Ample It’s Truly Not

[womble]

So there's Ample Rich BVI, also the Ample Rich office/subsidiary in Singapore , which the reporter tried to trace, and now a 3rd? English company of similar/same name? Let's hope the latter isn't incorporated in the UK - laws against insider-trading tend to be a little stricter in place like the UK or USA, than the BVI.

Easy enough to check http://www.companieshouse.co.uk

Can search on whether Ample Rich was incorporated in the UK and who its directors are for free. Unfortunately its closed until 7am UK time so will check again this afternoon

Did a search, can't find anthing by name of ample rich. Or anything similar.

[womble]

BANGKOK, Feb 8 (TNA) – Revenue collection by the government in January exceeded a target by around 200 million baht, according to Finance Ministry Spokesman Somchai Sajjapongse.

So that means the tax from the Shin deal would equal a staggering 25% of the national monthly collection!!!!!

Last month, he revealed the government managed to collect net revenue of 99.74 billion baht, which is 209 million baht higher than targeted earlier.

The collection through a value-added tax and corporate tax was 1.72 and 1.26 billion baht or 5.2 and 11.3 per cent higher than targeted respectively.

As well, revenue remitted by state enterprises to the state coffer was 1.56 billion baht or 27.5 per cent beyond the target.

Mr. Somchai, who is also the director-general of the Fiscal Policy Office, said the revenue collection in the first four months of the fiscal 2006 was 372.88 million baht, which is 4.18 billion baht or 1.1 per cent higher than projected.

The higher-than-expected collection resulted from the better-than-targeted collection of taxes by 8.7 per cent by the Revenue Department and the higher-than-projected remittance of revenue by 20.5 per cent by state enterprises.

However, he said, the revenue collection by the Excise and Customs Departments was lower than targeted.

(tna)

[moonoi]

So there's Ample Rich BVI, also the Ample Rich office/subsidiary in Singapore , which the reporter tried to trace, and now a 3rd? English company of similar/same name? Let's hope the latter isn't incorporated in the UK - laws against insider-trading tend to be a little stricter in place like the UK or USA, than the BVI.

Easy enough to check http://www.companieshouse.co.uk

Can search on whether Ample Rich was incorporated in the UK and who its directors are for free. Unfortunately its closed until 7am UK time so will check again this afternoon

Did a search, can't find anthing by name of ample rich. Or anything similar.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/53244db9...02//compdetails

Is the closest match, but probably not what we're looking for....although the dates of name changes is interesting..... The original incorporation date was 1966 so perhaps it wasn't a uk incorprated entity....(I mean the ample rich discussed in this article )

Edited for clarity!

Edited February 8, 2006 by moonoi

[womble]

link doesn't show seach.

Maybe you could cut and paste details of search.

If it was set up in 1966, i think thats defo not it, and from the looks of things I can see no ample rich co.

[BAF]

(yawn) Just like any holding company out there. Headquarters/offices don't need to be any wider than a PO Box. Rarely if ever will you even need to visit the country where your holding company is located. Intermediaries/attorneys (and I use the latter term loosely) are more than happy to take care of all of this for you.

Well, I guess the purpose of the article was not to show how Toxin's dummy company is different from the others but how the Prime Minister of Thailand is basically scoffing the whole country whose interests he has sworn to defend...

...yawn

Edited February 8, 2006 by BAF

[moonoi]

link doesn't show seach.

Maybe you could cut and paste details of search.

If it was set up in 1966, i think thats defo not it, and from the looks of things I can see no ample rich co.

Sorry about that here is the details from Companies House UK

Name & Registered Office:

UKLS INVESTOR 1 LIMITED

4 BROADGATE

LONDON

EC2M 2DA

Company No. 00871653

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 17/02/1966

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

6713 - Auxiliary financial intermed

6712 - Security broking & fund management

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2004 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/10/2006

Last Return Made Up To: 15/08/2005

Next Return Due: 12/09/2006

Last Members List: 15/08/2005

Previous Names:

Date of change Previous Name

18/02/2004 AMPLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

10/11/2000 HENDERSON GROUP LIMITED

29/07/1998 HENDERSON INVESTMENT SERVICES LIMITED

27/10/1988 ESSENTIAL MINERALS SECURITIES LIMITED

Branch Details

There are no branches associated with this company.

Oversea Company Info

There are no Oversea Details associated with this company.

But agreed this probably isn't the one discussed in the article, just mention it because the dates of the name changes are similar to the alledged trasnfer of shares to and from the UK based Ample pure conjecture of course, but fun

[Heng]

(yawn) Just like any holding company out there. Headquarters/offices don't need to be any wider than a PO Box. Rarely if ever will you even need to visit the country where your holding company is located. Intermediaries/attorneys (and I use the latter term loosely) are more than happy to take care of all of this for you.

Well, I guess the purpose of the article was not to show how Toxin's dummy company is different from the others but how the Prime Minister of Thailand is basically scoffing the whole country whose interests he has sworn to defend...

...yawn

All it shows is that the Nation and its reporter isn't familiar with offshore holding companies. Hypocritical IMO because the top dogs at the Nation probably are familiar with the true nature of offshore holding companies. Sondhi as well, most likely.

(yawn)

[womble]

Check this out for an interesting coinceidence then,

The company was dormant for years at least 20 years infact, and then suddenly became active again end 2000, it has then been very active since then.

https://secure.creditgate.com/search/search...&BT=Full%20Data

[womble]

Pretty sure it's a coincedence cos there's also all of these companies and they look to be set up as mutual fund companies or something similar.

I fail to see why it would be of any gain for them to have a Britsh registered company anyway, wouldn't they have to pay tax????

04219271 UKLS FINANCIAL PLANNING LIMITED

03715118 UKLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

04239935 UKLS INVESTMENT SERVICES 2 LIMITED

03090413 UKLS INVESTMENT SERVICES LIMITED

00871653 UKLS INVESTOR 1 LIMITED

04239911 UKLS INVESTOR 2 LIMITED

03824695 UKLS INVESTOR 3 LIMITED

03429485 UKLS INVESTOR 4 LIMITED

[Mobi]

Pretty sure it's a coincedence cos there's also all of these companies and they look to be set up as mutual fund companies or something similar.

I fail to see why it would be of any gain for them to have a Britsh registered company anyway, wouldn't they have to pay tax????

04219271 UKLS FINANCIAL PLANNING LIMITED

03715118 UKLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

04239935 UKLS INVESTMENT SERVICES 2 LIMITED

03090413 UKLS INVESTMENT SERVICES LIMITED

00871653 UKLS INVESTOR 1 LIMITED

04239911 UKLS INVESTOR 2 LIMITED

03824695 UKLS INVESTOR 3 LIMITED

03429485 UKLS INVESTOR 4 LIMITED

you're probably right, but it's all very strange. Why wouold Korbsak say so positively that there were 2 Ample Rich companies in the records and that one was English?, and that this second company dealt in Shin Shares. I doubt he made it up - too risky. I'm not too well up on this kind of thing but I was just wondering if the other company could be 'offshore'? Channel Islands? Isle of Man, or something like that? Maybe it wouldn't show up in a standard company search. Any experts out there who could throw some light on this?

[BAF]

Well, I guess the purpose of the article was not to show how Toxin's dummy company is different from the others but how the Prime Minister of Thailand is basically scoffing the whole country whose interests he has sworn to defend...

...yawn

All it shows is that the Nation and its reporter isn't familiar with offshore holding companies. Hypocritical IMO because the top dogs at the Nation probably are familiar with the true nature of offshore holding companies. Sondhi as well, most likely.

(yawn)

Why are you supposing that the Nation and its reporters write articles for their own private reading?

As opposed to what you seem to believe, they haven't written the article to educate themselves on the true nature of offshore holding companies

They have written the article for the benefit of those (naive, ignorant as in not well informed or just plain stupid) who need to be shown in graphical details the lies they are being fed and the fuming pile of crap they are mistaking for hot chocolate pudding

Unfortunately the reaction of most Thais is likely to be... YAAAWN

[lung]

PRESSURE ON THAKSIN: Ample puzzles grow

Published on February 09, 2006

Korn says offshore trail could lead to charges of money laundering, asset concealment and tax evasion.

The Ample Rich scandal is looking uglier. Democrat MP Korn Chatikavanij yesterday provided more details on the offshore trail of Shin Corp stock and urged authorities to investigate the Shinawatra family for possible money laundering, asset concealment and tax evasion.

Korn presented reporters with details showing offshore transactions in Shin stock within the same group of companies that resulted in a gain of Bt1.79 billion. He said this huge sum disappeared without a trace or report to local authorities.

Back in Au-gust 30, 1999, Prime Minister Thaksin Shina-watra sold 32.92 million shares of Shin Corp at Bt10 apiece to Ample Rich Investments Ltd, incorporated in the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands.

But in July 21, 2000, Ample Rich was found to have reduced its Shin stake to 22.92 million shares. The balance of 10 million shares showed up at Vickers Ballas & Co, a Singaporean stockbroker.

Korn, who has spent about 20 years in the investment-banking and stock-broking field, said Ample Rich never reported this change in its Shin holding to the Securities and Exchange Com-mission (SEC). The SEC requires a public filing for every ownership change of 5 percentage points in a listed company.

According to Shin’s share records at the Stock Exchange of Thailand, Panthongtae, Thaksin’s son, was the largest shareholder as of September 1, 2001, with 73.4 million shares, Korn said. Ample Rich held 22.92 million shares, while Vickers Ballas owned 11.56 million. Vickers Ballas must have bought 1.56 million more shares for its portfolio from July 21 to September 1.

The information Korn provided contradicts what Thaksin and his wife Pojaman told the SEC on October 18, 2001. Then, they said that of September 1, 2000 Ample Rich held 32.92 million Shin shares. But Korn said the National Counter Corruption Commission must look into this particular case because on that date Ample Rich held only 22.92 million shares, while Vickers Ballas held 11.56 million shares.

“This is a clear case of a false filing of assets,” Korn said.

Thaksin has come under fire over his family’s sale of Shin to Temasek Holdings of Singapore for Bt73.2 billion under dubious circumstances. On January 20 this year Ample Rich sold 329.2 million Shin shares to Panthongtae and Pinthongta at Bt1 apiece before the two sold the shares to Temasek for Bt49.25 a share without paying any taxes.

These unusual transactions have prompted the SEC and the Democrats to investigate the track record of Ample Rich, which Thaksin has claimed was transferred to Panthongtae in 2000. It was in May last year that Pinthongta stepped in to become a 20-per-cent shareholder of Ample, compared to 80 per cent for Panthongtae.

So far, Panthongtae and Pinthongta have not yet supplied the SEC with any evidence about their relationship with Ample Rich.

Further digging by Korn turned up a new revelation that Vickers Ballas held the 11.56 million Shin shares for only eight months before it disappeared completely from the share registration record. Instead, a company called Ample Rich, incorporated in England, and UBS AG Singapore Branch emerged on the scene. In April 10, 2001, Ample Rich (English) held 10 million Shin shares, while UBS AG Singapore Branch had 5.4 million.

Korn said what was rather unusual in this situation was that in that same year UBS reported to the SEC that it had bought 10 million Shin shares from Ample Rich (English) at Bt179 a share. The Bt1.79 billion transaction was conducted through the Thai stock exchange. But on cross-checking no report could be located about this transaction on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.

“The question is where is the Bt1.7 billion? Which pocket did the money go into? Did it go into Panthongtae’s account,” Korn asked.

“As of August 26, 2005, UBS said it held the Shin Corp stock on behalf of Ample Rich. This implies that UBS and Ample Rich are the same people. If Panthongtae and Pinthongta were the real owners of Ample Rich, why were there stock transactions between UBS and Ample Rich?”

Korn also raised a question for the Bank of Thailand on Thaksin’s transfer of the 32.9 million Shin shares to Ample Rich at a par value of Bt10. Later on, there was profit-taking in the Shin shares to the tune of Bt1.7 billion.

“UBS did fill in the form about this transaction worth Bt1.7 billion. This means that there was a flow of money out of the country. Did the Bank of Thailand know about this deal? Was there any attempt to ask permission to take the money out of the country?” he asked.

Since 2001, after UBS bought the 10 million shares from Ample Rich (English), trading in Shin stock has been active among the group. On August 30 last year, UBS held 35.33 million Shin shares, but Ample Rich (British Virgin Islands) unloaded all of its 22.92 million shares from its portfolio.

Amid reports that Temasek would buy Shin, UBS AG increased its Shin holding to 39.09 million shares, of which 32.92 million were held by UBS AG Singapore Branch for the account of Ample Rich and 6.17 million by UBS AG Singapore Branch for PB Securities Co Ltd.

Korn said throughout the period between 1999 and 2006, there were attempts to profit from the Shin stock from Ample Rich’s holding. Starting with Ample Rich’s holding of 32.92 million shares, a total of 10 million shares were transferred out for profit taking through nominees. In the end, Ample Rich bought back the 10 million shares in order to sell the whole lot to Temasek.

Korn said he has submitted information to Chalee Chanthanayingyong, assistant secretary-general of the SEC, for further investigation. He also called on the Bank of Thailand and the Anti-Money Laundering Office to take part in the investigation.

Chalee said the SEC would investigate the details of the Shin transactions further.

Siriporn Chanjindamanee

The Nation

Edited February 8, 2006 by lung

[Heng]

Well, I guess the purpose of the article was not to show how Toxin's dummy company is different from the others but how the Prime Minister of Thailand is basically scoffing the whole country whose interests he has sworn to defend...

...yawn

All it shows is that the Nation and its reporter isn't familiar with offshore holding companies. Hypocritical IMO because the top dogs at the Nation probably are familiar with the true nature of offshore holding companies. Sondhi as well, most likely.

(yawn)

Why are you supposing that the Nation and its reporters write articles for their own private reading?

As opposed to what you seem to believe, they haven't written the article to educate themselves on the true nature of offshore holding companies

They have written the article for the benefit of those (naive, ignorant as in not well informed or just plain stupid) who need to be shown in graphical details the lies they are being fed and the fuming pile of crap they are mistaking for hot chocolate pudding

Unfortunately the reaction of most Thais is likely to be... YAAAWN

I didn't say they were writing articles for themselves.

They have written an article that portrays offshore holding companies in a misleading way. After their vivid description, they don't include the fact that the majority of offshore holding companies don't even have actual offices. They don't include the fact that there are literally millions of legitimate businessmen, investors, royalty, heirs, actors, actresses, world class athletes, who keep their funds offshore through similar methods used by the PM.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Heng

[BAF]

I didn't say they were writing articles for themselves.

They have written an article that portrays offshore holding companies in a misleading way. After their vivid description, they don't include the fact that the majority of offshore holding companies don't even have actual offices. They don't include the fact that there are literally millions of legitimate businessmen, investors, royalty, heirs, actors, actresses, world class athletes, who keep their funds offshore through similar methods used by the PM.

Well, actresses' and athletes' offshore funds are "yawn" material (and even that is not always true, a couple of examples from Germany and Italy come to mind...), the (concealed and lied about) offshore funds of the Prime Minister of Thailand should be not

Especially for the Thais

[Heng]

I didn't say they were writing articles for themselves.

They have written an article that portrays offshore holding companies in a misleading way. After their vivid description, they don't include the fact that the majority of offshore holding companies don't even have actual offices. They don't include the fact that there are literally millions of legitimate businessmen, investors, royalty, heirs, actors, actresses, world class athletes, who keep their funds offshore through similar methods used by the PM.

Well, actresses' and athletes' offshore funds are "yawn" material (and even that is not always true, a couple of examples from Germany and Italy come to mind...), the (concealed and lied about) offshore funds of the Prime Minister of Thailand should be not

Especially for the Thais

Again, my 'yawn' was in reference to the description of the holding company's offices. I have no interest in what a billionaire PM does with his funds, described in detail for the nth time. My issue here is with the portrayal of holding companies and offshore banking.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Heng

[sriracha john]

“This is a clear case of a false filing of assets,” Korn said.

So far, Panthongtae and Pinthongta have not yet supplied the SEC with any evidence about their relationship with Ample Rich.

“The question is where is the Bt1.7 billion? Which pocket did the money go into? Did it go into Panthongtae’s account,” Korn asked.

“As of August 26, 2005, UBS said it held the Shin Corp stock on behalf of Ample Rich. This implies that UBS and Ample Rich are the same people. If Panthongtae and Pinthongta were the real owners of Ample Rich, why were there stock transactions between UBS and Ample Rich?”

“UBS did fill in the form about this transaction worth Bt1.7 billion. This means that there was a flow of money out of the country. Did the Bank of Thailand know about this deal? Was there any attempt to ask permission to take the money out of the country?” he asked.

Bangkok Herald-Examiner

It was discovered today that PM Thaksin had exceeded the allowable number of lies during a scandal.

According to a TRT Party initiative in 2002, the TRT Party-controlled Parliament passed a regulation that states that any Prime Minister, as long as they are a TRT Party member, is allowed to have up to 125 lies per scandal without being cited for perjury. As of the latest revelation in the Shin/Temasek/Ample/UBS/(insert latest involved name here) scandal, the number of countable lies was 126.

In response to charges that PM Thaksin has violated the law, government spokesman Surapong said that a new draft proposal has been sent to the Cabinet to increase the number to 200 and that if passed, it will backdated to cover this current violation. He further explained that he was quite surprised that the government's

Lie-Forgiveness-Program contained an insufficient number of permissible lies. When pressured by reporters, he mumbled that he attributed it to PM Thaksin's great ability to excel in nefarious activities.

When contacted about the situation, PM Thaksin chuckled, "What's nefarious mean?"

Later in the evening, government spokesman Surapong was seen departing at the Bangkok Airport. His destination was not disclosed by family members seeing him off.

[phuketsiam]

lol

[phuketsiam]

Heng, as a Thai and a taxpayer i'm curious as to why you are not interested in how someone is fleecing your country, I wonder is it because you are comfortable financialy so it doesn't really affect you, or because he is just the latest in a long line of people doing this (not just in Thailand either) or another reason. The reason I ask is because you are Thai and obviously pretty clued up so you're opinion might shed some light on how other Thai people react to this. I know what would happen in UK, but the laws and watchdogs are much stricter there so it never get this far, so even though the politians do get away with stuff, its never on this kind of scale.

Edited February 8, 2006 by phuketsiam

[BAF]

Again, my 'yawn' was in reference to the description of the holding company's offices. I have no interest in what a billionaire PM does with his funds, described in detail for the nth time. My issue here is with the portrayal of holding companies and offshore banking.

Their portrayal of holding companies is accurate (you yourself say "(yawn) Just like any holding company out there.") and it doesn't seem like they were surprised by what they found nor they made it appear as unusual (the Nation writes "There were no surprises; it was what might have been expected, particularly by people familiar with nominee companies") so your other claim that "All it shows is that the Nation and its reporter isn't familiar with offshore holding companies" also seems unsubstantiated.

What really annoys you is made quite clear by the part of your last post that I quoted in bold

As for me, I am somewhat inclined to believe that the concealed and lied about offshore funds of the Prime Minister of Thailand playing with his homecountry's interests (along with his own) should be of some interest at least to that country's citizens, residents and taxpayers.

Mind you, as long as the majority of the Thais keep on yawning at their ruling class screwing the country for their personal gain I know I have another cheap playground to choose from for my personal fun so I am not really complaining about anything here

[Heng]

Heng, as a Thai and a taxpayer i'm curious as to why you are not interested in how someone is fleecing your country, I wonder is it because you are comfortable financialy so it doesn't really affect you, or because he is just the latest in a long line of people doing this (not just in Thailand either) or another reason. The reason I ask is because you are Thai and obviously pretty clued up so you're opinion might shed some light on how other Thai people react to this. I know what would happen in UK, but the laws and watchdogs are much stricter there so it never get this far, so even though the politians do get away with stuff, its never on this kind of scale.

Well, you're not off. Yes, towards the upper end of the food chain life is pretty sweet, and it takes more motivation to get into whinge mode. Yes, I do believe the PM (I assume this is who you are saying is fleecing the country) is doing no different than a good number of politicians anywhere, tier one economies (where in many cases, they are actually seen by many to be fleecing OTHER nation's economies as well) included.

Just a few grass roots notes from the other side of the anti-PM whinge-fest: 1) never before the current administration has lottery revenue been channeled directly into education coffers; In the past it all went straight into the treasury. 2) no one has ever taken on the narcotics trade the way the PM has. Say what you like about the method; all I know is that there are no low level dealers -to this day- on the street in front of our buildings in Pattaya on Soi Yensabai. The one family of dealers we knew of, living like royalty before the patriarch and matriarch were both shot dead, the next generation of that family now buys and sells garbage and the other is part of the soi's motorcycle group. Difficult to explain, but we also don't need to lock up at midnight because the crowd out and about is no longer of the 'high, a bit crazed looking, and likely trying to figure out how to get some cash' type of crowd; 3) frontline gov't workers are much better behaved and more efficient nowadays with the current administration. Never before this administration was there a mechanism to criticize and complain about the service provided by gov't workers. And this is at all levels that normal folks interact with gov't officials. I find it hard to believe that the longtimers in the country haven't noticed this. 4) While I think the whole OTOP and 30 Baht medical thing is a failure business-wise, no other administration has given the poor anything like this before. Say what you like about doing it to maintain popularity (which is what politicians do by the way), the fact is that NO ONE HAS EVER done it. We run have a couple of pawn shops, and I can tell you that no one comes in for loans for medical treatment anymore. It's not pretty, but to me, that's progress at the lowest levels of society. I could go on... but breakfast is about to be served.

One more thing: a bit of medicine that may be difficult to swallow for the anti-TRT crowd. There's pretty much no way the next PM isn't going to be from the TRT party as well (unless they change the name of the party, but it'll be from this same group; you just can't be these kinds of numbers in politics).

Again, my 'yawn' was in reference to the description of the holding company's offices. I have no interest in what a billionaire PM does with his funds, described in detail for the nth time. My issue here is with the portrayal of holding companies and offshore banking.

Their portrayal of holding companies is accurate (you yourself say "(yawn) Just like any holding company out there.") and it doesn't seem like they were surprised by what they found nor they made it appear as unusual (the Nation writes "There were no surprises; it was what might have been expected, particularly by people familiar with nominee companies") so your other claim that "All it shows is that the Nation and its reporter isn't familiar with offshore holding companies" also seems unsubstantiated.

What really annoys you is made quite clear by the part of your last post that I quoted in bold

Actually I can't recall the last time I was truly annoyed (my 'yawn' didn't quite make it to the annoyance level) at anything.

The phrase "it might have been expected" isn't the same as 'the norm of holding companies is to not have any physical offices at all.'

Edited February 9, 2006 by Heng

[sriracha john]

Heng, as a Thai and a taxpayer i'm curious as to why you are not interested in how someone is fleecing your country, I wonder is it because you are comfortable financialy so it doesn't really affect you, or because he is just the latest in a long line of people doing this (not just in Thailand either) or another reason. The reason I ask is because you are Thai and obviously pretty clued up so you're opinion might shed some light on how other Thai people react to this. I know what would happen in UK, but the laws and watchdogs are much stricter there so it never get this far, so even though the politians do get away with stuff, its never on this kind of scale.

Now that you know, I'm more interested in what a "normal" Thai thinks...

[Heng]

Heng, as a Thai and a taxpayer i'm curious as to why you are not interested in how someone is fleecing your country, I wonder is it because you are comfortable financialy so it doesn't really affect you, or because he is just the latest in a long line of people doing this (not just in Thailand either) or another reason. The reason I ask is because you are Thai and obviously pretty clued up so you're opinion might shed some light on how other Thai people react to this. I know what would happen in UK, but the laws and watchdogs are much stricter there so it never get this far, so even though the politians do get away with stuff, its never on this kind of scale.

Now that you know, I'm more interested in what a "normal" Thai thinks...

Normal meaning...?

[PeaceBlondie]

I missed something here. How old are the PM's two children who comprised the shareholders of Ample Rich? I'll call them Pin and Pan. What are their birth dates? How old were they when these transactions began in their names? How many MBA's did they collectively hold (I don't care if they're MBA's from a third level rajabat) when they were making these incredible deals? Or might they just as well have been in diapers?

Again, there's some nice legal escape route, probably somewhere in this lovely Kingdom, that keeps the PM out of prison. But if the regular Thai adult citizens cared about it, enough to do more than yawn or merely whinge - what parent with one operating brain cell thinks a young teenager is making their own decisions about billions of baht? I never trusted my kids with more than a few hundred dollars, but I'm lo-so compared to the hi-so's. Did Pin or Pan do any more work in the business sector than a single PR gig for one week working at McDonald's?

[dan10400]

Normal meaning...?

hmmm. i could venture two guesses off hand....

1) maybe the opion of someone who doesn't describe their life

at the upper end of the food chain as being "sweet".

2) someone who can focus on the main issues and not spend the

last five posts discussing whether a reporter at The Nation

fairly portrays holding companies.

it is of course interesting to hear your opinion. i can understand

how you see the benefits to the war on drugs and overlook how

it was done. but i wonder what your opinion about that will be

if lack of due process comes back and bites you in the ass one

day.

--dan

[Heng]

Normal meaning...?

hmmm. i could venture two guesses off hand....

1) maybe the opion of someone who doesn't describe their life

at the upper end of the food chain as being "sweet".

2) someone who can focus on the main issues and not spend the

last five posts discussing whether a reporter at The Nation

fairly portrays holding companies.

it is of course interesting to hear your opinion. i can understand

how you see the benefits to the war on drugs and overlook how

it was done. but i wonder what your opinion about that will be

if lack of due process comes back and bites you in the ass one

day.

--dan

1) not everyone can be at the same part of the foodchain. Most humans don't have computer access either, it doesn't mean the ones that do don't understand the plight of those who do not.

2) a good part of the OP is about holding companies. completely on topic. there are other threads that deal specifically with the transaction in question.

As for the method used in clearing out said drug dealers, I would indeed be concerned if on our street, and the neighborhoods of relatives, if I had heard of even one incident where an innocent bystander was killed. However it was quite opposite. Those who paid the price, despite being among 10-20 people at the time, were targeted and dealt with, with absolute precision. I'd be one of the first to let people know if I was suffering because of the lack of due process, as I'm heavily invested here and have plenty to lose.

I missed something here. How old are the PM's two children who comprised the shareholders of Ample Rich? I'll call them Pin and Pan. What are their birth dates? How old were they when these transactions began in their names? How many MBA's did they collectively hold (I don't care if they're MBA's from a third level rajabat) when they were making these incredible deals? Or might they just as well have been in diapers?

Again, there's some nice legal escape route, probably somewhere in this lovely Kingdom, that keeps the PM out of prison. But if the regular Thai adult citizens cared about it, enough to do more than yawn or merely whinge - what parent with one operating brain cell thinks a young teenager is making their own decisions about billions of baht? I never trusted my kids with more than a few hundred dollars, but I'm lo-so compared to the hi-so's. Did Pin or Pan do any more work in the business sector than a single PR gig for one week working at McDonald's?

As with most families of any significant financial worth here, the next generation typically doesn't get 100% operational control until they have either proven they have the ability (some kids break off from the family and run their own businesses either starting from internal family loans/funding or the old fashioned way, with external bank loans, some never do and just sit around waiting for the folks to kick the bucket: this can be a LONG wait here no matter what the life expectancy stats tell you) or the previous generation dies. As an example, my own folks still consult their parents, and both sets of grandma and grandpa can barely speak or walk (so essentially my folks are in their 60's and STILL waiting for an inheritance, lolz). However, assets were indeed acquired in my parents names when they were younger. I have property in my name that I keep in separated stacks. That which I inquired through my own revenue, and that which will be one day be considered inheritance (which I don't dare do anything with until then).

[PeaceBlondie]

Heng, thanks for that interesting comment, sincerely. However, maybe my point is this:

When Pin and Pan are young teenagers or less, they're not making decisions to buy and sell Shin stock. Papa tells them exactly what to do (or Mama does), and they don't know what they're doing. They are as well informed as the third maid or the second butler, who in fact may also be used as a shell or a standin for the Prime Minister. Legally, it may keep the PM from jail (but the fat man who was President of Nicaragua, when I used to swim in front of his lake house, is losing weight in life for prison now).

Or is it your view that the upper part of the food chain is entirely above the law? For example, is it a crime to steal a million baht, but righteous to steal a billion baht?

We're both from Texas, where even Governor John Connaly and Willie Nelson had their household goods sold at tax auctions.

Edited February 9, 2006 by PeaceBlondie

[tettyan]

no one has ever taken on the narcotics trade the way the PM has. Say what you like about the method; all I know is that there are no low level dealers -to this day- on the street in front of our buildings in Pattaya on Soi Yensabai. The one family of dealers we knew of, living like royalty before the patriarch and matriarch were both shot dead, the next generation of that family now buys and sells garbage and the other is part of the soi's motorcycle group. Difficult to explain, but we also don't need to lock up at midnight because the crowd out and about is no longer of the 'high, a bit crazed looking, and likely trying to figure out how to get some cash' type of crowd;

Let me ask you a question that most Americans hear when they are in grade school. Would you rather see an innocent man be condemned to death or watch a guilty man walk free? Under any justice system, it's impossible to have both, so you've gotta choose one. Please explain your choice in as many words you'd like.

One more thing: a bit of medicine that may be difficult to swallow for the anti-TRT crowd. There's pretty much no way the next PM isn't going to be from the TRT party as well (unless they change the name of the party, but it'll be from this same group; you just can't be these kinds of numbers in politics).

This is by no means guaranteed. TRT is a motley collection of old parties and political cliques that are united by a common thirst for power and little else. They all support Thaksin because they all see him as a winning horse. Without Thaksin, there's no TRT - the 90-day rule on political party membership is practially the only thing now that's preventing the party from splintering.

If Thaksin leaves politics (gracefully or not), TRT will probably break up into several parties along factional lines. It could be that one of the current TRT faction leaders becomes the next PM, but the party he'll be leading will bear little resemblance to TRT in its current form.

[Heng]

Heng, thanks for that interesting comment, sincerely. However, maybe my point is this:

When Pin and Pan are young teenagers or less, they're not making decisions to buy and sell Shin stock. Papa tells them exactly what to do (or Mama does), and they don't know what they're doing. They are as well informed as the third maid or the second butler, who in fact may also be used as a shell or a standin for the Prime Minister. Legally, it may keep the PM from jail (but the fat man who was President of Nicaragua, when I used to swim in front of his lake house, is losing weight in life for prison now).

Or is it your view that the upper part of the food chain is entirely above the law? For example, is it a crime to steal a million baht, but righteous to steal a billion baht?

We're both from Texas, where even Governor John Connaly and Willie Nelson had their household goods sold at tax auctions.

No worries, PB. First, I think Willie is doing okay nowadays. Praise the Lord.

I don't know about the PMs household, but it not always the case that it is a strict hierarchical command and control system either. Often the family business and its assets are discussed and managed collectively, EVEN when children are still young. It's our version of the front yard lemonade stand. Myself I could run a cash register when I was 10. Sure, there are adults in the background keeping an eye on things, but it's not out of the ordinary to get the kids involved, and we definitely knew more than the servants. For my wife, her dad consults her before they purchase a piece of property and always gets her opinion if they decide to sell or rent it out (as they are all in her name). He sometimes overrides her opinion, but often goes with it as well.

It's not black and white, PB, you know that. Yes, Rakesh was in the wrong when he stole a billion of depositors funds. As for the PM, IMO avoiding taxes in a tax haven on the sale of a company that he built up himself is not the same thing.

Let me ask you a question that most Americans hear when they are in grade school. Would you rather see an innocent man be condemned to death or watch a guilty man walk free? Under any justice system, it's impossible to have both, so you've gotta choose one. Please explain your choice in as many words you'd like.

snip

If Thaksin leaves politics (gracefully or not), TRT will probably break up into several parties along factional lines. It could be that one of the current TRT faction leaders becomes the next PM, but the party he'll be leading will bear little resemblance to TRT in its current form.

I choose c) I'd like the dealers off the street in front of my homes and property. That was done and I am applauding. Of course, I'm not living in a classroom and no one is grading me.

My point is that it'll be the same folks in politics, no matter what banner they are waving, although I do believe it'll still be the same banner in this case.

[tettyan]

I choose c) I'd like the dealers off the street in front of my homes and property. That was done and I am applauding. Of course, I'm not living in a classroom and no one is grading me.

Now, let me expand the question a little further. Suppose the innocent person that had to die was your son?

Edited February 9, 2006 by tettyan

[Heng]

I choose c) I'd like the dealers off the street in front of my homes and property. That was done and I am applauding. Of course, I'm not living in a classroom and no one is grading me.

Now, let me expand the question a little further. Suppose the innocent person that had to die was your son?

Now, let me change the question a litte bit. If the innocent person was your son, then it'd be your problem.

And regardless, again I'd like to reiterate that the executions of the dealers (on my street, and those of relatives at least) were dead on accurate without loss of innocent lives.