Damages From Thaksin Concessions Estimated

[webfact]

THAKSIN'S RULINGS

Damages from Thaksin concessions estimated

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Companies and individuals benefiting from concession amendments during ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's administration may have to pay Bt134 billion in compensation, the Finance Ministry estimates.

The amount was calculated by the State Enterprise Policy Office (Sepo) following the Supreme Court's February 26 ruling that Thaksin had illegally amended the concessions and laws to benefit state concessionaires and certain individuals.

A ministry source said the amount included 7.5percent interest per annum starting from the day the damage was committed until the end of this month.

Sepo estimates the conversion of concession fees to excise tax cost the government Bt57 billion, or Bt75.7 billion including interest.

The damage was from four concessionaires: Advanced Info Service (AIS), Bt32 billion, or Bt42.4 billion with interest; Total Access Communication, Bt16.8 billion, or Bt22 billion with interest; True Move Bt6.6 billion, or Bt8.77 billion with interest; and Digital Phone, Bt2.4 billion, or Bt3.2 billion with interest.

Amendment of AIS's concession to lower prepaidrevenue sharing resulted in damage of Bt14.2 billion, or Bt19.3 billion including interest.

Amendment of concessions for roaming purposes that benefited AIS and parent Shin Corp caused damage of Bt6.9 billion, or Bt8 billion with interest.

The ExportImport Bank of Thailand's Bt4billion loan to Burma cost the government Bt354 million, or Bt400 million with interest.

Last, amendment of the concessions of Thaicom - which was called Shin Satellite at the time - cost the government Bt20 billion in lost revenue, or Bt31 billion with interest.

The source said Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij had been informed of the estimates, which would be forwarded to the Office of the AttorneyGeneral for further legal proceedings against the concessionaires, individuals and negligent state officials.

"All of the information will be submitted to the state prosecutors. The lawsuits will be directed to the concessionaires, not their shareholders. The companies are still benefiting from the amendments," he said.

Meanwhile, state agencies that awarded the concessions, such as TOT, must take action to prevent further damage, the source said. Otherwise, more damage will occur, giving rise to even more lawsuits later on.

"State agencies required to act in accordance with the court's ruling must stop causing damage as soon as possible, because the concessions that benefit private companies are continuing.

The summary of damages as of this coming March 31 indicates how much the government has already lost for now; if the concessions continue, the damages will only keep adding up," said the source.

The source insisted state officials were careful to base the figures on actual damage costs, because if the estimates were below the actual cost, they could be deemed negligent.

-- The Nation 2010-03-11

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[slapout]

The remainder monies left after the court ruling will not cover the total. Will the personal property of the individuals, including foreign bank accounts, be subject to claims?

[animatic]

A lot of cash certainly,

and puts into perspective just how avaricious

and power hungry Thaksin was as a national leader.

Good get the cash back and help restore the economy

and jobs for the Thai People. Plus deals with the agricultural

sector vultures bleeding the average farmer dry.

[Briggsy]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

[Thai at Heart]

Are all of the companies mentioned Shinawatra firms?

The damage was from four concessionaires: Advanced Info Service (AIS), Bt32 billion, or Bt42.4 billion with interest; Total Access Communication, Bt16.8 billion, or Bt22 billion with interest; True Move Bt6.6 billion, or Bt8.77 billion with interest; and Digital Phone, Bt2.4 billion, or Bt3.2 billion with interest.

Wouldn't they have to prove a conflict of interest between the owners of the other companies and implementing these laws to prove damaging the state?

If they can make this stick to non-Shinawatra firms doesn't this mean that potentially any law that gets passed that means reduced revenue to the state opens you up to a court case and damages later on?

What should a company like Truemove or DTAC have done? Accrue monies just in case the laws of the land are deemed illegal? Am I missing something, or doesn't this look really dangerous for any serious company intending to invest in the country.

This would mean that whoever comes after any sitting party could claim they caused damage to the state by changing laws and chase companies that believe they have been operating perfectly within the law. I would imagine that True and DTAC will fight this tooth and nail.

[rreddin]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

Sad, but true.

[RKASA]

As a result of the concession changes cell phone use dropped, coverage disappeared and the Thai people suffered. NOT just the opposite happened. But what I just said is about to happen.

ToT lost that money because the don't earn it and before the changes many people like my self had to drive 2km to get a phone signal. Thaksin company grew because of economy of scale from lower prices and cheaper hand sets plus the fact people getting a signal could spend money on a phone call.

I have said before he should not have made the changes given if position, but should have found some way of getting more consensus to the change first, but empire builders which support government enterprise will not be deigned and the people can just go back to banging on logs.

[anotherpeter]

Are all of the companies mentioned Shinawatra firms?

The damage was from four concessionaires: Advanced Info Service (AIS), Bt32 billion, or Bt42.4 billion with interest; Total Access Communication, Bt16.8 billion, or Bt22 billion with interest; True Move Bt6.6 billion, or Bt8.77 billion with interest; and Digital Phone, Bt2.4 billion, or Bt3.2 billion with interest.

Wouldn't they have to prove a conflict of interest between the owners of the other companies and implementing these laws to prove damaging the state?

If they can make this stick to non-Shinawatra firms doesn't this mean that potentially any law that gets passed that means reduced revenue to the state opens you up to a court case and damages later on?

What should a company like Truemove or DTAC have done? Accrue monies just in case the laws of the land are deemed illegal? Am I missing something, or doesn't this look really dangerous for any serious company intending to invest in the country.

This would mean that whoever comes after any sitting party could claim they caused damage to the state by changing laws and chase companies that believe they have been operating perfectly within the law. I would imagine that True and DTAC will fight this tooth and nail.

Apparently, the law was changed illegally.

Only AIS (of the ones you mentioned) was a Thaksin company, but it's been sold now.

They should be going after the people that changed the law illegally, rather than the some of the companies that benefitted. Maybe they can get some recompense from the companies, but it's not like they did anything illegal. They were just following the laws of the time.

[Thai at Heart]

Apparently, the law was changed illegally.

Only AIS (of the ones you mentioned) was a Thaksin company, but it's been sold now.

They should be going after the people that changed the law illegally, rather than the some of the companies that benefitted. Maybe they can get some recompense from the companies, but it's not like they did anything illegal. They were just following the laws of the time.

Well this is the very dangerous part about this whole thing. Who knows if a law has been changed illegally? It was a law, so presumably as legal. Or is it the case that all laws are arbitrary in this case?

Now, this type of thing does happen from time to time in places like centres for business like Venezuela where Chavez wakes up one morning and decides that the country has been raped and nationalises the oil industry, or Zimbabwe increases the take from minerals to 95%, or even worse the whole country becomes nationalised over night.

I am not saying that this is the intention of this investigation, but chasing the companies for this is an extremely dangerous move. Why would you put your money into a venture when the goal posts can get moved like this retrospectively?

[anotherpeter]

Apparently, the law was changed illegally.

Only AIS (of the ones you mentioned) was a Thaksin company, but it's been sold now.

They should be going after the people that changed the law illegally, rather than the some of the companies that benefitted. Maybe they can get some recompense from the companies, but it's not like they did anything illegal. They were just following the laws of the time.

Well this is the very dangerous part about this whole thing. Who knows if a law has been changed illegally? It was a law, so presumably as legal. Or is it the case that all laws are arbitrary in this case?

Now, this type of thing does happen from time to time in places like centres for business like Venezuela where Chavez wakes up one morning and decides that the country has been raped and nationalises the oil industry, or Zimbabwe increases the take from minerals to 95%, or even worse the whole country becomes nationalised over night.

I am not saying that this is the intention of this investigation, but chasing the companies for this is an extremely dangerous move. Why would you put your money into a venture when the goal posts can get moved like this retrospectively?

Sorry, for quoting exact details.

From what I understand, in the asset seizure case the judges found that this particular law did not go through the proper process (not just a slight technicality either). This law change greatly benefitted Thaksin's (then) company, which is why Thaksin pushed the law through without going through the proper processes.

Agreed, chasing money from other affected companies after so long is a bad move.

[stgrhe]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

Keep the fact straight!

First of all the Thai army do not have any aircraft carries, it is the navy's. Secondly, the carrier, HTMS Chakri Naruebet, was ordered in the early 90's, i.e. long before Thaksin came to power and built by Bazan (now known as Navantia) in Spain and delivered to the navy 1997.

[Thai at Heart]

Sorry, for quoting exact details.

From what I understand, in the asset seizure case the judges found that this particular law did not go through the proper process (not just a slight technicality either). This law change greatly benefitted Thaksin's (then) company, which is why Thaksin pushed the law through without going through the proper processes.

Agreed, chasing money from other affected companies after so long is a bad move.

It seems that TOT changed the concessions. I know I should know more about this but the real technicalities of all the decisions are a long time ago.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showCon...90&id2=3776

He added that the TOT decision to allow Advanced Info Service Plc to pay a flat rate of 20 per cent of the concession fee on its prepaid phone service until the end of its concession period also favoured AIS at the expense of TOT. AIS, which is the cellular subsidiary of Shin, holds a TOT concession. The story began in 2000 when the second-largest cellular operator Total Access Communication, which holds CAT Telecom's cellular concession, asked TOT to change the access charge payment of its prepaid phone revenue to 18 per cent per month from Bt200 per user.

The access charge is the cost that all CAT's cellular concessionaires, including DTAC and True Move, have paid to TOT for access to different networks through TOT's facilities.

Shortly after that, AIS asked its concession owner TOT to change its share of prepaid phone revenue with TOT to a flat rate of 20 per cent per month throughout the remaining concession period. TOT granted a 25-year cellular concession to AIS in 1990.

Under the original concession, AIS had to share the prepaid revenue with TOT at incremental rates, starting at 20 per cent, then moving to 25 per cent and later 30 per cent. TOT decided to grant the requests of DTAC and AIS in April 2001.

So is the reality that DTAC started this by negotiating a better rate and thus forcing AIS to follow suit??????????

Between all the initials my eyes glaze over reading this kind of stuff.

[horndevil]

A lot of cash certainly,

and puts into perspective just how avaricious

and power hungry Thaksin was as a national leader.

Good get the cash back and help restore the economy

and jobs for the Thai People. Plus deals with the agricultural

sector vultures bleeding the average farmer dry.

This is now just getting Stupid... they already got Taksin for all the money he made during this priemership (which I feel is kinda fair - even though during that time ever single company stock more than doubled) but now to continue to go after everyone around him is not helping the situation any and is just making it worse. And just for the record, who here thinks that any of the money confiscated will come to the ppl??? Taksin or most other politician in Thailand and world over is init for them selves and those who believe otherwise are deluding them selves.

[Chang_paarp]

Apparently, the law was changed illegally.

Only AIS (of the ones you mentioned) was a Thaksin company, but it's been sold now.

They should be going after the people that changed the law illegally, rather than the some of the companies that benefitted. Maybe they can get some recompense from the companies, but it's not like they did anything illegal. They were just following the laws of the time.

Well this is the very dangerous part about this whole thing. Who knows if a law has been changed illegally? It was a law, so presumably as legal. Or is it the case that all laws are arbitrary in this case?

Now, this type of thing does happen from time to time in places like centres for business like Venezuela where Chavez wakes up one morning and decides that the country has been raped and nationalises the oil industry, or Zimbabwe increases the take from minerals to 95%, or even worse the whole country becomes nationalised over night.

I am not saying that this is the intention of this investigation, but chasing the companies for this is an extremely dangerous move. Why would you put your money into a venture when the goal posts can get moved like this retrospectively?

Sorry, for quoting exact details.

From what I understand, in the asset seizure case the judges found that this particular law did not go through the proper process (not just a slight technicality either). This law change greatly benefitted Thaksin's (then) company, which is why Thaksin pushed the law through without going through the proper processes.

Agreed, chasing money from other affected companies after so long is a bad move.

When you buy a company you take on all the assets and all the liabilities. In this case the liabilities appeared some time later. The new owners can then pursue the previous owners for falsely representing the value of the company by lack of disclosure. That is what would happen in a real world case, as we are talking about Thailand your mileage may vary.

[jayjayjayjay]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

Sad, but true.

Wasn't it 67 billion increase in budget 2007 over 2006. Kangaroo court continues. Witch hunt by another name. I wonder, since they don't have the ASC to freeze funds, who is going to issue the freeze this time over the remaining 30 billion that is supposed to be returned. Everyone seems to think the 46 b being seized was fair, including myself, but what we are not considering is that he is not likely to see the other 30 b due to ongoing stuff as per above. For this reason, you can see why the reds are so so upset and Mr T is frothing at the mouth.

[brd199]

In classic Shinawatra media-intimidation tradition, the other paper's business section relates that Shin Corp is considering whether to sue business analysts who are saying the company may be on the rocks due to the potential damage from these proceedings.

Edited March 11, 2010 by brd199

[connel707]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

Yes Briggsy, but they have to start somewhere....

[rainman]

A ministry source said the amount included 7.5percent interest per annum starting from the day the damage was committed until the end of this month.

How did they come up with 7.5% interest? You're lucky to find a bank that will give you 1% these days for the amount in question.

[rainman]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

And will the yellow shirts have to pay back the billions in damages they caused by seizing the international airport for over a week? What about the import/export companies that lost money? The employees that lost their jobs? Will the tourists get back the money they lost from the tickets they bought? The extra stays of hotel nights they had to pay? Or the jobs they lost at home because they weren't able to return home to work?

I don't think so either.

[easybullet3]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

Sad, but true.

agreed

[easybullet3]

Will the Army have to pay back the cost of its aircraft carrier, useless bomb detectors, all other graft-ridden purchases, and the officers held financially liable for the kickbacks they received? I think not.

Double standard? I think so.

They're all as dirty as each other.

Sad, but true.

agreed