Bt823 Million Returned To Thaksin'S Ex-Wife Pojaman

[SkyHigh]

As the land was subject to a fraudulent act is she claiming denial of any knowledge? Ignorance of law is no defence for fraud. So if they feel compelled to return the funds why pay any interest at all?

Never can understand this country.

FIDF sent letter & asked her to join auction.

Court ruled to cancell transaction, after it has been frozen for years.

To avoid getting sued by her, it's wise to send her back $$ plus reasonable interest.

[random]

Nice business if you can get it.

7.5% over the last few years. This woman should right a book about how to gain steady returns on her investments. Buy something you are not allowed to do so, and the government provides interest on the money when returned. And who cooked up 7.5%? Is this based on the banks rate for lending on mortgages or something?

Anywhere else in the world you get to charge interest on an illegal transaction?

it is not unusual for courts to allow for interest in certain matters, also in other countries, admittedly mostly for damages but nevertheless it is usual for interest to be paid.

Also this money would have been placed where it can earn interest, maybe the bank where it was held has been lending this money and has accrued interest, or maybe they never and just calculated what she has lost by not being allowed to invest this money herself. But if it was in a interest account then it's only right that is should be returned to her.

people cant complain about the law not being followed and then complain when it is followed just because it concerns a person they have a dislike for.

Edited October 8, 2010 by random

[Thai at Heart]

Nice business if you can get it.

7.5% over the last few years. This woman should right a book about how to gain steady returns on her investments. Buy something you are not allowed to do so, and the government provides interest on the money when returned. And who cooked up 7.5%? Is this based on the banks rate for lending on mortgages or something?

Anywhere else in the world you get to charge interest on an illegal transaction?

it is not unusual for courts to allow for interest in certain matters, also in other countries, admittedly mostly for damages but nevertheless it is usual for interest to be paid.

Also this money would have been placed where it can earn interest, maybe the bank where it was held has been lending this money and has accrued interest, or maybe they never and just calculated what she has lost by not being allowed to invest this money herself. But if it was in a interest account then it's only right that is should be returned to her.

people cant complain about the law not being followed and then complain when it is followed just because it concerns a person they have a dislike for.

Indeed, sometimes, interest is accrued when estimating damages. As for the 7.5% as a figure, as I said, nice business if you can get it. I wonder which high street bank she uses?

[hanuman1]

people cant complain about the law not being followed and then complain when it is followed just because it concerns a person they have a dislike for.

Are you kidding? That's the basis for most of the posts in the News forum.

[SergeiY]

Nice business if you can get it.

7.5% over the last few years. This woman should right a book about how to gain steady returns on her investments. Buy something you are not allowed to do so, and the government provides interest on the money when returned. And who cooked up 7.5%? Is this based on the banks rate for lending on mortgages or something?

Anywhere else in the world you get to charge interest on an illegal transaction?

If it was illegal who should keep/get the interests? The buyer or the seller?

Sell something you are not allowed to do so and keep the goods and the money?

There shouldn't be any interest charged, nor paid. She incurs the cost of lost bank interest accrued by entering into an illegal contract.

She is essentially being compensated for entering into an illegal contract.

Oh the wonders of Thai law.

There are two sides involved, the seller and the buyer and a huge chunk of money involved that was accepted and kept by the seller even if the sale was 'illegal'. As long the seller didn't keep it in cash under his pillow but put in a bank account it will generated some kind of interests and "magical" become more money.

The problem is that the seller shouldn't have accepted the money in the first place, nor is there any court ruling that declared the buyer for guilty. The civil court invalidated the purchase agreement, hence the money must be given back by the seller plus interests. The seller see no problem with that and accepted the ruling.

So who should get that interest that the money generated over the time if not the owner of that money? Should the seller get it, as 'reward' for 'illegal' accepting the money?

I see here no problem and no wonders of the Thai law. Just a normal civil law case.

[way2muchcoffee]

Savings accounts for this period were earning about 0.75 percent. 7.5% seems extremely high.

[Tigs]

Savings accounts for this period were earning about 0.75 percent. 7.5% seems extremely high.

True, but you don't keep 850 Mill in a savings account really! People with that much money would argue it would be invested in high yielding stocks, futures, commodities etc etc. Money of that volume should be growing at least 10% per year. I still don't think she should have got paid the interest though.

[brahmburgers]

People with that much money would argue it would be invested in high yielding stocks, futures, commodities etc etc. Money of that volume should be growing at least 10% per year. I still don't think she should have got paid the interest though.

A lot of v. rich people lost a lot of money when Wall Street (and world exchanges) tanked in Sept 2008. Those v. rich people are assumed to be smart also. They weren't. Luckily for them, most could afford to lose so much. So even if they lost 70% of their worth in ten days (investing in Lehman Bros, etc), if they started out at a billion, they're still worth 300 million when the smoke clears.

Their friends in high places (US Congress) hate to see their buddies left with just 300 million (average) apiece, so they got the US taxpayers to shovel tens of billions of dollars to shore up their failing businesses. So it goes, ....the rich get richer, and never have a hard place to fall, because governments are always there to pump money back in their pockets.

Edited October 9, 2010 by brahmburgers

[animatic]

They should put the money in a prison cell for her to go and collect it.

Soft brained answer.

huh? Soft brained reply.

Not at all, it was rather ironic.

[animatic]

As the land was subject to a fraudulent act is she claiming denial of any knowledge? Ignorance of law is no defence for fraud. So if they feel compelled to return the funds why pay any interest at all?

Never can understand this country.

FIDF sent letter & asked her to join auction.

Court ruled to cancell transaction, after it has been frozen for years.

To avoid getting sued by her, it's wise to send her back $ plus reasonable interest.

They clearly didn't want to pay her what she doesn't deserve, but FIDF decided

they could lose more by dragging it out, and they will profit well on the sale at it's true value, even with her interest, so she won a 'Nuisance Fee' to make her go away faster.

It of course is not fair, but.

The FDIF letter has nothing to do with her actually signing documents with Thaksin

that were illegal for him to sign and thus for her to use. Invited to bid or not,

it doesn't erase P n T's fraud.

This is simply the FIDF getting the Potty's lawyers off their back MUCH sooner.

Edited October 9, 2010 by animatic

[SergeiY]

People with that much money would argue it would be invested in high yielding stocks, futures, commodities etc etc. Money of that volume should be growing at least 10% per year. I still don't think she should have got paid the interest though.

A lot of v. rich people lost a lot of money when Wall Street (and world exchanges) tanked in Sept 2008. Those v. rich people are assumed to be smart also. They weren't. Luckily for them, most could afford to lose so much. So even if they lost 70% of their worth in ten days (investing in Lehman Bros, etc), if they started out at a billion, they're still worth 300 million when the smoke clears.

Their friends in high places (US Congress) hate to see their buddies left with just 300 million (average) apiece, so they got the US taxpayers to shovel tens of billions of dollars to shore up their failing businesses. So it goes, ....the rich get richer, and never have a hard place to fall, because governments are always there to pump money back in their pockets.

FYI: This isn't the USA.

[SergeiY]

As the land was subject to a fraudulent act is she claiming denial of any knowledge? Ignorance of law is no defence for fraud. So if they feel compelled to return the funds why pay any interest at all?

Never can understand this country.

FIDF sent letter & asked her to join auction.

Court ruled to cancell transaction, after it has been frozen for years.

To avoid getting sued by her, it's wise to send her back $ plus reasonable interest.

They clearly didn't want to pay her what she doesn't deserve, but FIDF decided

they could lose more by dragging it out, and they will profit well on the sale at it's true value, even with her interest, so she won a 'Nuisance Fee' to make her go away faster.

It of course is not fair, but.

The FDIF letter has nothing to do with her actually signing documents with Thaksin

that were illegal for him to sign and thus for her to use. Invited to bid or not,

it doesn't erase P n T's fraud.

This is simply the FIDF getting the Potty's lawyers off their back MUCH sooner.

They will need a new buyer who pays for the 'true value'. last time it was the ex-wife who bid the most in an auction.

If its not fair that she got her money back plus interests than who in your opinion should get that money instead for a fair solution?