DSI Closes Case Against PM Yingluck On Alleged Concealment Of Shin Corp Shareholding

[webfact]

DSI probe on Yingluck dropped

The Nation

The Department of Special Investigation has dropped its investigation against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, charged for helping her brother Thaksin to conceal his true wealth, on the grounds for lack of cause to suspect a criminal offence.

The decision was final and came just days before the case's March 31 statutory limitations, DSI director general Tarit Pengdith said on Thursday.

Two Democrats, Korn Chatikavanij and Wiratana Kalayasiri, filed a complaint naming Yingluck, Thaksin's two children, Panthongtae and Pinthongta, and his brother-in-law Bannapot Damapong, as suspects for in a scam to cover up Thaksin's equity stakes in Shin Corp.

The complaint cited violations of the stock market law as well as Article 267 of the Criminal Code as the basis for the DSI investigation.

The DSI subsequently assigned its banking and financial investigators to look into the complaint as well as check for legal consequences of the Supreme Court verdict on the Thaksin asset seizure case which outlined how Thaksin concealed his wealth.

Tarit said the investigation found the case without merit to prosecute Yingluck and accomplices.

The alleged stakes cover-up happened from 2002 to 2004, he said, pointing out that at the time, the officers of the stock market and securities exchange were not named enforcers of the Criminal Code, hence under the Criminal Code, Yingluck was not obliged to report equity stakes to them.

The relevant provisions were amended in 2008 to close this loophole but could not be enforced retroactively against Yingluck, he said.

In regard to Yingluck's statement given at the Supreme Court during the Thaksin asset seizure inquiry, he said the remarks could not be construed as perjury. To explain this, he drew on an analogy that if a court found a defendant guilty, there was no justification to prosecute all defence withnesses.

He said although the high court's verdict specifically mentioned that Yingluck held shares as a Thaksin's nominee, this fact was pertinent to the Thaksin case only and not a crime to be tried as a separate case.

-- The Nation 2012-03-29

[animatic]

Well we know the new proprietor of the DSI.

[lannarebirth]

_{Even "my dog ate the charges against PM Yingluck and so we had to drop the case" would have sounded more credible. Ask any sixth grader.}

[Skywalker69]

Why am I not surprised.

[whybother]

In regard to Yingluck's statement given at the Supreme Court during the Thaksin asset seizure inquiry, he said the remarks could not be construed as perjury. To explain this, he drew on an analogy that if a court found a defendant guilty, there was no justification to prosecute all defence withnesses.

Finding a defendant guilty doesn't always mean that the defence witnesses lied.

But if they DID lie, there should be justification for prosecution.

Edited March 29, 2012 by whybother

[bigbamboo]

All seems fair enough. This was just a scam and they aren't usually punishable offences in Thailand.

[OZEMADE]

In other words, NO CASE TO ANSWER.

[Pib]

It's all a game....the opposition party files a complaint against someone in the party currently in power...gets some press time...complaint is eventually closed without merit...opposition party files new complaint against some one else in the ruling party...the cycle continues regardless of who is the opposition and ruling parties of the year.

[MEL1]

The Department of Special Investigation has dropped its investigation against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, charged for helping her brother Thaksin to conceal his true wealth, on the grounds for lack of cause to suspect a family member.

.

I'm going for a hair-cut. They might not recognise me...

-mel.

[GentlemanJim]

All of this keeps an entire army of lawyers employed and jolly well paid.

[moe666]

What did you expect. We have a convicted felon banned from Thai politics running the country from Dubai and else where and you think they will find his proxy guilty.

[MEL1]

"Two Democrats, Korn Chatikavanij and Wiratana Kalayasiri, filed a complaint naming Yingluck, Thaksin's two children, Panthongtae and Pinthongta, and his brother-in-law Bannapot Damapong, as suspects for in a scam to cover up Thaksin's equity stakes in Shin Corp.

The complaint cited violations of the stock market law as well as Article 267 of the Criminal Code as the basis for the DSI investigation."

I wonder how much it costs to shut up the DSI investigators, who are now in control of drug and hospital admin abnormalities, police corruption, building and contract land investigation, and general Thai safety investigations in hotels and so forth?

Does anybody know the list of names that comprises this DSI team?

-mel.

[Thai at Heart]

on the grounds for lack of cause to suspect a criminal offence.

I love how after translation, the legalese stretches itself to the limits of meaning. i.e. there was no reason to suspect that anyone ever thought that anyone ever believed they were doing anything illegal? i.e. ignorance is a defence on the part of the investigating party?????

[webfact]

DSI drops probe against Yingluck

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Department of Special Investigation has dropped its investigations against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who was accused of helping her brother Thaksin conceal his true wealth, citing lack of cause to suspect a criminal offence.

The decision was final and came just days before the case's March 31 statutory limitation, DSI director-general Tarit Pengdith said yesterday.

Two Democrats, Korn Chatikavanij and Wiratana Kalayasiri, filed a complaint naming Yingluck, Thaksin's two children - Panthongtae and Pinthongta - and his brother-in-law Bhanapot Damapong as suspects in an alleged scam to cover up Thaksin's equity stakes in Shin Corp.

The complaint cited violations of the stock market law as well as Article 267 of the Criminal Code as the basis for the DSI investigation.

The DSI subsequently assigned its banking and financial investigators to look into the complaint as well as check for legal consequences of the Supreme Court verdict on the Thaksin asset-seizure case, which outlined how Thaksin had concealed his wealth.

Tarit said the investigation found the case to be without merit to prosecute Yingluck and accomplices.

The alleged stakes cover-up happened from 2002 to 2004, he said, pointing out that at the time, the officers of the stock market and securities exchange were not named enforcers of the Criminal Code, hence under the Criminal Code, Yingluck was not obliged to report equity stakes to them.

The relevant provisions were amended in 2008 to close this loophole but could not be enforced retroactively against Yingluck, he said.

Regarding Yingluck's statement to the Supreme Court during the Thaksin asset seizure inquiry, he said the remarks could not be construed as perjury. To explain this, he drew on an analogy that if a court found a defendant guilty, there was no justification to prosecute all defence witnesses.

He said although the high court's verdict specifically mentioned that Yingluck held shares as Thaksin's nominee, this fact was pertinent to the Thaksin case only and not a crime to be tried as a separate case.

-- The Nation 2012-03-30

[Buchholz]

In other words, NO CASE TO ANSWER.

We'll never have an answer as to how this is possible

Yingluck testified to the SEC that the 20 million shares of Shin Corp stock were hers.

The Supreme Court ruled that Thaksin was the controller of the stock for Yingluck and about a dozen other Shinawatra/Damapong clan members.

If the court determined that it was Thaksin's stock and not hers, she lied to the SEC about it being hers.

When the Shin sale first went through, Yingluck pocketed nearly a Billion baht for her portion.

.

[sparebox2]

Well we know the new proprietor of the DSI.

As you saying that DSI take money from Thaksin?

[Mitker]

All of this keeps an entire army of lawyers employed and jolly well paid.

or just a phone call.

[khaowong1]

In other words, NO CASE TO ANSWER.

We'll never have an answer as to how this is possible

Yingluck testified to the SEC that the 20 million shares of Shin Corp stock were hers.

The Supreme Court ruled that Thaksin was the controller of the stock for Yingluck and about a dozen other Shinawatra/Damapong clan members.

If the court determined that it was Thaksin's stock and not hers, she lied to the SEC about it being hers.

When the Shin sale first went through, Yingluck pocketed nearly a Billion baht for her portion.

.

Nice payday, it pays to have a brother who is terribly sweet to his sister.

[geriatrickid]

Well we know the new proprietor of the DSI.

Whenever the haters get a ruling they don't agree with they come up with a conspiracy excuse.

Why can't you accept the fact that the allegation was unfounded and without evidence to support a cheap attempt to attack the PM? The charges were petty and the refusal to accept that they were groundless speaks volumes.

[geriatrickid]

Nice payday, it pays to have a brother who is terribly sweet to his sister.

It must come as a shock to foreigners when they discover that Thais are generous with family members. Some people are not selfish and share their wealth with loved ones.

Are you envious or something?

Edited March 31, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

In other words, NO CASE TO ANSWER.

We'll never have an answer as to how this is possible

Yingluck testified to the SEC that the 20 million shares of Shin Corp stock were hers.

The Supreme Court ruled that Thaksin was the controller of the stock for Yingluck and about a dozen other Shinawatra/Damapong clan members.

If the court determined that it was Thaksin's stock and not hers, she lied to the SEC about it being hers.

When the Shin sale first went through, Yingluck pocketed nearly a Billion baht for her portion.

Bitter that there was no evidence to support the allegations are you?

[OzMick]

"Tarit said the investigation found the case without merit to prosecute Yingluck and accomplices."

A Freudian slip perhaps. At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.

Lying under oath is not an offense. Next time a friend is accused, justly or not, I will testify he was at a party in his honour with 300 guests including the PM and all government ministers, the chief of Police, and 7 minor members of the royal family. A slight exaggeration shouldn't cause any repercussions.

[OzMick]

In other words, NO CASE TO ANSWER.

We'll never have an answer as to how this is possible

Yingluck testified to the SEC that the 20 million shares of Shin Corp stock were hers.

The Supreme Court ruled that Thaksin was the controller of the stock for Yingluck and about a dozen other Shinawatra/Damapong clan members.

If the court determined that it was Thaksin's stock and not hers, she lied to the SEC about it being hers.

When the Shin sale first went through, Yingluck pocketed nearly a Billion baht for her portion.

Bitter that there was no evidence to support the allegations are you?

Well you wouldn't want to to before a judge to decide would you. I'd prefer the judge who said her testimony was a crock.

[OzMick]

Nice payday, it pays to have a brother who is terribly sweet to his sister.

It must come as a shock to foreigners when they discover that Thais are generous with family members. Some people are not selfish and share their wealth with loved ones.

Are you envious or something?

Some will even stand up in court and lie their heads off to help family conspire to defraud the country of billions of baht, knowing that position in "society" will save their sorry butts. I am not envious.

Now that the criminal charges have been dropped, can we expect an apology?

I await the day k. Tarit gets to explain his position to a judge. Same one as last post would do fine.

[Buchholz]

In other words, NO CASE TO ANSWER.

We'll never have an answer as to how this is possible

Yingluck testified to the SEC that the 20 million shares of Shin Corp stock were hers.

The Supreme Court ruled that Thaksin was the controller of the stock for Yingluck and about a dozen other Shinawatra/Damapong clan members.

If the court determined that it was Thaksin's stock and not hers, she lied to the SEC about it being hers.

When the Shin sale first went through, Yingluck pocketed nearly a Billion baht for her portion.

Bitter that there was no evidence to support the allegations are you?

Just disappointed that the truth is not satisfactorily explained as to just how the above can transpire.

What is the evidence? Her testimony.

It's all that is necessary.

She said the stock was hers and the Supreme Court said it wasn't.

.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

Well we know the new proprietor of the DSI.

As you saying that DSI take money from Thaksin?

i'm think he's saying that the dsi is crooked and biased and i'm sure he'd say the exact same thing when talking about their take on the events of 2010... mmm.

it's great to criticize an agency only when it suits your personal agenda.

[OzMick]

Well we know the new proprietor of the DSI.

As you saying that DSI take money from Thaksin?

i'm think he's saying that the dsi is crooked and biased and i'm sure he'd say the exact same thing when talking about their take on the events of 2010... mmm.

it's great to criticize an agency only when it suits your personal agenda.

Perhaps he realises that in this country it is culturally very difficult to tell your boss that he is wrong. To point out that he/she is a perjuring thief is well-nigh impossible. Pity.

[nurofiend]

Well we know the new proprietor of the DSI.

As you saying that DSI take money from Thaksin?

i'm think he's saying that the dsi is crooked and biased and i'm sure he'd say the exact same thing when talking about their take on the events of 2010... mmm.

it's great to criticize an agency only when it suits your personal agenda.

Perhaps he realises that in this country it is culturally very difficult to tell your boss that he is wrong. To point out that he/she is a perjuring thief is well-nigh impossible. Pity.

or perhaps he realises that every level of the thai system that makes the decisions on the most important issues that the country faces has a corruption (ie politicial sway, financial gain) problem favouring those that are in power at the time.

it's all about who's in power at the time, any of these so called non-partisan agenies are a load of bs (ye know what bodies i mean).... if you look back, most suspect outcome's of cases are usually those made in favour of whoever was in power in the government at the time.

it's a farce

and, - the rigid views of many here aside, - i think everyone should agree that there is a huge amount to learn for both sides, about being respectable politicial parties.

Edited April 1, 2012 by nurofiend

[OzMick]

Perhaps he realises that in this country it is culturally very difficult to tell your boss that he is wrong. To point out that he/she is a perjuring thief is well-nigh impossible. Pity.

or perhaps he realises that every level of the thai system that makes the decisions on the most important issues that the country faces has a corruption (ie politicial sway, financial gain) problem favouring those that are in power at the time.

it's all about who's in power at the time, any of these so called non-partisan agenies are a load of bs (ye know what bodies i mean).... if you look back, most suspect outcome's of cases are usually those made in favour of whoever was in power in the government at the time.

it's a farce

and, - the rigid views of many here aside, - i think everyone should agree that there is a huge amount to learn for both sides, about being respectable politicial parties.

bloody hell, 3 !