' Crony' Of African Strongman Among Thai Names In Secret Offshore Files

[muttley]

Thats just newspaper lawyer speak for CYA.

Maybe you or phil can find some evidence that he did avoid his disclosure responsibilities then.

>Ryle cautioned, however, that many of the individuals brought to his attention by the hard drive may not have broken any laws.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/mysterious-mail-to-australian-journalist-triggers-global-tax-haven-expose-20130405-2hak3.htm

I doubt that Philw or I could add anything to the 86 investigative journalists trawling through the huge database but no doubt the truth will "out"

Recruiting the services of foreign journalists to decipher the information was necessary because of the vast amounts of detail in the hard drive, estimated as being 160 times larger than the cache released by WikiLeaks, totalling some 260 gigabytes of data.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/mysterious-mail-to-australian-journalist-triggers-global-tax-haven-expose-20130405-2hak3.html#ixzz2PeNZumAx

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

[whybother]

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

Except that the names that have been mentioned are of people that haven't declared their ownership of offshore accounts in their assets.

[muttley]

Philw: What is the thinking/logic, when someone is caught out (hand in cookie jar), the intial response seems to be, "everyone is doing the same, look at the other individuals"?

Many of us drive over the speed limit, when pulled over, ticketed, and fined, we do not try to justify our misdeed, by pointing out those who were not caught/fined. As adults we are responsible for our misdeeds, as such we are responsible for the what got us in the situation, not our parents, extended family, co conspiritors, the 2nd cousin, etc.

Ah the ridiculous "but, but, argument" generally applied to anyone whose logic betters yours, but not in this case. This is just a misunderstanding of what philw is saying.

He is not justifying the "misdeed by pointing out those who were not caught/fined" but is pointing out that there are others involved (or have been involved) in the same "misdeed" and showing that highlighting one set of people is hypocritical to say the least.

[muttley]

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

Except that the names that have been mentioned are of people that haven't declared their ownership of offshore accounts in their assets.

And your good friend the upstanding Junta Admiral has, I presume?

[whybother]

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

Except that the names that have been mentioned are of people that haven't declared their ownership of offshore accounts in their assets.

And your good friend the upstanding Junta Admiral has, I presume?

I don't know of any evidence that he hasn't. Maybe you have some.

[ChrisY1]

Revealing these secret offshore files is ging to upset a lot of people.

Yes...a lot of people most certainly will be concerned...however, here in Thailand I would doubt an eyebrow would be raised, with those named continuing with the same lines as not knowing anything, and of course, this would most likely be accepted.

Accusations of dealings with rogue states must be investigated.....to my mind, it's highly unlikely that "social" reasons for these dealings, would be stretching things...I think if I remember not so long ago, TS was implicated with diamond trading.

[muttley]

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

Except that the names that have been mentioned are of people that haven't declared their ownership of offshore accounts in their assets.

And your good friend the upstanding Junta Admiral has, I presume?

I don't know of any evidence that he hasn't. Maybe you have some.

Ah the usual whybother runaround post technique.

You quite specifically implied that the fine Junta Admiral had declared this offshore account - now it's obvious that he hasn't or you would have provided evidence that he had done so.

OK job done, now the usual suspects will believe that the Admiral is free of any accusation of stealing tax money from the Thai people. Feel good about yourself?

[Sing_Sling]

that the rich don't contribute to the society is a typical national socialist fairy tale.

I have yet to find anyone saying the 'rich' don't contribute to society

Revealing these secret offshore files is ging to upset a lot of people.

They know that and therefore they so far only reveal data about persons that can't become serious threats.

I'd be surprised if we see a lot of the names of American, Russian, Ukrainian or Chinese dangerous guys on the list.

Sadly, it's again the harmless people that will get hit - the tax avoiders instead of the murderers.

Seriously? Murderers? I think I would be safe in assuming that if there were a database of murderers on the loose . . . it would be published.

[Sing_Sling]

People have offshore account, cool. People have lots of money not previously made known, very cool. People have money no one knew they had, amazingly cool. People were trying to hide they had money, criminally cool

I don't agree.

When tax has already been paid on earned money, people should be free to do what they want with their money, including hiding it.

Hiding the money is the natural answer to the taxman wanting to come several times to collect taxes from the same money on which tax has already been paid, in addition to inflation.

You claim to have a banking background yet confuse double taxation with tax avoidance

[whybother]

You quite specifically implied that the fine Junta Admiral had declared this offshore account - now it's obvious that he hasn't or you would have provided evidence that he had done so.

OK job done, now the usual suspects will believe that the Admiral is free of any accusation of stealing tax money from the Thai people. Feel good about yourself?

Where did I suggest that he had declared it? Where did I even say that he needed to declare it?

What I'm asking for is evidence that he has done something illegal in having the offshore account.

There is evidence that some others have done something illegal since they appear to have offshore accounts but have never declared them in their assets declarations.

[muttley]

You quite specifically implied that the fine Junta Admiral had declared this offshore account - now it's obvious that he hasn't or you would have provided evidence that he had done so.

OK job done, now the usual suspects will believe that the Admiral is free of any accusation of stealing tax money from the Thai people. Feel good about yourself?

Where did I suggest that he had declared it? Where did I even say that he needed to declare it?

What I'm asking for is evidence that he has done something illegal in having the offshore account.

There is evidence that some others have done something illegal since they appear to have offshore accounts but have never declared them in their assets declarations.

As I said the runaround technique - now it's "What I'm asking for is evidence that he has done something illegal in having the offshore account."

whereas before all we had to reply to was:

Then why do you not feel the need to mention other people doing the same ???

How about Adm. Banawit Kengrian, the former deputy permanent secretary of defense,

who is listed as one of many shareholders in the British Virgin Islands

company Vnet Capital International Co., Ltd in 1998 ???

A member of the National Legislative Council after the military coup in 2006.

Maybe because "There is no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities."

which implies to me

1) he has disclosure responsibilities

and there being "no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities"

2) strongly implies that whatever responsibilities he may have had to disclose, he had done so.

13,000 odd posts and you don't understand the English language, don't make me laugh.

[manarak]

People have offshore account, cool. People have lots of money not previously made known, very cool. People have money no one knew they had, amazingly cool. People were trying to hide they had money, criminally cool

I don't agree.

When tax has already been paid on earned money, people should be free to do what they want with their money, including hiding it.

Hiding the money is the natural answer to the taxman wanting to come several times to collect taxes from the same money on which tax has already been paid, in addition to inflation.

You claim to have a banking background yet confuse double taxation with tax avoidance

No I don't - try to understand why. OzMick above also.

[whybother]

Then why do you not feel the need to mention other people doing the same ???

How about Adm. Banawit Kengrian, the former deputy permanent secretary of defense,

who is listed as one of many shareholders in the British Virgin Islands

company Vnet Capital International Co., Ltd in 1998 ???

A member of the National Legislative Council after the military coup in 2006.

Maybe because "There is no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities."

which implies to me

1) he has disclosure responsibilities

and there being "no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities"

2) strongly implies that whatever responsibilities he may have had to disclose, he had done so.

13,000 odd posts and you don't understand the English language, don't make me laugh.

So back to the start then? If he didn't avoid his disclosure responsibilities, then there is no suggestion that he has done anything illegal in having an offshore account. So why is there a need for Buchholz to mention him?

[muttley]

Then why do you not feel the need to mention other people doing the same ???

How about Adm. Banawit Kengrian, the former deputy permanent secretary of defense,

who is listed as one of many shareholders in the British Virgin Islands

company Vnet Capital International Co., Ltd in 1998 ???

A member of the National Legislative Council after the military coup in 2006.

Maybe because "There is no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities."

which implies to me

1) he has disclosure responsibilities

and there being "no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities"

2) strongly implies that whatever responsibilities he may have had to disclose, he had done so.

13,000 odd posts and you don't understand the English language, don't make me laugh.

So back to the start then? If he didn't avoid his disclosure responsibilities, then there is no suggestion that he has done anything illegal in having an offshore account. So why is there a need for Buchholz to mention him?

You and buchholz are so alike its scary - you rely on obfuscation to try and wear your opponent down. Doesn't work with me. I'll just walk away and leave you in the depths of your ignorance and wilful misunderstanding. See you.

[rubl]

So, apart from knowing at least one fugitive criminal on the 'offshore account' list, are there anymore? Rumour and knowledgeble members here have it that just having an offshore account may not be criminal depending on the local tax laws an individual falls under.

Just the very fact of having an offshore account is no indication of criminal conduct, just of having more money than others. Now of course, to some that's criminal in itself :-)

[Ricardo]

IIRC there was once a Thai PM who said it was unpatriotic and wrong, for Thai people to hold their funds in offshore tax-havens like the BVI, rather than investing here and helping the local-economy grow & poor-people get better jobs.

Does anyone else remember this, and who that PM might have been, or is my memory failing ?

[HerbalEd]

This is stolen data.

Apparently hackers penetrated a lot of email servers and syphoned data out from there.

The first "list" published only contains one name per country and only persons without any power, i.e. no-risk targets for the journalists.

Many leftist comments of the journalists are consternating, such as "the rich use secrecy tools unavailable to the general public to own and manage their mansions, yachts, etc.".

That's rubbish, a BVI company only costs around 2000 to 3000 USD per year including a nominee director, so that's very accessible.

What's inaccessible is the wealth required to buy the yachts and mansions, and that's what makes the "general public" jealous and out for revenge.

In countries like France, where a majority of people are against the rich, where people can just vote to grant themselves money, where companies cannot lay off employees, where the government STEALS over 50% of one's earnings... leaving the country is what people who can derive income from abroads do. Those who must stay because their business is in France and cannot leave because nobody wants to buy their business only have offshore companies as a solution for their retirement plan.

But maybe the revelation of all offshore wealth owners is a two-edged sword. I very much hope this will wake up the poewerful and rich who previously just let the idiot politicians do what they wanted in their country, knowing that they have stashed their wealth away safely.

If the rich and powerful are forced to come back they will also be forced to exert again more influence over politics and make sure the looneys such as the French socialists or the German greens/SPD have no more say in managing the country.

Atlas Shrugged... a very contemporary tale.

Call it leftist if you will .... even socialist ... but the devious rich are starting to get their comeuppance. Nothing wrong with being rich ... if you earned it ... but why should the rich have unfair advantage tax-wise and legal-wise? The times they are a'changing.

[Buchholz]

- deleted post removed -

.

You seem to have a low curiosity level.... :-)

.

So it would seem.

.

[wolf5370]

To propose that 'offshore accounts' are used for retirement purposes, coming from a 'ex swiss bank manager' may be stretching a point. The ultra wealthly do not have much of a need for a legit retirement account as most of us peons know it. 4 or 5 thouand a month retirement income is a pittence to them.

Secretive offshore accounts as well as some banking systems have been used to laundrer monies accumulated via illegal methods. As far as a tax haven, this is based on where the company is incorporated, operates, etc as any astute tax man can tell you. Many of these instituations were and are run to launder drug money, illegal arms sales, kick backs to corrupt poloticians, proceeds from illegal gambling, etc

There are several banks worldwide who can set up offshore accounts for those with a legit requirement, but they do not operate out a clapboard shack, painted bright yellow or blue. I do not claim to know more than others, but from personal experience, investigation, etc, my description/opinion can be and has been verfied many times.

Many offshore accounts are held by people with less than 10 million in total assets, hiding away maybe 500k to 1 million.

Sadly, these legit accounts are not very attractive for the big banks, who prefer to concentrate on accounts of 50 million +.

If you go to major banks with a million and ask for an offshore structure, they are likely to show you the door, laughing.

So the clients are forced to use "do it yourself" structures, setup through independent "offshore advisors", and have often fought hard and struggled to open a bank account.

Many of them unfortunately ended up in Cyprus (I have always been instinctively opposed to using a bank in a EU country for offshore business).

You are right that offshore accounts are often abused for illegal activity.

But my point is that offshore companies and accounts currently are an easy way (and maybe the only way) for the upper middle classes and lower upper classes to stash away some money.

The ultra rich will always have other means at their disposal, including buying whole banks.

So if secret offshore banking is made impossible, this will again hit the wrong people, i.e. those who make the country work, instead of hitting those who bleed the country out, i.e. importing trade companies and big corporations.

It's not hard setting up off shore nominee companies and company offshore bank accounts (with internet/phone and int. debit/credit cards). Sure the banks may well laugh at you in the west asking for such with "small potatoes" money, but pretty much any accountant or company solicitor can set them up - there are online (as well as bricks-and-mortar) companies that do just that.

I set one up and used it while I was a computer contractor - during the IR35 days of misery when self employed IT people were singled out by the tax man in the UK to be shafted from every which way (taxed as an employee, but all costs and lack of employee legal protection that a company deals with - both lots of NI tax, VAT, CG taxes, etc, accountancy fees, company's hoiuse fees, etc, etc, etc). In the end my accountant got me out of IR35, but many people I knew fell fail (talk about toss a coin) - it was a safety net, no illegal gain - I paid the taxes due at the time and as were legal for any VAT registered company, I just protected myself from the witch hunt. It was exactly as the Anti-IR35 campaign said we would do - we pay legal taxes, but try and shaft us for a quick gain (when not applying the same rules against any other self employed person) then we will use legal loopholes to protect ourselves and the cost will be on the tax man (there were several legal systems, collaborations and schemes thought up - most cost us money, so saved little, but the tax man would not be getting their pound of flesh). In the end the courts watered down IR35 and forced the tax officer to publish their catch net guidelines, so was much easier for our accountants to make sure we could avoid the net.

It is all legal in the UK. The offshore company is owned by the nominees, you have the only voting share as a minority share holder. Articles etc lock everything to protect the one voting share owner - i.er. everything needs 100% board resolution (even drawing money etc). Banks account is linked to the company as with any company. OS company invoices local company and is dully paid - as it is in a tax free state, (Panama etc) then only the nominee fees, company fees, banking fees etc to pay each year (about 1,200 quid all told). This is all legal and the process is used by huge companies too - with OS head offices and so on.

What is illegal, is bringing the money back into the country without paying tax on it. i.e. invoiced out, and it comes out before tax overhead), but if it comes back (especially as personal money) then tax is due (seen as OS earnings). If it stays OS then that is fine, for the UK at least (some countries follow tax even for OS accounts - but not usually for OS owned companies and their accounts as it is outside their jurisdiction). This is where scams and "avoidance" schemes are set up - and where those caught fall fail.

[Thai at Heart]

Closing these loopholes is going to be the next global financial priority.

Money earned in tax free origins is one thing. Taxes evaded by banking it there is another thing entirely.

[Sing_Sling]

People have offshore account, cool. People have lots of money not previously made known, very cool. People have money no one knew they had, amazingly cool. People were trying to hide they had money, criminally cool

I don't agree.

When tax has already been paid on earned money, people should be free to do what they want with their money, including hiding it.

Hiding the money is the natural answer to the taxman wanting to come several times to collect taxes from the same money on which tax has already been paid, in addition to inflation.

You claim to have a banking background yet confuse double taxation with tax avoidance

No I don't - try to understand why. OzMick above also.

I see, everyone else is confused . . . you stand alone as the pillar of knowledge.

As your post stands it doesn't differentiate between double taxation (though the definition of that would be to tax the same amount more than once, as opposed to taxing the interest earned) and tax avoidance

[phutoie2]

that the rich don't contribute to the society is a typical national socialist fairy tale.

Someones been reading Mrs Thatchers memoirs.

[bendejo]

I only wish I had the money to need an offshore company to manage it. Unfortunately I'm not one of the Amply Rich people

The other day I was at the bank and saw one of those machines for counting large stacks of notes. "If only I had such problems that I would need such a machine!" I thought.

[manarak]

You claim to have a banking background yet confuse double taxation with tax avoidance

No I don't - try to understand why. OzMick above also.

I see, everyone else is confused . . . you stand alone as the pillar of knowledge.

As your post stands it doesn't differentiate between double taxation (though the definition of that would be to tax the same amount more than once, as opposed to taxing the interest earned) and tax avoidance

The reader's brain should differentiate.

I didn't write about taxation of interest, I wrote about taxing the same money several times, which means the principal gets taxed. France has a tax on wealth (which starts at pretty low amounts), so the taxman returns every year to tax the same money.

Difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is a matter of definition by law.

What is tax avoidance in one national law, is tax evasion in another.

But the law doesn't count in the eyes of the greedy taxman.

For example, until recently, Swiss law considered the simple omission of wealth or income on a tax declaration to be a finable contravention and not a criminal offense, therefore Switzerland would deny legal assistance in cases where tax evader were accused of not declaring their full wealth. That law has been changed in Switzerland under Germany's and France's taxman's pressure.

[metisdead]

A bunch of off topic nonsense bickering and squabbling posts and replies have been removed.

[Buchholz]

Who Uses the Offshore World

Thailand

Potjaman Na Pombejra -Former Thai first lady
Details: Former wife of Thailand’s ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Potjaman and Shinawatra obtained a high-profile divorce at the Thai consular office in Hong Kong in 2008. Two years later, about $1.4 billion of Shinawatra’s family assets were seized after he was found guilty by the Supreme Court of corruption and abuse of power to benefit his family’s telecommunication company, Shin Corporation, while he was prime minister.

Offshore business: Potjaman Na Pombejra acquired an offshore company called Premium Select Inc. (2007) in the British Virgin Islands, and soon after she was listed as the sole beneficial owner. The company was set up through the service of UBS AG Singapore.

Comment: Potjaman’s lawyer, Somporn Pongsuwan, did not return several phone calls seeking information on the offshore entity.

Continued:

http://www.icij.org/offshore/who-uses-offshore-world

International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

[EyesWideOpen]

Who Uses the Offshore World

Thailand

Potjaman Na Pombejra -Former Thai first lady

Details: Former wife of Thailand’s ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Potjaman and Shinawatra obtained a high-profile divorce at the Thai consular office in Hong Kong in 2008. Two years later, about $1.4 billion of Shinawatra’s family assets were seized after he was found guilty by the Supreme Court of corruption and abuse of power to benefit his family’s telecommunication company, Shin Corporation, while he was prime minister.

Offshore business: Potjaman Na Pombejra acquired an offshore company called Premium Select Inc. (2007) in the British Virgin Islands, and soon after she was listed as the sole beneficial owner. The company was set up through the service of UBS AG Singapore.

Comment: Potjaman’s lawyer, Somporn Pongsuwan, did not return several phone calls seeking information on the offshore entity.

Continued:

http://www.icij.org/offshore/who-uses-offshore-world

International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

I can hardly wait until they release the amounts of money involved. I suspect there are people all over the world right now fearful of having to explain how they ended up with millions of dollars on a government salary.... Edited April 7, 2013 by EyesWideOpen

[Buchholz]

Who Uses the Offshore World

Thailand

Potjaman Na Pombejra -Former Thai first lady

Details: Former wife of Thailand’s ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Potjaman and Shinawatra obtained a high-profile divorce at the Thai consular office in Hong Kong in 2008. Two years later, about $1.4 billion of Shinawatra’s family assets were seized after he was found guilty by the Supreme Court of corruption and abuse of power to benefit his family’s telecommunication company, Shin Corporation, while he was prime minister.

Offshore business: Potjaman Na Pombejra acquired an offshore company called Premium Select Inc. (2007) in the British Virgin Islands, and soon after she was listed as the sole beneficial owner. The company was set up through the service of UBS AG Singapore.

Comment: Potjaman’s lawyer, Somporn Pongsuwan, did not return several phone calls seeking information on the offshore entity.

Continued:

http://www.icij.org/offshore/who-uses-offshore-world

International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

I can hardly wait until they release the amounts of money involved. I suspect there are people all over the world right now fearful of having to explain how they ended up with millions of dollars on a government salary....

.

I preferred your unedited version of what people all over the world right now are doing...

and with that in mind, it's specifically dangerous for some of those people prone to having cardiac issues when faced with stressful situations... .

(as per the same lawyer, mentioned above, said)

.

Wife of deposed prime minister asks Assets Examination Committee on Tuesday to postpone giving testimony on the Shin share sale because she is sick and given treatment in a foreign country.

Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra's lawyer Somporn Pongsuwan said that it is up to AEC's decision whether to agree to the request.

Somporn told reporters after submitting the request for the postponement to AEC that Pojaman is sick with headache and unusual heart beating.

June 19, 2007

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/06/19/headlines/headlines_30037259.php

Edited April 7, 2013 by Buchholz

[bigbamboo]

I thought a first lady was the wife of a president not a prime minister?

[Sing_Sling]

I thought a first lady was the wife of a president not a prime minister?

Why wouldn't it be for either?