Court Injunction On Pojaman's Ratchadapisek Plot

[webfact]

Court injunction on Pojaman's Ratchadapisek plot

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Civil Court on Wednesday issued an injunction banning the sale of the Ratchadapisek plot by Khumying Pojaman na Pombhejara, ex-wife of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Bt772 million plot was at the centre of graft litigation in 2007 which led to Thaksin's conviction for conflict of interest and his two-year jail term.

The Supreme Court found Thaksin guilty of conflict of interest by using his position as prime minister to influence the transaction between Pojaman and the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF).

Citing the high court's verdict against Thaksin, the FIDF subsequently sued Pojaman to return the plot.

Pending the completion of the civil litigation, Pojaman is banned from putting the plot on the market.

-- The Nation 2010-01-27

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[hhgz]

There are two parties that do not want to solve this dilemma: Pojaman and the government. Pojaman has agreed to return the plot, as long as the government returns her money, including interest. The government refuses to give her interest. Ho hum.

[givenall]

There are two parties that do not want to solve this dilemma: Pojaman and the government. Pojaman has agreed to return the plot, as long as the government returns her money, including interest. The government refuses to give her interest. Ho hum.

Yeah sure you can have the plot but pay me a lot more, the money that is not really mine in the first place.

These guy think Thailand is theirs to do what they want

[brahmburgers]

I hadnt' heard about Pojaman's deal offering to return the parcel in return for the purchase price plus interest. It sounds fair to me, but only if the % is in line with what banks would have given for keeping our money, in other words, about 1% annual.

[animatic]

Since the sale is not legitimate, based on a prerequisit of her being unencumbered to purchase it,

regardless of money changing hands, she would be expected to to return the land and void the sale.

That she wants to profit from the sale, is just as if she sold it for profit, but it is none the less

'fruit of a poisoned tree' for her, or any buyer, besides a exact rolling back of the whole transaction.

Tough luck in tying your money up in a bad transaction blame your EX and sue him, it was his mistake.

She has not grounds or standing to demand to make a profit on this.

But it is curious the timing of this prohibition of sale. Desperate times maybe?

Was there something in the works, since she couldn't get her interests fees?

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic

[Bagwan]

I have always thought that this lady was the brains behind the dastardly duo. Even Thaksin himself admitted that the only advice that he listened to was from her. His utterances and actions since the parting of their ways seems to bear my contention out. I would not be at all surprised if it was she that initiated divorce proceedings since she had the nous to recognise that the writing was on the wall and the end game was coming down the pike. She had no further use of him, she had got what she wanted and he could be released to play around with his glamourous 'nieces'. Pure conjecture on my part of course

but maybe not too far from the truth.

I am quite sure that she knew what the pair of them were up to was not kosher and any suggestion that she gain even a sou is totally out of order. Maybe I am being overly vindictive by saying I would welcome any deep investigation of the source of her wealth.

Does anybody else think that the the rise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra would be a suitable subject for a musical? 'Don't Cry for me, Udon Thani'?

[sharecropper]

Does anybody else think that the the rise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra would be a suitable subject for a musical? 'Don't Cry for me, Udon Thani'?

The Rocky Horror Picture Show more like.

[animatic]

Don't cry for me Rachisima by Madonawatra

It won't be easy, you'll think I'm stranger

When I try to explain how I feel

That I still need your love after all that I've done

You won't believe me

All you will see is a PM you once knew

Although I'm dressed up to the nines

All '60's and 70's to you

I had to let it happen, I had to rearrange

Couldn't stay so belly up to the trough

Looking out of penthouse, staying out of the light

So I chose freedom

Taking a runner, escaping anew

But some thing depressed me ; my fall

I never expected it true.

Don't cry for me Rachisima

The truth I never told you

All through my blunders

My mad resistance

I kept my profits

Don't take your taxes.

And as for fortune, and as for face

They have been stolen

Though it's known to the world they were all I desired

They were just illusions

I've no solutions I'd promised to thee

The answer I've hidden is crime

I love you and hope you love me

Don't cry for me Ratchisima

The truth would only bore you

I took large percentage

Stifled resistance

I want my money

So drop your sentence

Have I said too much?

There's no truths more I can think of to say to you.

But all you have to do is look at me to know

That every word is true

Don't cry for me Rachisima

[Changian]

Another case of The Nation twisting facts to suit their own agenda.

The Supreme Court found Thaksin guilty of conflict of interest by using his position as prime minister to influence the transaction between Pojaman and the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF).

No it didnt.

Thaksin was basically found guilty of being a government minister at the time his wife bought the land. Under Thai law, he, as the husband of the buyer, had to sign to agree to his wife's purchase. If he hadnt the sale could be ruled illegal. He was convicted because he complied with the law but by doing so broke another law regarding conflict of interest by government ministers. So it was a kind of 'damned if you do & damned if you dont' situation.

The actual sale was deemed lawful by the Supreme Court in the original hearing in 2007, which is why Pojaman was never asked to return the plot.

[scorecard]

The actual sale was deemed lawful by the Supreme Court in the original hearing in 2007, which is why Pojaman was never asked to return the plot.

Would you like to quote a source for this statement, please.

[slimdog]

The actual sale was deemed lawful by the Supreme Court in the original hearing in 2007, which is why Pojaman was never asked to return the plot.

Would you like to quote a source for this statement, please.

source: http://www.supremecourt.or.th/file/crimina...ment_1_50_6.pdf

Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra were charged with violating the Organic Act of Counter corruption BE 2542 (1999).

It was ruled that he was a Political Office holder as stipulated in section 4, and that he had violated sections 100 (1)(4) as the Prime Minister has the power of Inspection over the FIDF, he was therefore forbidden to enter into a contract with the State. In accordance with Section 122 of the Organic act, he was sentenced to two years in prison. His former wife was ruled to be not covered by the Organic Act and the charges for her under the Organic Act were dismissed.

In addition to the Conflict of interest charge, seven additional criminal charges under the criminal code were also lodged.

(Sections 33,83,86,90,96,152 &157)

The most relevent were Section 33 (Property forfeited to the state), Sections 152 (Using Official position to benefit yourself or others) & Section 157 (Using official position to wrongly take action/inaction on others).

For each of the criminal charges, both Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra had all charges dismissed.

Edited January 28, 2010 by slimdog

[way2muchcoffee]

Thaksin was basically found guilty of being a government minister at the time his wife bought the land. Under Thai law, he, as the husband of the buyer, had to sign to agree to his wife's purchase. If he hadnt the sale could be ruled illegal. He was convicted because he complied with the law but by doing so broke another law regarding conflict of interest by government ministers. So it was a kind of 'damned if you do & damned if you dont' situation.

There was no catch-22. Potjaman should never have purchased that land in the first place given her husband's role in the government.

[animatic]

Another case of The Nation twisting facts to suit their own agenda.

The Supreme Court found Thaksin guilty of conflict of interest by using his position as prime minister to influence the transaction between Pojaman and the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF).

No it didnt.

Thaksin was basically found guilty of being a government minister at the time his wife bought the land. Under Thai law, he, as the husband of the buyer, had to sign to agree to his wife's purchase. If he hadnt the sale could be ruled illegal. He was convicted because he complied with the law but by doing so broke another law regarding conflict of interest by government ministers. So it was a kind of 'damned if you do & damned if you dont' situation.

The actual sale was deemed lawful by the Supreme Court in the original hearing in 2007, which is why Pojaman was never asked to return the plot.

Damned if he did, but not damned if he didn't sign.

He should have known that he could not sign,

but thought he could get away with it.

The return of the plot was not part of what the court trial was about.

It was trying Thaksin for abuse of power, not about her purchase.

But then, after his conviction, she was deemed unqualified to make the purchase,

because he could not legally sign, then it fell to the land dept auction authorities to

void the sale and demand return of the land. Which they are doing.

The simple answer is he should never have signed for her to purchase the land.

But he did and paid the cost.

No twisting of facts here,

she must return the land since it was an invalid sale,

because he couldn't legally sign to give her permission.

Edited January 28, 2010 by animatic

[Asa]

Since the sale is not legitimate, based on a prerequisit of her being unencumbered to purchase it,

regardless of money changing hands, she would be expected to to return the land and void the sale.

That she wants to profit from the sale, is just as if she sold it for profit, but it is none the less

'fruit of a poisoned tree' for her, or any buyer, besides a exact rolling back of the whole transaction.

Tough luck in tying your money up in a bad transaction blame your EX and sue him, it was his mistake.

She has not grounds or standing to demand to make a profit on this.

But it is curious the timing of this prohibition of sale. Desperate times maybe?

Was there something in the works, since she couldn't get her interests fees?

August 1995 FDIF took up Erawan Trust 2 pieces of land in Ratchada at bollooned price of 4.8 billions. They realized loss for a true value of the land at 2 billions bath. Later, they put the land up for sale to public, but there was not any interested buyer. So they cut it up into 4 pieces. The plot number two was worth 754 millions, but was put on internet bidding sale for 870 millions. Out of 8 interested parties nobody bid to buy it.

In 2003, FDIF put it on sale again, this time ther wasn’t any price tag. There were three bidders contest for the land purchase, Land and House bid for 730 millions, Noble Investment (Noble House) bid 750 millions, and Khun Ying at 772 millions. And she paid the price at the end of the year, FDIF she paid for the land. Her husband endorsed the deal as her spouse, not as the buyer. The deal was closed. Now how could it be illegitimate? Court said her doing is lawful in 2007.

And if you invested in real estate, wouldn’t you expect a higher price later on? Bank of Thailand keeps the money for many years. Hasn’t it used the money to gain more? If they want the land back they should have paid the market price, or the paid sum with interest. And what they going to do with it put it on sales again, and at what price? What Khun Ying’s asking has more than ground, since BOT, by FDIF took her payment readily. Their flip-flop policy is political, boring, and selfish. It totals to a bully, buy back cheap?

[jdinasia]

Another case of The Nation twisting facts to suit their own agenda.

The Supreme Court found Thaksin guilty of conflict of interest by using his position as prime minister to influence the transaction between Pojaman and the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF).

No it didnt.

Thaksin was basically found guilty of being a government minister at the time his wife bought the land. Under Thai law, he, as the husband of the buyer, had to sign to agree to his wife's purchase. If he hadnt the sale could be ruled illegal. He was convicted because he complied with the law but by doing so broke another law regarding conflict of interest by government ministers. So it was a kind of 'damned if you do & damned if you dont' situation.

The actual sale was deemed lawful by the Supreme Court in the original hearing in 2007, which is why Pojaman was never asked to return the plot.

So sorry but that is not true.

The court that heard the case against Thaksin had no jurisdiction over his wife. THAT is why the charges were dropped in THAT court. The court that heard Thaksin's case was only for holders of political office, his wife did not hold a political office.

[rixalex]

Thaksin was basically found guilty of being a government minister at the time his wife bought the land. Under Thai law, he, as the husband of the buyer, had to sign to agree to his wife's purchase. If he hadnt the sale could be ruled illegal. He was convicted because he complied with the law but by doing so broke another law regarding conflict of interest by government ministers. So it was a kind of 'damned if you do & damned if you dont' situation.

Nobody had a gun to Potjaman's head - nobody was forcing her to bid for the land - and for goodness sake, we are talking about the Prime Minister of a country, as he was at the time - are you telling me he didn't have a whole team of legal advisors able to point out the most fundamental issues / problems such as these? (assuming he was ignorant of them himself, which seems a little odd when considering what a genius businessman we are led to believe he is).

Having made their billions, how great it would have been had they both taken a step back from their business interests for the duration of Thaksin's time in office. Not a lot to expect really. But alas. And now surprise that there are conflict of interest cases against him?!

[prine]

Sorry to hear about Pojama's current dilemma.

By the way, when does Pojaman begin serving her Three year prison sentence after her conviction, along with brother and her secretary, for evading millions and millions of baht in taxes?

Afterall, she was found guilty back in July of 2008.

[slimdog]

So sorry but that is not true.

The court that heard the case against Thaksin had no jurisdiction over his wife. THAT is why the charges were dropped in THAT court. The court that heard Thaksin's case was only for holders of political office, his wife did not hold a political office.

The Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for political office holders has full jurisdiction on the provision that one of the defendants in a case is eligable to be tried in the court.

Many non political office holders have been tried by the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Political office holders, including civil servants and even executives of companies (C.P).

In the case of Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra (case No. 1/2550) NO charges were dropped, and a ruling was given on ALL Charges.

[Samuian]

What baffles me is the way they did it. they must heave felt absolutely secure in their chairs!

No way that they "didn't know"!

Why wasn't the purchase done through one of the multitude financial mailbox companies?

Greed coupled with the feeling that came from the assumption of "absolute power"!

my humble opinion on this!

[jdinasia]

So sorry but that is not true.

The court that heard the case against Thaksin had no jurisdiction over his wife. THAT is why the charges were dropped in THAT court. The court that heard Thaksin's case was only for holders of political office, his wife did not hold a political office.

The Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for political office holders has full jurisdiction on the provision that one of the defendants in a case is eligable to be tried in the court.

Many non political office holders have been tried by the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Political office holders, including civil servants and even executives of companies (C.P).

In the case of Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra (case No. 1/2550) NO charges were dropped, and a ruling was given on ALL Charges.

Pardon .... the word dropped was wrong. The statement of jurisdiction appears to be correct though.

Pojaman, meanwhile, was let off as the National Counter Corruption Act does not have any penalty clause against family members of political office holders.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...keyword=Pojaman

[slimdog]

Pojaman pleads Not Guilty

The graft trial is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders, a fast track review by nine senior judges.

Source. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/23...cs_30063197.php

[animatic]

Since the sale is not legitimate, based on a prerequisit of her being unencumbered to purchase it,

regardless of money changing hands, she would be expected to to return the land and void the sale.

That she wants to profit from the sale, is just as if she sold it for profit, but it is none the less

'fruit of a poisoned tree' for her, or any buyer, besides a exact rolling back of the whole transaction.

Tough luck in tying your money up in a bad transaction blame your EX and sue him, it was his mistake.

She has not grounds or standing to demand to make a profit on this.

But it is curious the timing of this prohibition of sale. Desperate times maybe?

Was there something in the works, since she couldn't get her interests fees?

In 2003, FDIF put it on sale again, this time ther wasn’t any price tag. There were three bidders contest for the land purchase, Land and House bid for 730 millions, Noble Investment (Noble House) bid 750 millions, and Khun Ying at 772 millions. And she paid the price at the end of the year, FDIF she paid for the land.

Her husband endorsed the deal as her spouse, not as the buyer. The deal was closed. Now how could it be illegitimate? Court said her doing is lawful in 2007.

Her husband endorsed the deal as spouce, and under Thai law 'she can NOT make this deal without his signature'.

And as such he signed assuming he could get around the legalities of this.

He could not and because of that his signature MUST be rescinded, and so she has not bought this land.

'fruit of a poisoned tree' the basic fact he signed illegally and this was determined means the sale is voided.

Since she was not qualified without his signature to purchase the land.

Add to this the law states that close family of Minsiters, PMs and MP's c

an not go into deals with government entities, it is somewhat surprising she isn't in the dock for this,

but they just went after the office holder and not his family.

Yet as 'fruit of a poisoned tree' her legal ability without his signature to enter this transacition does NOT EXIST.

Hense she must return the land, and since the legal onus is on her to be properly valid to purchase,

the sellar is under no obligation to pay interst because the sellar was valid,

but the purchaser gave false statements, or inaccurate documentation.

No interest is due even if fraud is not proved. Yet fraud is a real possibility because they said they

knew of the law, but decided it didn't apply to them, ie decided to ignore the law.

[Artisi]

No interest, and she should be reminded that she is lucky she is not behind bars where she really belongs.

They should even consider not returning the money as they committed a crime of which they were fully aware of.

[Asa]

Since the sale is not legitimate, based on a prerequisit of her being unencumbered to purchase it,

regardless of money changing hands, she would be expected to to return the land and void the sale.

That she wants to profit from the sale, is just as if she sold it for profit, but it is none the less

'fruit of a poisoned tree' for her, or any buyer, besides a exact rolling back of the whole transaction.

Tough luck in tying your money up in a bad transaction blame your EX and sue him, it was his mistake.

She has not grounds or standing to demand to make a profit on this.

But it is curious the timing of this prohibition of sale. Desperate times maybe?

Was there something in the works, since she couldn't get her interests fees?

In 2003, FDIF put it on sale again, this time ther wasn't any price tag. There were three bidders contest for the land purchase, Land and House bid for 730 millions, Noble Investment (Noble House) bid 750 millions, and Khun Ying at 772 millions. And she paid the price at the end of the year, FDIF she paid for the land.

Her husband endorsed the deal as her spouse, not as the buyer. The deal was closed. Now how could it be illegitimate? Court said her doing is lawful in 2007.

Her husband endorsed the deal as spouce, and under Thai law 'she can NOT make this deal without his signature'.

And as such he signed assuming he could get around the legalities of this.

He could not and because of that his signature MUST be rescinded, and so she has not bought this land.

'fruit of a poisoned tree' the basic fact he signed illegally and this was determined means the sale is voided.

Since she was not qualified without his signature to purchase the land.

Add to this the law states that close family of Minsiters, PMs and MP's c

an not go into deals with government entities, it is somewhat surprising she isn't in the dock for this,

but they just went after the office holder and not his family.

Yet as 'fruit of a poisoned tree' her legal ability without his signature to enter this transacition does NOT EXIST.

Hense she must return the land, and since the legal onus is on her to be properly valid to purchase,

the sellar is under no obligation to pay interst because the sellar was valid,

but the purchaser gave false statements, or inaccurate documentation.

No interest is due even if fraud is not proved. Yet fraud is a real possibility because they said they

knew of the law, but decided it didn't apply to them, ie decided to ignore the law.

Sir, a wife can buy land on her own (using her money) with her husband consent, or even without it. A consent that she can do it on her own, and not doing it for both. Though once the land is bought it will become part of the marital property.

[animatic]

As it was explained so many times back at the time of this sale.

Thai law is archaic and women are still deemed a form of chattel or child legally,

and so to do certain contracts MUST have permission from father or husband.

This was the ONLY reason Thakisn was forced to sign for Potjamin to buy this land.

They couldn't avoid it, but tried to avoid the other rule saying :

Governmentment officers and ministers of parliament and their close family members

can not do business deals with government entities.

[scorecard]

Thaksin was basically found guilty of being a government minister at the time his wife bought the land. Under Thai law, he, as the husband of the buyer, had to sign to agree to his wife's purchase. If he hadnt the sale could be ruled illegal. He was convicted because he complied with the law but by doing so broke another law regarding conflict of interest by government ministers. So it was a kind of 'damned if you do & damned if you dont' situation.

Nobody had a gun to Potjaman's head - nobody was forcing her to bid for the land - and for goodness sake, we are talking about the Prime Minister of a country, as he was at the time - are you telling me he didn't have a whole team of legal advisors able to point out the most fundamental issues / problems such as these? (assuming he was ignorant of them himself, which seems a little odd when considering what a genius businessman we are led to believe he is).

Having made their billions, how great it would have been had they both taken a step back from their business interests for the duration of Thaksin's time in office. Not a lot to expect really. But alas. And now surprise that there are conflict of interest cases against him?!

Agree. Both of them lacking in morals.

[CLOD]

Thaksin was basically found guilty of being a government minister at the time his wife bought the land. Under Thai law, he, as the husband of the buyer, had to sign to agree to his wife's purchase. If he hadnt the sale could be ruled illegal. He was convicted because he complied with the law but by doing so broke another law regarding conflict of interest by government ministers. So it was a kind of 'damned if you do & damned if you dont' situation.

Nobody had a gun to Potjaman's head - nobody was forcing her to bid for the land - and for goodness sake, we are talking about the Prime Minister of a country, as he was at the time - are you telling me he didn't have a whole team of legal advisors able to point out the most fundamental issues / problems such as these? (assuming he was ignorant of them himself, which seems a little odd when considering what a genius businessman we are led to believe he is).

Having made their billions, how great it would have been had they both taken a step back from their business interests for the duration of Thaksin's time in office. Not a lot to expect really. But alas. And now surprise that there are conflict of interest cases against him?!

Agree. Both of them lacking in morals.

And how far and wide can you cast that net in thailand, depends who has the net.

[animatic]

Some show their lack of morals playing unfairly in small venues.

Others do it on the big stage in big ways and do MUCH more damage.

That would be Potjamin for sure.

And thus they deserve much bigger comeuppances. Finally it seems Thaksin

and co. are causing more and more hi sos to come under examination.

Or at least be more circumspect in their dealings,

because blanket immunity is finally drying up.

[rixalex]

Nobody had a gun to Potjaman's head - nobody was forcing her to bid for the land - and for goodness sake, we are talking about the Prime Minister of a country, as he was at the time - are you telling me he didn't have a whole team of legal advisors able to point out the most fundamental issues / problems such as these? (assuming he was ignorant of them himself, which seems a little odd when considering what a genius businessman we are led to believe he is).

Having made their billions, how great it would have been had they both taken a step back from their business interests for the duration of Thaksin's time in office. Not a lot to expect really. But alas. And now surprise that there are conflict of interest cases against him?!

Agree. Both of them lacking in morals.

And how far and wide can you cast that net in thailand, depends who has the net.

Always the same old chestnut with you guys. Always the same old defence. Always the same old excuses.

[scorecard]

[Always the same old chestnut with you guys. Always the same old defence. Always the same old excuses.

Don't understand the 'same old chestnuts' comment.

He broke the law, and regardless of breaking the law, he should have been showing the right example. He didn't.

If your claiming that it's not fair, well all people who get involved in corruption and abuse of power do so with the full knowledge that they might just be the one who get caught. They take the risk, It happened he was the one who came under the hammer.

And if your claiming that others have not been punished for corruption, therefore it's not fair for thaksin (therefore nobody at all) to be punished for corruption, then this stance would open the door for everybody in Thailand to be involved in massive coruption with no chance of being punished - banana and lawless republic on the horizon.

And let's be fair about this, if we apply this reasoning to corruption and abuse of power, then let's be consisten, no double standards, many murderers have never been caught and punished, therefore all murderers in the future should never be punished. And many drug manufactueres and sellers have never been caught, therefore all future drug manufacturers, distributers, and sellers should not be punished in any way.

Is this what you want?

Edited January 31, 2010 by scorecard