verdict in Thaksin's asset case will be. But no matter who the ruling favors, divisions in the country are likely to persist.

jintana(at)nationgroup.com

-- The Nation 2010-01-18

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[virtualtraveller]

Payap Thaksin makes sense here. Yes, I think the correct thing to do if they rule that he enriched his company unlawfully is to apportion the seized assets. And I'm pretty sure they will given the stakes and sensitivity.

The money he earned before becoming PM ought to be immediately returned (though I'm sure in the current political situation there would be some excuse to delay this given what Thaksin would likely do with the money).

The value of money earned through improper policy decisions (ie 'unusually rich/profitable), ought to be seized and returned to the state.

The rest of the money (ie what Shin would have nominally earned during average growth over the Thaksin administration era) should be temporarily seized until it is determined what a fair fine would be abusing his position as PM.

Taking it all away, especially that amount earned before 1999 is sure to rankle a lot of Thaksin's wealthier supports and give the UDD plenty of ammunition.

Promising to give some back, but after lengthy consideration will be a good motivation for Thaksin and the UDD to behave themselves and become more conciliatory, pending the outcome.

Of course, Thaksin will have none of this. He probably wants it ALL back and will fight politically to get an eventual repeal of the whole trial some time down the line.

The comment from Payap that assets should be returned and then the state sue Thaksin for the amount that they were allegedly deprived of is nonsense. Thaksin was PM and therefore should be held accountable.

[sunsamourai]

Payap Thaksin makes sense here. Yes, I think the correct thing to do if they rule that he enriched his company unlawfully is to apportion the seized assets. And I'm pretty sure they will given the stakes and sensitivity.

The money he earned before becoming PM ought to be immediately returned (though I'm sure in the current political situation there would be some excuse to delay this given what Thaksin would likely do with the money).

The value of money earned through improper policy decisions (ie 'unusually rich/profitable), ought to be seized and returned to the state.

The rest of the money (ie what Shin would have nominally earned during average growth over the Thaksin administration era) should be temporarily seized until it is determined what a fair fine would be abusing his position as PM.

Taking it all away, especially that amount earned before 1999 is sure to rankle a lot of Thaksin's wealthier supports and give the UDD plenty of ammunition.

Promising to give some back, but after lengthy consideration will be a good motivation for Thaksin and the UDD to behave themselves and become more conciliatory, pending the outcome.

Of course, Thaksin will have none of this. He probably wants it ALL back and will fight politically to get an eventual repeal of the whole trial some time down the line.

The comment from Payap that assets should be returned and then the state sue Thaksin for the amount that they were allegedly deprived of is nonsense. Thaksin was PM and therefore should be held accountable.

Meaningless blabbering.

Just seize directly the amount to repay for the public cost of his offenses. The 70 something billion will probably not be enough to cover that.

[Meridian007]

Udom's quote makes sense as well, since they need to punish him as well as remove the money that was made from the corruption. Therefore, it should all be returned to the state. The UDD (if they keep Thaksin as de facto leader after this, I'm not so sure) would be prompted to rally whether Thaksin got back some or none of his money. The only way that they won't rally (for him) is if he gets all of his money back, the 1997 constitution is brought back, he is absolved of all crimes, and is allowed to return as "glorious leader for life".

I hope the earlier articles that stated that the courts would not be swayed by threats are true. If there is any evidence of them acquiescing to Thaksin at all, it won't end until he is back in power. They need to hit him in the wallet, hard and fast. Removing his power to disrupt is the only solution to getting back on track and having the country recover.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Meridian007

[Samuian]

"Pay him back!"

and he and the money will disappear into thin air forever!

....until HIS day!

No way, why then seize it in the first place - idle talk!

As with other offenders, drug dealers, all assets, unless PROVEN otherwise, are assumed to be ill gotten!

The loss that was incurred because of the monopoly, the loss incurred because of his dealings, the damage been done to others.... hasn't even been accounted for!

[Bagwan]

If a witness in a legal case is found to have lied is it not the case that all his evidence is discounted on the grounds of unreliability? Following that precept it seems that if any of the money was obtained illegally then all should be sequestered. It's not as if he would be totally skint in that event is it? He could always go back to working in a fast food place as he stated that he and his then wife once did in the US.

[hammered]

High profile public negotiation or at least from Payap combined with a highly charged game of chicken. What happens behind the scenes combined with intelligence assesments and relative strength of alliances are likely to determine the final decision as much as anything unless of course the government falls before then, which right now seems unlikely or there is a coup by Thaksin friendly forces.

Everyone involved in this on all sides have very difficult calls to make involving doing things that cant be easily undone at a later date.

[animatic]

Just punishment to fit the crime is of course fair.

Civil trials don't have the same level of burden of proof as criminal ones.

Just ask O.J. Simpson that one.

There appears to be enough evidence to support a criminal action none the less.

And of course returning the cash and expecting it to come back later is absurd.

The man threatens civil war for his own ends, he would not give the money back.

If we look at his doings going back to 1997 and the botched Chavalit currency devaluation,

then maybe there isn't much he had invested legally, since it is 'fruit of a poisoned tree' in legal terms.

Take the money and he has less power to hide more old charges, since those with knowledge

would have less reason to protect him with nothing to be gained by it.

[animatic]

High profile public negotiation or at least from Payap combined with a highly charged game of chicken....

Everyone involved in this on all sides have very difficult calls to make involving doing things that cant be easily undone at a later date.

Yes, and lets hope the rational minds get it right, and this isn't going to be a giant clusterf...

coming from numerological and superstitious dreams of invincibility and revenge.

[TPI]

High profile public negotiation or at least from Payap combined with a highly charged game of chicken....

Everyone involved in this on all sides have very difficult calls to make involving doing things that cant be easily undone at a later date.

Yes, and lets hope the rational minds get it right, and this isn't going to be a giant clusterf...

coming from numerological and superstitious dreams of invincibility and revenge.

I still think the 60 cent solution is the best? Let the probate court sort it out!

[Publicus]

If a witness in a legal case is found to have lied is it not the case that all his evidence is discounted on the grounds of unreliability? Following that precept it seems that if any of the money was obtained illegally then all should be sequestered. It's not as if he would be totally skint in that event is it? He could always go back to working in a fast food place as he stated that he and his then wife once did in the US.

Thaksin working behind a counter at Mickey D's..............ahhh, Thaksin, a man of the people!

The Man of the people!!

[mythBuster]

Always funny those judges with a hundred thousand baht salary driving a few Mercedes cars and maintaining a royalty like lifestyle judging others. I suspect that Kraisak Choonhavan will be out soon to tell the world how corrupt thaksin was. I never hear him and other politicians say: My father was the biggest crook in Thai history, so I will return the stolen money to the state.

At least Thaksin earned at least the majority of his money more or less honest. There is no way in the world people like Sanan, Suthep, Choonhavan, Banharn or Newin can show they have the same track record. ALL of their money was made in a dishonest way.

The only reason Thaksin is targeted is because of his popularity with the poor and lower middle class and the fact that the stolen money did not went straight to the elite but to the poor. Thaksin would still win any upcoming election with two fingers in his nose, the reason is precisely the fact that the elite is too stubborn to strive towards reconciliation..

If it is fair to take so much money of Thaksin what would the punishment have to be for Sonthi, Chamlong and friends after causing the country a unimaginable reputation problem and monetary loss for occupying the airports and government house and shooting passersby live on TV? Capital punishment?

[TAWP]

At least Thaksin earned at least the majority of his money more or less honest.

Eh, with the usage of monopoly and incorrectly allocated concessions I don't count his wealth as being appropriated honestly, but then again I believe in the free market system, not nepotism and corruption.

[Insight]

Always funny those judges with a hundred thousand baht salary driving a few Mercedes cars and maintaining a royalty like lifestyle judging others. I suspect that Kraisak Choonhavan will be out soon to tell the world how corrupt thaksin was. I never hear him and other politicians say: My father was the biggest crook in Thai history, so I will return the stolen money to the state.

At least Thaksin earned at least the majority of his money more or less honest. There is no way in the world people like Sanan, Suthep, Choonhavan, Banharn or Newin can show they have the same track record. ALL of their money was made in a dishonest way.

The only reason Thaksin is targeted is because of his popularity with the poor and lower middle class and the fact that the stolen money did not went straight to the elite but to the poor. Thaksin would still win any upcoming election with two fingers in his nose, the reason is precisely the fact that the elite is too stubborn to strive towards reconciliation..

If it is fair to take so much money of Thaksin what would the punishment have to be for Sonthi, Chamlong and friends after causing the country a unimaginable reputation problem and monetary loss for occupying the airports and government house and shooting passersby live on TV? Capital punishment?

Yes, the fact is the money was stolen, but no, it didn't go the poor, but into a bank account where it's still frozen to this day.

[ballpoint]

At least Thaksin earned at least the majority of his money more or less honest. There is no way in the world people like Sanan, Suthep, Choonhavan, Banharn or Newin can show they have the same track record. ALL of their money was made in a dishonest way.

So tell me, if I steal $100,000 and invest that money in the stock market, much of it in companies that I have inside knowledge of, and, further more, use my power to directly manipulate those companies results, until I amassed a fortune, then would you say the majority of my money is "more or less" honest?

The only reason Thaksin is targeted is because of his popularity with the poor and lower middle class and the fact that the stolen money did not went straight to the elite but to the poor. Thaksin would still win any upcoming election with two fingers in his nose, the reason is precisely the fact that the elite is too stubborn to strive towards reconciliation.

The fact is, the stolen money came from the Thai taxpayers, a group of people that Thaksin put a lot of time and effort in to avoid joining. It is highly doubtfull that he'd ever win an election again, whether his fingers were up his nose, arse, or back in the pockets of the Thai people.

And as for reconciliation, let me ask you another question. Suppose the $100,000 I stole came from you, and you managed to get some of it back and have me arrested. In the spirit of reconciliation, I'm sure you wouldn't mind giving that money back to me, absolving me of all charges, and giving me your bank book, ATM cards and any property deeds you may have? Otherwise I might use the money I did manage to keep to pay some people to wreck your house and post lies about you and me on TV. Reconciliation? The correct term is blackmail.

[givenall]

I guess his back is against wall now and may be sign of consolatory for Mr., T. But it may be a bit too late.

In my point of view he should lose all of 67BBt, since he is the one started to mess up the country and Thailand and Thai people still paying of it

Also I don’t believe any part of his money was earn honestly,

[Crushdepth]

Payap said seizing all of Thaksin's assets would not be a good way out for the country unless his brother was proven or found guilty. He suggested the assets should be returned to Thaksin first and then if his brother was found guilty in any further corruption cases he would have to pay compensation to the country.

This gets my vote for 'most stupid thing anyone is likely to say in 2010'.

[Ricardo]

Payap said seizing all of Thaksin's assets would not be a good way out for the country unless his brother was proven or found guilty. He suggested the assets should be returned to Thaksin first and then if his brother was found guilty in any further corruption cases he would have to pay compensation to the country.

This gets my vote for 'most stupid thing anyone is likely to say in 2010'.

Agreed. The idea that DL would actually obey any court-order, and pay compensation if found guilty for corruption, is hilarious, given his history of going-back on his word, and his current on-the-run status.

[fritzer]

Payap said seizing all of Thaksin's assets would not be a good way out for the country unless his brother was proven or found guilty. He suggested the assets should be returned to Thaksin first and then if his brother was found guilty in any further corruption cases he would have to pay compensation to the country.

This gets my vote for 'most stupid thing anyone is likely to say in 2010'.

Payap Shinawatra at the awards banquet where he picked up the prestigious "Most Stupid Thing Anyone Said In 2010" award.

[Publicus]

Payap said seizing all of Thaksin's assets would not be a good way out for the country unless his brother was proven or found guilty. He suggested the assets should be returned to Thaksin first and then if his brother was found guilty in any further corruption cases he would have to pay compensation to the country.

This gets my vote for 'most stupid thing anyone is likely to say in 2010'.

Payap Shinawatra at the awards banquet where he picked up the prestigious "Most Stupid Thing Anyone Said In 2010" award.

Altho eleven months remain for so many other eligibles to make collossally stupid and moronic statements, it's indeed already universally acknowledged that Payap's remarks are the clear and prohibitive award frontrunner of the entire year to come   and that making the award now recognizes the fact.

Congrats to another Shinawatra for another astounding world beating performance. His public begging of the court exceeds that of the legal stealgle Nopparope who's begging for a measly 40bn. Payap wants a good faith return of all the assets with his elder bro to be fined later. It sounds like a player trade between clubs in US major league baseball which includes a "player to be named later" which of course never happens

  

[Dustybin]

Yes, 11 months should be plenty of time for a few of the "Perenial Pro's" on here to stake their claim, and get their noses in front.

[geriatrickid]

Seizure before judgement is a rather draconian step. It assumes that someone is guilty and puts the burden of proving one's innocence onto the accused. Most advanced and enlightened judicial systems act on the premise is that one is not guilty until proven guilty. It's not perfect, but it acts to protect the rights of the people. Perhaps that is what the gentleman was attempting to express.

[Siripon]

Seizure before judgement is a rather draconian step. It assumes that someone is guilty and puts the burden of proving one's innocence onto the accused. Most advanced and enlightened judicial systems act on the premise is that one is not guilty until proven guilty. It's not perfect, but it acts to protect the rights of the people. Perhaps that is what the gentleman was attempting to express.

Freezing is not the same as seizing. It's a confiscation until the courts have decided.

What do they do in the West with those suspected of corruption, let them operate their bank accounts freely until all channels of appeal have been exhausted and then seize the assets, or freeze them until the case has passed through the judicial system?

[animatic]

Seizure before judgement is a rather standard thing were risk of flight

and risk of sending funds off shore, is eminent or reasonably foreseeable.

Which was happening at the time of seizure.

Thaksin was known to have money unaccounted for and un taxed off shore.

The Thai authorities had every reason to suspect Thaksin would send his money

out of Thailand, and moves had been started to do just that at several accounts.

Some was sent, and some was blocked. Later his kids tried to do the same,

but it was stopped. Hence this trial to finalize this mess one way or another.

[jayboy]

At least Thaksin earned at least the majority of his money more or less honest.

Eh, with the usage of monopoly and incorrectly allocated concessions I don't count his wealth as being appropriated honestly, but then again I believe in the free market system, not nepotism and corruption.

It's a perfectly logical position.However if you regarded all corporates/institutions in Thailand who had secured hyper profitable monoplies as dishonest, you would be running up some of the most powerful interests in the land.In my view there's no doubt that Thaksin made his initial fortune more or less honestly.Far fewer questions to be asked than in the case of poorly paid generals who have acquired great wealth.

[Davidusaf99]

Is there any scenerio where Thaksin disappears, and Thailand is allowed to go on its way? Just joking. I think this entire conflict is necessary and vital. A man of very questionable motivies, and a more questionable fortune, who earned it on the backs of the Thai people. is now treading on the very instutitions that the Thai people hold above all others. The protests targeting the Privy council, etc, show that Thaksin never has any intention of returning to Thailand. Best to talk away the stolen money quickly, and quash his hopes of staging a miracle finish.

[animatic]

Is there any scenerio where Thaksin disappears, and Thailand is allowed to go on its way? Just joking. I think this entire conflict is necessary and vital. A man of very questionable motivies, and a more questionable fortune, who earned it on the backs of the Thai people. is now treading on the very instutitions that the Thai people hold above all others. The protests targeting the Privy council, etc, show that Thaksin never has any intention of returning to Thailand. Best to talk away the stolen money quickly, and quash his hopes of staging a miracle finish.

It would take a very inventive playwrite maybe Ibsen or Stoppard, or a French nouvelle impressionist.

3 hours of talking in circles, and then a subtle nod to conformity. Et voila, no Thaksin; peace for all.

Maybe a post modernist take on The Emperors New Clothes.

Featuring tape loops of Thaksin talking to CNN last Songkran.

Edited January 19, 2010 by animatic

[Dustybin]

Just punishment to fit the crime is of course fair.

Civil trials don't have the same level of burden of proof as criminal ones.

Just ask O.J. Simpson that one.

There appears to be enough evidence to support a criminal action none the less.

And of course returning the cash and expecting it to come back later is absurd.

The man threatens civil war for his own ends, he would not give the money back.

If we look at his doings going back to 1997 and the botched Chavalit currency devaluation,

then maybe there isn't much he had invested legally, since it is 'fruit of a poisoned tree' in legal terms.

Take the money and he has less power to hide more old charges, since those with knowledge

would have less reason to protect him with nothing to be gained by it.

Go on then ,

Give us a list of just punishments to fit the crimes of the junta, the PAD, and the yellowshirts.

[way2muchcoffee]

Go on then ,

Give us a list of just punishments to fit the crimes of the junta, the PAD, and the yellowshirts.

Go on then,

Give us a list of just punishments to fit the crimes of a man who ordered the murder of thousands, pillaged the nation's coffers, defrauded the taxpayers, began an insurrection, colluded with another nation, attempted to bribe a court, stifled the press, engaged in vote-buying on a massive scale, and systematically eroded a nation's democratic processes in his insatiable quest for power.

Edited January 19, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Dustybin]

Well you work that out for yourself, and that will give you some idea of the megascale of the crimes of the junta, the PAD, and the yellowshirts.