Chalerm Links 'Money Trove' To Politicians With Homes In London: Suphoth Cash

[webfact]

Origin of Suphoth cash is job for NACC: police

THE NATION

Chalerm links 'money trove' to politicians with homes in London

The alleged ringleader of the much-discussed heist at the home of Transport permanent secretary Suphoth Sublom has around Bt500,000 with him while on the run in Laos, but many millions of baht taken in the robbery should still be in Thailand, Bangkok police chief Pol Lt General Winai Thongsong said yesterday.

Suphoth would meet with police soon, he said, to explain why 10 burglars had stolen Bt18 million from his home - yet he told police only Bt5 million was missing after the heist on the night of November 12.

"Weerasak Chuelee remains in hiding in Laos and has not died as rumoured, while two other suspects are on the run along the Thai-Burmese border. They are being hunted down but it will be not easy to catch them anytime soon," Winai said.

Police were not obliged to find the source of the cash kept at Suphoth's home as that was a task for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, he claimed.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, meanwhile, repeated his allegation that a large unknown amount of money kept at Suphoth's home was kickbacks from a contract to extend the Bangkok Metro (MRT) Green Line that he partly approved during the last government's term. Chalerm claimed the money was a leftover amount from a reduction in the asking price for a 'park-and-ride' area proposed by contractors.

He claimed that politicians who had bought homes in London's Kensington area with money that came via Suphoth were now all panicked, for fear of being exposed and caught.

Chalerm said he would soon conduct a hearing out of Parliament to make public more details about the alleged corruption behind Supoth's money "trove".

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said Chalerm could conduct a hearing away from Parliament as long as it was in line with the law.

Transport Minister Sukampol Suwannathat said he had set up a four-expert committee to look into Suphoth's alleged unusual wealth. |The panel would focus on seeking details about the source |of the money, on whether he |had acquired it legally, and whether having the money violated any bureaucratic regulations.

Responding to Chalerm's statement on whether to examine the approvals for all MRT routes, Sukampol said there was no need to examine all MRT projects. He would now be dogged by graft allegations surrounding future MRT routes and extensions but would go ahead with them.

Sukampol said he was confident there was no graft in dust-free road projects approved by the previous Democrat-led government, after summoning the heads of the Departments of Rural Roads and Highways and finding nothing wrong with them.

He said a recent investigation into the projects was ordered by Deputy Transport Minister Chatt Kuldiloke, who supervises both departments.

-- The Nation 2011-11-29

[Ricardo]

I can think of at least one Thai politician, who has a nice home in London, hope that Deputy-PM Chalerm isn't suggesting that he used "ill-gotten gains" to buy the home or his (for a short time) football-club ?

And wasn't it supposed to be more than 10 times the "stolen Bt 18 million", which the burglars had taken, 'shome mistake here' ?

[Pseudolus]

One of the nicest, clearest, succinct examples of a alleged pot calling the kettle black

[mca]

Transport Minister Sukampol Suwannathat said he had set up a four-expert committee to look into Suphoth's alleged unusual wealth.

Exclusive photo of the expert members of the committee.

Edited November 29, 2011 by mca

[jayboy]

I can think of at least one Thai politician, who has a nice home in London, hope that Deputy-PM Chalerm isn't suggesting that he used "ill-gotten gains" to buy the home or his (for a short time) football-club ?

And wasn't it supposed to be more than 10 times the "stolen Bt 18 million", which the burglars had taken, 'shome mistake here' ?

Do you still believe, as a guest at the notorious Suphoth family wedding,that this is all a fantasy dreamed up by political rivals.Do you propose to revise your incredible and frankly fatuous claims about the incident? Or do you propose to keep quiet and rely on lazy comments about Thaksin?

[EvilDrSomkid]

Sukampol said he was confident there was no graft in dust-free road projects approved by the previous Democrat-led government, after summoning the heads of the Departments of Rural Roads and Highways and finding nothing wrong with them.

:lol:

Really? ROFLMFAO.

[ThaiOats]

I can think of at least one Thai politician, who has a nice home in London, hope that Deputy-PM Chalerm isn't suggesting that he used "ill-gotten gains" to buy the home or his (for a short time) football-club ?

And wasn't it supposed to be more than 10 times the "stolen Bt 18 million", which the burglars had taken, 'shome mistake here' ?

Do you still believe, as a guest at the notorious Suphoth family wedding,that this is all a fantasy dreamed up by political rivals.Do you propose to revise your incredible and frankly fatuous claims about the incident? Or do you propose to keep quiet and rely on lazy comments about Thaksin?

So let's say he's guilty, would you accept the argument that it was politically motivated? Nah I didn't think so. Hold him accountable and anyone else for corruption, it's that simple. Except... ah nevermind..

[jayboy]

So let's say he's guilty, would you accept the argument that it was politically motivated? Nah I didn't think so. Hold him accountable and anyone else for corruption, it's that simple. Except... ah nevermind..

I would take the same line as Abhisit namely the matter should be investigated thoroughly so that all the facts come out.

If I had made stupid and unbelievable claims at the outset of this affair, I would now be keeping very quiet or ideally apologising to forum members for my misleading observations.I would not be trying to divert attention by lame and childish comments about Thaksin.

[Ricardo]

I can think of at least one Thai politician, who has a nice home in London, hope that Deputy-PM Chalerm isn't suggesting that he used "ill-gotten gains" to buy the home or his (for a short time) football-club ?

And wasn't it supposed to be more than 10 times the "stolen Bt 18 million", which the burglars had taken, 'shome mistake here' ?

Do you still believe, as a guest at the notorious Suphoth family wedding,that this is all a fantasy dreamed up by political rivals.Do you propose to revise your incredible and frankly fatuous claims about the incident? Or do you propose to keep quiet and rely on lazy comments about Thaksin?

Sorry for any delay in responding to your post, I have you on 'Ignore', so didn't see it immediately.

You are mistaken, I was not at the wedding myself, and have never claimed to have been. My wife & son were there. When early-posters suggested that there might not even have been such a wedding, I was able to confirm that it was real, that's probably what you are remembering ?

Q. Why do you claim the wedding was "notorious" ?

"incredible and frankly fatuous claims"

I was one of the first to suggest, shortly after news of the robbery emerged, that there might be a political motive to the allegations of 200 million Baht having been stolen, or even a Billion Baht (familiar figure ?) been involved, and have yet to see anything-like that much recovered. Other posters also now feel that there may have been political motives behind the robbery & subsequent allegations of corruption, which do appear to serve PTP's political-agenda.

I have never described the robbery as "all a fantasy".

But at the risk of repeating myself, I choose to make/made no comment as yet, about the corruption or otherwise, of the Secretary. You may wish to twist this into 'keeping quiet', up-to-you.

Perhaps you will reconsider your (IMO) intemperate remarks, and untrue-allegation above, and withdraw them ?

Lastly you accuse me of making "lazy comments about Thaksin", when I point out that Chalerm's claims of dodgy Thai politicians buying homes in London with ill-gotten gains, might apply slightly-more-widely than he perhaps intended. I feel that poking-fun at politicians is generally healthy, especially when I think they're being hypocritical, Lazy Old Me !

Edited November 29, 2011 by Ricardo

[whybother]

The other paper says that the current transport minister has checked the accounts of the mentioned train line projects and has said that there is nothing untoward.

Will Chalerm be withdrawing his comments or will he be sacking the transport minister?

[jayboy]

I can think of at least one Thai politician, who has a nice home in London, hope that Deputy-PM Chalerm isn't suggesting that he used "ill-gotten gains" to buy the home or his (for a short time) football-club ?

And wasn't it supposed to be more than 10 times the "stolen Bt 18 million", which the burglars had taken, 'shome mistake here' ?

Do you still believe, as a guest at the notorious Suphoth family wedding,that this is all a fantasy dreamed up by political rivals.Do you propose to revise your incredible and frankly fatuous claims about the incident? Or do you propose to keep quiet and rely on lazy comments about Thaksin?

Sorry for any delay in responding to your post, I have you on 'Ignore', so didn't see it immediately.

You are mistaken, I was not at the wedding myself, and have never claimed to have been. My wife & son were there. When early-posters suggested that there might not even have been such a wedding, I was able to confirm that it was real, that's probably what you are remembering ?

Q. Why do you claim the wedding was "notorious" ?

"incredible and frankly fatuous claims"

I was one of the first to suggest, shortly after news of the robbery emerged, that there might be a political motive to the allegations of 200 million Baht having been stolen, or even a Billion Baht (familiar figure ?) been involved, and have yet to see anything-like that much recovered. Other posters also now feel that there may have been political motives behind the robbery & subsequent allegations of corruption, which do appear to serve PTP's political-agenda.

I have never described the robbery as "all a fantasy".

But at the risk of repeating myself, I choose to make/made no comment as yet, about the corruption or otherwise, of the Secretary. You may wish to twist this into 'keeping quiet', up-to-you.

Perhaps you will reconsider your (IMO) intemperate remarks, and untrue-allegation above, and withdraw them ?

Lastly you accuse me of making "lazy comments about Thaksin", when I point out that Chalerm's claims of dodgy Thai politicians buying homes in London with ill-gotten gains, might apply slightly-more-widely than he perhaps intended. I feel that poking-fun at politicians is generally healthy, especially when I think they're being hypocritical, Lazy Old Me !

Your post really says it all.

If you don't understand why "notorious" might be an appropriate word to describe how how an official with a modest monthly salary can afford a spectacularly lavish wedding, I can't help you.

Almost every post you have made on this matter including the last one has been to divert attention from the central fact, namely the possible criminality of your friend (oh sorry, your wife and son's friend).I have little doubt there were political considerations involved but "taking advantage" is not a crime.Corruption on major contracts is.Geddit now?

Yes your comments on Thaksin were lame and irrelevant.Cannot a tiny part of you understand that whether the PTP gains political advantage in this affair or not, that's not actually the key issue.The key issue is criminality of officials in negotiating government contracts.

If I was you I would be keeping very quiet on this matter.

Edited November 29, 2011 by jayboy

[timekeeper]

Transport Minister Sukampol Suwannathat said he had set up a four-expert committee to look into Suphoth's alleged unusual wealth.

Exclusive photo of the expert members of the committee.

dam_n i miss them

whatever happened to Bingo, Fleegle, Drooper and Snorky.?

aside from working for the Thai government..........

[whybother]

Your post really says it all.

If you don't understand why "notorious" might be an appropriate word to describe how how an official with a modest monthly salary can afford a spectacularly lavish wedding, I can't help you.

Almost every post you have made on this matter including the last one has been to divert attention from the central fact, namely the possible criminality of your friend (oh sorry, your wife and son's friend).I have little doubt there were political considerations involved but "taking advantage" is not a crime.Corruption on major contracts is.Geddit now?

If I was you I would be keeping very quiet on this matter>

Yes your comments about Thaksin were lame and irrelevant.F

I missed the report on the spectacularly, lavish wedding ... or any report about the wedding except for the fact that there was one. Can you point it out?

[ETatBKK]

if this goes on ( perhaps for the political moviated, not for the reason of anti-corruption ), if it happens that he is guilty . . . may be very sorry that will be 'him' alone, not a list of gang :-)

oh . . . for being an only victim, he may get extra hundreds or even thousands of millions from the list behind. would this sound a poltical fiction after all ?

[jayboy]

I missed the report on the spectacularly, lavish wedding ... or any report about the wedding except for the fact that there was one. Can you point it out?

You're right.It was a simple ceremony at the amphur office and the guests repaired afterwards to the noodle store.After all a lowly paid official must cut his cloth...

[whybother]

I missed the report on the spectacularly, lavish wedding ... or any report about the wedding except for the fact that there was one. Can you point it out?

You're right.It was a simple ceremony at the amphur office and the guests repaired afterwards to the noodle store.After all a lowly paid official must cut his cloth...

So there is nothing to back up your statement of a "spectacularly, lavish wedding"?

[Ricardo]

Your post really says it all.

If you don't understand why "notorious" might be an appropriate word to describe how how an official with a modest monthly salary can afford a spectacularly lavish wedding, I can't help you.

Almost every post you have made on this matter including the last one has been to divert attention from the central fact, namely the possible criminality of your friend (oh sorry, your wife and son's friend).I have little doubt there were political considerations involved but "taking advantage" is not a crime.Corruption on major contracts is.Geddit now?

Yes your comments on Thaksin were lame and irrelevant.Cannot a tiny part of you understand that whether the PTP gains political advantage in this affair or not, that's not actually the key issue.The key issue is criminality of officials in negotiating government contracts.

If I was you I would be keeping very quiet on this matter.

"the possible criminality of your friend (oh sorry your wife and son's friend)"

I've met him exactly once, for an afternoon some ten-or-so years ago, and so would never claim him as my friend, as you seem to believe ? We know the daughter, who got married, that's all. At least you don't maintain your (mistaken) claim that I was at the wedding, sigh.

"I have little doubt there were political considerations involved", well we seem to agree on that bit, at least.

"Yes your comments on Thaksin were lame and irrelevant"

The thread is about Chalerm saying Thai politicians may use ill-gotten gains, to purchase homes in London, so hardly irrelevant or off-topic ?

[apalink_thailand]

I can think of at least one Thai politician, who has a nice home in London, hope that Deputy-PM Chalerm isn't suggesting that he used "ill-gotten gains" to buy the home or his (for a short time) football-club ?

And wasn't it supposed to be more than 10 times the "stolen Bt 18 million", which the burglars had taken, 'shome mistake here' ?

Ricardo, Thaksin was a billionaire BEFORE he got into politics. I am sure he could afford more than a few homes wherever he wanted.

[whybother]

I can think of at least one Thai politician, who has a nice home in London, hope that Deputy-PM Chalerm isn't suggesting that he used "ill-gotten gains" to buy the home or his (for a short time) football-club ?

And wasn't it supposed to be more than 10 times the "stolen Bt 18 million", which the burglars had taken, 'shome mistake here' ?

Ricardo, Thaksin was a billionaire BEFORE he got into politics. I am sure he could afford more than a few homes wherever he wanted.

Thaksin got into politics in 1994. Was he a billionaire by then?

[jayboy]

Thaksin got into politics in 1994. Was he a billionaire by then?

No idea but he was certainly a multi millionaire, earned legally unlike most Thai politicians.

As to the lavishness of the wedding party of a poorly paid civil servant (yawn) is the pope a Catholic? Do bears shit in the woods?

[whybother]

Thaksin got into politics in 1994. Was he a billionaire by then?

No idea but he was certainly a multi millionaire, earned legally unlike most Thai politicians.

Edited November 29, 2011 by whybother

[lannarebirth]

Thaksin got into politics in 1994. Was he a billionaire by then?

No idea but he was certainly a multi millionaire, earned legally unlike most Thai politicians.

As to the lavishness of the wedding party of a poorly paid civil servant (yawn) is the pope a Catholic? Do bears shit in the woods?

If only your Cambridge Deans could see you now. They'd be so proud of the way they'd taught you how to defend an argument. A strawman argument at that. Bravo!

Hinc lucem et pocula sacra

[hellodolly]

One of the nicest, clearest, succinct examples of a alleged pot calling the kettle black

Yes and when his investigation is done surprise surprise it will be a list of Democrats not one single PT.

Reminds me of some advice I was given years ago some people will say any thing to keep people from looking at them.:jap:

[hellodolly]

So let's say he's guilty, would you accept the argument that it was politically motivated? Nah I didn't think so. Hold him accountable and anyone else for corruption, it's that simple. Except... ah nevermind..

I would take the same line as Abhisit namely the matter should be investigated thoroughly so that all the facts come out.

If I had made stupid and unbelievable claims at the outset of this affair, I would now be keeping very quiet or ideally apologising to forum members for my misleading observations.I would not be trying to divert attention by lame and childish comments about Thaksin.

Especially if they were true.

[jayboy]

If only your Cambridge Deans could see you now. They'd be so proud of the way they'd taught you how to defend an argument. A strawman argument at that. Bravo!

Hinc lucem et pocula sacra

Dons not deans.Deans, for those who have no experience of elite universities, have responsibility for administration and are often clergymen.Dons are the academics.

If you have the slightest bit of evidence that Supoth lived within his salary, let's hear it.The onus of proof, given the prevalence of corruption in the Thai upper bureaucracy, is actually on the deniers such as yourself.

Or you can continue with personal invective and avoid the issue.

[hellodolly]

I missed the report on the spectacularly, lavish wedding ... or any report about the wedding except for the fact that there was one. Can you point it out?

You're right.It was a simple ceremony at the amphur office and the guests repaired afterwards to the noodle store.After all a lowly paid official must cut his cloth...

So there is nothing to back up your statement of a "spectacularly, lavish wedding"?

whybother

What the heck is he talking about.

A wedding I never heard about and then he goes on to say that referring to a Thai politician buying a home in London is irrelevant. Is he saying that one should only look at every one who is not PT?

Very confusing man

[lannarebirth]

If only your Cambridge Deans could see you now. They'd be so proud of the way they'd taught you how to defend an argument. A strawman argument at that. Bravo!

Hinc lucem et pocula sacra

Dons not deans.Deans, for those who have no experience of elite universities, have responsibility for administration and are often clergymen.Dons are the academics.

If you have the slightest bit of evidence that Supoth lived within his salary, let's hear it.The onus of proof, given the prevalence of corruption in the Thai upper bureaucracy, is actually on the deniers such as yourself.

Or you can continue with personal invective and avoid the issue.

Dons makes more sense. In America that is what mob bosses are called. I imagine they'd use similar language to you in defense of an argument. Then they'd pull out a gun.

Anyhow, I'm not demying this guy is dirty. The only comments I've made say, that if what is published in the press is all they've got on this guy, it would be extremely hard to convict him of anything. If he's corrupt I'd very much like to see him convicted and what's more I'd love to see him take a lot of other dirty folks down with him from whichever party. I very much doubt things will get that far in this case as the "Dons" of these political parties I imagine will hold a meeting at some point to ensure all their interests remain protected.

As you say, if formal charges are brought, the onus of proof will be on the accused. Right now this case is merely being tried in the court of public opinion where he has no obligation to say anything and if I were his attorney that's what I'd be telling him.

Edited November 29, 2011 by lannarebirth

[jayboy]

If only your Cambridge Deans could see you now. They'd be so proud of the way they'd taught you how to defend an argument. A strawman argument at that. Bravo!

Hinc lucem et pocula sacra

Dons not deans.Deans, for those who have no experience of elite universities, have responsibility for administration and are often clergymen.Dons are the academics.

If you have the slightest bit of evidence that Supoth lived within his salary, let's hear it.The onus of proof, given the prevalence of corruption in the Thai upper bureaucracy, is actually on the deniers such as yourself.

Or you can continue with personal invective and avoid the issue.

Dons makes more sense. In America that is what mob bosses are called. I imagine they'd use similar language to you in defense of an argument. Then they'd pull out a gun.

Anyhow, I'm not demying this guy is dirty. The only comments I've made say, that if what is published in the press is all they've got on this guy, it would be extremely hard to convict him of anything. If he's corrupt I'd very much like to see him convicted and what's more I'd love to see him take a lot of other dirty folks down with him from whichever party. I very much doubt things will get that far in this case as the "Dons" of these political parties I imagine will hold a meeting at some point to ensure all their interests remain protected.

As you say, if formal charges are brought, the onus of proof will be on the accused. Right now this case is merely being tried in the court of public opinion where he has no obligation to say anything and if I were his attorney that's what I'd be telling him.

Nothing here with which I disagree.

[gemini81]

All of the accused should check into Chalerm. See if he has assets from corruption abroard, like Denmark and Sweden, when he fled due to being unusually rich thanks to corruption. He has a massive estate himself, and certainly not amassed from smart nor honest business. What a hypocrite.

[gemini81]

I missed the report on the spectacularly, lavish wedding ... or any report about the wedding except for the fact that there was one. Can you point it out?

You're right.It was a simple ceremony at the amphur office and the guests repaired afterwards to the noodle store.After all a lowly paid official must cut his cloth...

So there is nothing to back up your statement of a "spectacularly, lavish wedding"?

whybother

What the heck is he talking about.

A wedding I never heard about and then he goes on to say that referring to a Thai politician buying a home in London is irrelevant. Is he saying that one should only look at every one who is not PT?

Very confusing man

didn't his daughter marry a man of foreign nationality? Anyone read or see this on the news?