Can The Court Seize Pojaman's Share? : Thaksin's Ex-Wife

[webfact]

Can the court seize Pojaman's share?

By The Nation

Published on February 25, 2010

BANGKOK: -- Judges mull legal points as Thaksin's ex-wife proves Bt34 bn belonged to her before he became PM

One of the contentious issues being discussed by the Supreme Court judges is whether the state could legally confiscate the Bt34 billion that is claimed to belong to Khunying Pojaman na Pombejra.

A legal source said the Supreme Court judges have been debating this point of legality since Pojaman claimed she owned Bt34 billion of the Bt76-billion frozen assets well before her ex-husband Thaksin Shinawatra took office in 2001. She then transferred this amount to her son Panthongtae and her stepbrother Bhanapot Damapong.

The Supreme Court is due to hand down a verdict on the asset-seizure case tomorrow - a ruling that will shape the future course of Thai politics.

In her closing statement presented before the court on February 9, Pojaman insisted she owned 693 million shares in Shin Corp, worth about Bt34 billion, well before Thaksin became prime minister.

"The fact, as testified during the Supreme Court's previous hearings, is that these shares were in my possession since Shin Corp was founded," she said. "On September 1, 2000, I sold these shares to Panthongtae and Bhanapot. Before that date, I owned 693 million shares [at Bt1 par each].

"As a result, these assets were not related to the office of the prime minister under the National Anti-Corruption Commission law, because the accused [Thaksin] assumed public office on February 9, 2001," Pojaman said.

The public prosecutors have argued that Thaksin and Pojaman illegally hid their assets by using their children and relatives as nominees while Thaksin was PM. They have also accused Thaksin of abusing his political power to positively affect Shin Corp's shares.

Pojaman also said charges that she had "parked" her 693 million Shin Corp shares with her son and stepbrother were unfounded and represented a distortion of previous testimonies given by herself, Panthongtae and Bhanapot.

The emerging legal question is whether the Supreme Court could order a seizure of Bt34 billion - the origins of which can be traced back to Pojaman well before 2001, even though she transferred the amount to Panthongtae and Bhanapot later.

In 2001, Thaksin and Pojaman declared their assets, as required by the Constitution, at Bt569 million and Bt9.96 billion respectively.

Panthongtae and daughter Pinthongta had a combined Bt4.76 billion, but the two children had not come of age at the time.

In 2005, Thaksin's assets fell slightly to Bt506 billion, while Pojaman's assets also dropped to Bt8.91 billion. Panthongtae and Pinthongta reported combined assets of Bt3.26 billion.

In 2006, Thaksin declared his assets at Bt557 billion, while Pojaman's were said to be Bt8.84 billion. Panthongtae and Pinthongta, who had come of age, no longer needed to declare their assets.

Pojaman has been arguing that the Bt34 billion owned by her before Thaksin entered politics in 2001 and later on transferred to Panthongtae and Bhanapot, cannot be included in the Bt76-billion asset seizure case.

If Pojaman were to breach any laws, she should be held accountable for those violations, but the state has no right to take the Bt34 billion.

-- The Nation 2010-02-25

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[lensta]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

[beano2274]

She sold the shares to the other two, so they had sooo much money!!!!!

If she sold them then, the shares and the money made belong to the others and not her.

The money they paid (if they had the money) belongs to Ex Mrs. Thaksin.

Edited February 25, 2010 by beano2274

[givenall]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

Unless they can prove some or all of that was from corruption while Mr. T was a government official

[whatsupdoc]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

If the court thinks she illegally hid those assets while Thaksin was PM than it has everything to do with the case against Thaksin.

[hammered]

So much anlysis on this and options and what could happens that it seems like we are prepared for one of those seize some, freeze a bit, give back a bit decisions that will take another year or so to be analysed, spuin into victory by all and sundry etc. Still only slightly over 24 hours to go.

[neverdie]

Poor pokemon......poor mr t. Do you think they will be entitled to thai welfare payments?

[BIGTOE3]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

They were in it together, remember the land deal ? etc

Take of your red tinted glasses and wake up and smell the coffee.

Take it all I say

BT

[oldthaihand]

The court can do whatever it wants, chai mai krup.

[lensta]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

They were in it together, remember the land deal ? etc

Take of your red tinted glasses and wake up and smell the coffee.

Take it all I say

BT

Actually BT my glasses are neither tinted red or yellow, I happen to think they are all as bad as one another. However as I stated that if she had it before he came to power, then it is rightfully hers. So I suggest that you remove your head from you arse and learn to read.

[Alwaysright]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

It was a conspiracy to releve the Thai people of their money.Take it all and give it back to the people,and while you are at it,get all the crooks.

[Loaded]

The day you see a flying pig

[Bagwan]

So he was worth over 500 billion and he is making a fuss over 70 odd billion. I should have such a problem.

I hold that she was the architect of the empire that they built and I for one would be happy to see her on welfare. It seems that she and her family got the lion's share.

[steveromagnino]

The court can do whatever it wants, chai mai krup.

In the decisions to date, rulings have been made pretty much to the letter of the law.

I would expect this decision to be the same.

[ballpoint]

In 2001, Thaksin and Pojaman declared their assets, as required by the Constitution, at Bt569 million and Bt9.96 billion respectively.

Panthongtae and daughter Pinthongta had a combined Bt4.76 billion, but the two children had not come of age at the time.

Now she's claiming to actually have had 34 billion? Even when adding the 9.96 billion with the childrens 4.76 billion you don't get anywhere near that. So, she lied during the assets declaration. Take the money as a fine. Thaksin claimed to only have 569 million at the time, (or was that a misprint), it's been proven he had more than that outside the country when he fled, so let him keep what he had outside and take everything currently in Thailand. Far enough. And then proceed to the criminal cases against him.

These people are still so arrogant as to believe thay can do and say anything to get their money back? All their wriggling and twisting is just burying them deeper. Either she had 34 billion and didn't declare it, and so lied to the assets declaration comittee, or she didn't, and is now lying to the assets court. Either way, she's a liar. What a well suited couple they are. Shame they split up.

Edited February 25, 2010 by ballpoint

[h90]

In 2001, Thaksin and Pojaman declared their assets, as required by the Constitution, at Bt569 million and Bt9.96 billion respectively.

Panthongtae and daughter Pinthongta had a combined Bt4.76 billion, but the two children had not come of age at the time.

Now she's claiming to actually have had 34 billion? Even when adding the 9.96 billion with the childrens 4.76 billion you don't get anywhere near that. So, she lied during the assets declaration. Take the money as a fine. Thaksin claimed to only have 569 million at the time, it's been proven he had more than that outside the country when he fled, so let him keep what he had outside and take everything currently in Thailand. Far enough. And then proceed to the criminal cases against him.

These people are still so arrogant as to believe thay can do and say anything to get their money back? All their wriggling and twisting is just burying them deeper. Either she had 34 billion and didn't declare it, and so lied to the assets declaration comittee, or she didn't, and is now lying to the assets court. Either way, she's a liar. What a well suited couple they are. Shame they split up.

Just recall, a few days ago Thaksin spoke about "HIS" money. I recall Thaksin was telling that he comes from a very poor background and make all his fortune by his smart investments. As well I recall that he told that he come from an old very rich family.....

They simply lie every hour a different story. I think they don't even know the difference between true and not true anymore.

[scorecard]

So much anlysis on this and options and what could happens that it seems like we are prepared for one of those seize some, freeze a bit, give back a bit decisions that will take another year or so to be analysed, spuin into victory by all and sundry etc. Still only slightly over 24 hours to go.

Well here's also the aspect of punishment all round.

If things were hidded, if things were gained illeagally, then confication of the ill gotten things is one thing, punishment could perhaps be added.

[LuckyLew]

My opinion is that all 76B will be confiscated

My question is - What happens to this 76B?

What does courts do with it?

or what do gov't do with it?

Anyone know?

[neverdie]

My opinion is that all 76B will be confiscated

My question is - What happens to this 76B?

What does courts do with it?

or what do gov't do with it?

Anyone know?

It goes into the Govt revenue pool of cash, where no doubt it will be splurged by all the other greedy individuals. Each average thai person, who doesnt work inside the govt departments, incl army/police etc should receive equal portions of it.

[ballpoint]

My opinion is that all 76B will be confiscated

My question is - What happens to this 76B?

What does courts do with it?

or what do gov't do with it?

Anyone know?

Having seen the results of Thai legal decisions over many years, I think we may be surprised by the verdict. I really hope not, but when it comes to prosecuting big shots, the courts here always seem to have a reluctance to make them lose too much face. They'll probably come up with a "balanced" decision that they think is "fair" to all sides. I hope I'm wrong.

With regards to what happens to any money that is confiscated, well, I happen to be in a position to get my hands on some of it. All that's needed is for you to send me your bank account details, along with your ATM card and PIN number, and I will transfer it into your bank on its way to mine, leaving 10% in yours as a comission.

[ManilaLover]

joke:

What happens if the gov promises to pay 500b of Taksins money + a yellow shirt to every Red Shirt if he will burn his red shirt in public and wears the yellow shirt ?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

answer:

a terrible increase of the smog problem

[Moonrakers]

If the shares were worth x amount before thaksin got into power and after he start fiddling with the laws, the value increased by y amount, then surely the fair result would be to take y leaving her with x.

[jamesthailand]

I am glad to see The Nation raise this point, because I think it's the weakest link in the legal case against Thaksin. The law that would allow the court to seize the assets is the Organic Act on Counter Corruption 1999. This only allows for the seizure of the assets of the political office holder himself, not those of his spouse or adult children.

I wouldn't be surprised if the result is that the court seized the proceeds of the sale of only those shares that originally belonged to Thaksin (a bit under half the total assets). This would be a compromise that was legally plausible. Some of the remaining assets might also remain frozen pending the outcome of the tax cases against Panthongtae and Pinthongta. It will be very interesting to read the verdict.

[cougar52]

It is elementary really, she does not get <deleted>, because 1). the funds became co-mingled with his in a illegal enterprise. 2). All the shares she SOLD to his Brother and siblings she actually paid for to them to pay them back. 3). All the interest and capital gains on the shares OWNED now by someone else went into her and Mr. T's accounts.

So all smoke and mirrors, and they should lose it all.

If you bankroll a Bank robbery and get caught; they court does not say we will give you back the money you spent to attempt this robbery. DO THEY :D

[chuang]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

Can you trust the thai judiciary...

[BIGTOE3]

I don't see what there is to debate, if the origins of the money can be traced back to before Thaksin was PM then the state has no right to confriscate it. It has nothing to do with the case against Thaksin. Also she should be entitled to the interest that she would have earned during the time that her money has been frozen.

They were in it together, remember the land deal ? etc

Take of your red tinted glasses and wake up and smell the coffee.

Take it all I say

BT

Actually BT my glasses are neither tinted red or yellow, I happen to think they are all as bad as one another. However as I stated that if she had it before he came to power, then it is rightfully hers. So I suggest that you remove your head from you arse and learn to read.

You are such a pleasant chap with this coment "So I suggest that you remove your head from you arse and learn to read."

Having READ your post and those on the rest of this thread and having followed the story in detail I think she is every bit as quilty as him and it should all be seized.

As someone else pointed out, She was found quilty by the courts and sentenced to 3 years in Prison .. SO WHEN is she going to serve her time ?

I am No red or Yellow but I don't wear your tinted glasses either

BT

[neverdie]

quilty[/b] by the courts and sentenced to 3 years in Prison .. SO WHEN is she going to serve her time ?

I am No red or Yellow but I don't wear your tinted glasses either

BT

Is that the same as being found 'guilty'?

[BIGTOE3]

quilty[/b] by the courts and sentenced to 3 years in Prison .. SO WHEN is she going to serve her time ?

I am No red or Yellow but I don't wear your tinted glasses either

BT

Is that the same as being found 'guilty'?

Okay okay your right, thank you as I ALWAYS say nice to be nice ta.

BT

[Moonrakers]

quilty[/b] by the courts and sentenced to 3 years in Prison .. SO WHEN is she going to serve her time ?

I am No red or Yellow but I don't wear your tinted glasses either

BT

Is that the same as being found 'guilty'?

He's Scottish Mr. Die. They are not native speakers 

[virtualtraveller]

I agree with the post above about smoke and mirrors. Even when you rule according to the letter of the law, the judgment is inclined to look at the 'real' intentions. Thaksin, and every big noodle subverts the letter of the law by simply going around it, in this case putting it all in the name of his wife and children. However, there is ample ways to show that the fortune was a collective family one, as is the case with most 'billionaires' in Asia, the ownership spread among many family members to protect it from very cases like this one. Regardless, it was Thaksin who mainly made the decisions, who has tacitly admitted over recent years that it is 'his' money (never once heard him say, he will fight for the justice of his ex wife's fortune), even the divorce is seen by some as a cynical stunt to distance her and the money from his persecution.

Turning the tables around, if Shin Inc. isn't exactly a family business run by Thaksin, then I guess it's sheer co-incidence that Wongsawat became PM, and Yingluk and other Shinawatras put in charge of key Puea Thai positions.

It's fairly obvious anyhow, how do two kids barely into their twenties with no business experience succeed in making their shares return such astronomical returns in a short space of time. Answer me that one 'defence lawyers'.

Sometimes, when it's obvious but difficult to prove then the onus is on the accused to justify their actions. You can't defeat the spirit of the law, even if your expensive clever lawyers can argue your way through the loopholes.

Edited February 25, 2010 by virtualtraveller