Honestly, I have never understood the reasoning for that decision. The Shinawatra children were legally not the owners of those massive shares, but were able to sell them for a hefty profit? Who pocketed that money? Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I sell something that isn't really mine, then I must be held responsible in some way. Or not? And wouldn't the 'real' owner of those shares still be liable to paying tax anyway? Or at least should be held accountable for tax evasion for cunningly nominating other people for holding shares on his/her behalf and then using them to sell them at a grossly inflated price while pocketing all the profit?

The court ruled that Thaksin was the real owner of the shares, and his kids were therefore not liable to pay the tax.

However as the kids said on oath that they were the lawful owners, if in fact they weren't, there is certainly A case of some kind to answer here.

The clone Prime Minister also said, under oath like her niece and nephew, that she, too, was the owner of her shares in the family pie, which was false.

.

My question would be, did Thaksin put the shares on the stockmarket and did the kids/adults and family members purchase them off the stockmarket.

Has anyone worked out yet that the director general wasnt appointed by this government but by the previous one

Yep.

Bribes or threats work whoever appoint you.

You are making an allegation that the gentleman was either threatened or bribed. Please substantiate your claim.

Are you also suggesting that the former Abhisit government bribed and threatened these officials to bring the charges which were not proven in court?

I wasn't making any allegations, therefore no substantiated evidence will be forthcoming from me.... it was just an option or two that may or may not have happened, time will tell or maybe not, can you come up with any other reason how this situation occurred, no matter how speculative.

And tell me what does SOP stand for.

And tell me what does SOP stand for.

Standard Operating Procedure ?

sorry - mispost !

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by Ricardo

All this happened during the Democrats in power,isn't it?

Why this same guy is still in charge under another government?

I would assume that knowledge and experience related posts would not be changed too frequently. Posts which have more clear aspects of defining policies, maybe. One of the reasons Belgium didn't fall apart (yet) after more than a year of a caretaker government is because the government bureaucracy will continue policies set. A new government may change / adjust policies in which case the bureaucracy will try to find ways to implement, or write reports why it can't be done.

Even a change from a left to a right leaning government (v. v.) shouldn't lead to real, drastic and sudden changes. Unwise economically, socially, politically.

IMHO

The court ruled that Thaksin was the real owner of the shares, and his kids were therefore not liable to pay the tax.

However as the kids said on oath that they were the lawful owners, if in fact they weren't, there is certainly A case of some kind to answer here.

The clone Prime Minister also said, under oath like her niece and nephew, that she, too, was the owner of her shares in the family pie, which was false.

.

My question would be, did Thaksin put the shares on the stockmarket and did the kids/adults and family members purchase them off the stockmarket.

Hope this helps:

http://www.nationmul...on_30031053.php