webfact Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 CORRUPTION CASE Chart Thai's Somsak gets second 5-year political ban The Nation Somsak Court finds politician filed 21 false asset statements; penalty to be served concurrently with existing ban BANGKOK: -- Chart Thai Party executive Somsak Prissananthakul has been found guilty of asset concealment and handed a second political ban, but his punishment will be served concurrently with a prior ban for electoral fraud. The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that Somsak filed 21 false asset statements while holding various offices between 1997 and 2008. The case came to light in January last year after the National Anti-Corruption Commission ruled there was cause to suspect wrongdoing and initiated the litigation against Somsak. According to the NACC report, Somsak covered up his wealth when he held a House of Representatives seat from Angthong, and while serving as education and agriculture minister. The NACC found that Somsak failed to report almost Bt30 million kept in three main accounts. Somsak's wife Rawiwan later invested Bt10 million of the undisclosed funds in the stock market, it said. The graft investigation further found that Somsak omitted to report a Bt30-million home he owned in Angthong's Wiset Chai Chan district. The allegation about Somsak's home ownership surfaced while he was serving as agriculture minister in the Samak Sundaravej government, triggering the probe of his asset statements. The investigation into the Somsak case also brought to light two unreported luxury sedans and the ownership of a convenience store via a nominee. The nine-member judicial panel reached a unanimous decision to penalise Somsak with a five-year ban on holding office. The high court ordered the ban to be served concurrently with one imposed on December 2, 2008, after the Chart Thai Party was disbanded because of campaign violations and its executives, including Somsak, barred from the electoral process. In addition to the ban, Somsak's penalties included a six-month jail term and a fine of Bt10,000. The high court suspended the imprisonment for three years, citing his lack of a prior record as grounds for leniency. Somsak said he respected the court's decision yesterday. He said he would explain the case to his supporters, alleging that he had not been given the chance to present an adequate defence to the NACC. He said his mentor, Banharn Silapa-archa, believed Somsak's claim that he had not concealed his wealth. The funds in question were from Chart Thai's campaign coffers and had been entrusted to his care, he said, adding that the holding of campaign funds in individual accounts was normal practice before the enactment of the 1999 political party law. -- The Nation 2012-05-05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLew Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I feel so sorry for this guy I really hope he gets a nice powerful position when he becomes eligible again. The sheer agony of serving two 5 year bans must be overwhelming They should let him replace Yingluck ... poor sod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swifty5x5 Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Concurrently means seves at the same time of previous ban. Consectively would be one after the other. I don't see how this would hurt him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 He said his mentor, Banharn Silapa-archa, believed Somsak's claim that he had not concealed his wealth.The funds in question were from Chart Thai's campaign coffers and had been entrusted to his care, he said, adding that the holding of campaign funds in individual accounts was normal practice before the enactment of the 1999 political party law. So following the change of the law, it was no longer normal practice and he was hiding either his own money or the party's money. Which means he was concealing someone's wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovetotravel Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 He said his mentor, Banharn Silapa-archa, believed Somsak's claim that he had not concealed his wealth.The funds in question were from Chart Thai's campaign coffers and had been entrusted to his care, he said, adding that the holding of campaign funds in individual accounts was normal practice before the enactment of the 1999 political party law. So following the change of the law, it was no longer normal practice and he was hiding either his own money or the party's money. Which means he was concealing someone's wealth. He has some wealth for sure! And if it was the party's money, would they authorize his wife to invest it? I doubt it. Somsak's wife Rawiwan later invested Bt10 million of the undisclosed funds in the stock market, it said.The graft investigation further found that Somsak omitted to report a Bt30-million home he owned in Angthong's Wiset Chai Chan district. The investigation into the Somsak case also brought to light two unreported luxury sedans and the ownership of a convenience store via a nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcatcher Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I feel so sorry for this guy I really hope he gets a nice powerful position when he becomes eligible again. The sheer agony of serving two 5 year bans must be overwhelming They should let him replace Yingluck ... poor sod Sod, maybe. Poor, no way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post clockman Posted May 5, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted May 5, 2012 They will never grasp the nettle, make an example, let them serve time. There are no role models in Thai politics. Just criminals! who can get away with anything 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterfloppy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Not much disincentive here - nothing here says he cannot keep the money. Where's the punishment in being barred from office or whatever when he, and all the others guilty of such practices, then have the opportunity to spend and enjoy it all. What a system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Somsak filed 21 false asset statements while holding various offices between 1997 and 2008 How many infractions does it take to be recidivist, fraudulent and earn quality jail time here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Concurrently means seves at the same time of previous ban. Consectively would be one after the other. I don't see how this would hurt him. It won't but it will sell news papers. As well as give TV posters some thing to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Somsak filed 21 false asset statements while holding various offices between 1997 and 2008 How many infractions does it take to be recidivist, fraudulent and earn quality jail time here? Far too many, however if a couple of lese majeste SMS are sent from your mobile 20 years is a good bet. You have to be poor as well. Edited May 6, 2012 by billd766 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Well done K. somsak. Congratulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Concurrently means seves at the same time of previous ban. Consectively would be one after the other. I don't see how this would hurt him. Yes, this a joke. It means that they decided to find him guilty but not ban him for the second offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Concurrently means seves at the same time of previous ban. Consectively would be one after the other. I don't see how this would hurt him. Yes, this a joke. It means that they decided to find him guilty but not ban him for the second offence. I think it might mean that they overlap. The first ban is from 2008 to 2013, and this one will be 2012 to 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now