NACC asks Thaksin to back up graft claim
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) issued a statement yesterday asking former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to reveal details of his claim, made on Sunday night, that an NACC official offered to help him win a court case in exchange for money in 1999.

"Thaksin Shinawatra claimed that 'someone from the NACC sought money from him in exchange for help in his asset-concealment case.' Later he became the prime minister for two terms.

"He could have taken legal action against the person during that time but he didn't," the statement said.

Legal action in the case is still possible under the statute of limitations, the statement said.

If Thaksin fails to do so, he could be charged with malfeasance, it said.


-- The Nation 2013-05-22

The oldest political trick in the world, muddy the waters by dropping a hint but nothing more, no names and no direct details. Amazing how the usually vindictive Thaksin went through two terms as PM without taking any action, maybe there's something to the story and equally nothing at all. I love the smell of napalm, sorry I mean desperation, in the morning.

Well we all know that TS is such an honest person

If he said it and alluded to it ... it must be true

Yes, he should come and testify in front of the NAACP ASAP!

Get to the bottom of corruption for good and all.

Yes put up or shut up.............

Talk about calling the pot black , You'd never thought that Shincorp increased it's profits three fold when Thaksin was the P.M. and what about that deal with Burma, another misdemeanour???

He did nothing about it while he was PM because it would have opened up a whole can of worms.

He will never do any thing about it. If indeeed there is in fact an IT,

Nobody accuses Thaksin of being an honest man. and as we have already seen in a court of law he is convicted of the opposite.

Of course he was speaking to the red shirts. If he told them that the world was being carried on the back of a turtle they would believe him.

More hot air from Dubai. Plays well with the low mentality of the red shirts. Thaksin will not bother responding to the NACC because he has no proof.

Talk about calling the pot black , You'd never thought that Shincorp increased it's profits three fold when Thaksin was the P.M. and what about that deal with Burma, another misdemeanour???

Can anyone tidy this up for me but I recall he went to india on " secret " state business but did not go to Dehli or meet any Indian government officials and the media found out Shin Corp had a contract with a state government which was due to expire and was not being extended. He returned insisting his visit was " secret " then 6 weeks later it was announced the contract in question had been re-signed.

It says someone "asked" it doesn't say that he didn't pay.

I mean honestly, they created a 4:3 verdict claiming that having his maid and gardener in ownership of shares in his companies didn't represent a conflict of interest. Anyone please explain the legal logic behind that one?

It says someone "asked" it doesn't say that he didn't pay.

I mean honestly, they created a 4:3 verdict claiming that having his maid and gardener in ownership of shares in his companies didn't represent a conflict of interest. Anyone please explain the legal logic behind that one?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/640920-its-time-for-thaksin-to-respect-the-rule-of-law-senior-democrats/

Meanwhile, in his speech to the red shirts, Thaksin claimed that a member of the National Anti-Corruption Commission had sought bribes from him in 1999 in relation to the share-concealment case, but he refused to pay.

I'm not saying he's telling the truth ...

He did nothing about it while he was PM because it would have opened up a whole can of worms.

He will never do any thing about it. If indeeed there is in fact an IT,

Nobody accuses Thaksin of being an honest man. and as we have already seen in a court of law he is convicted of the opposite.

Of course he was speaking to the red shirts. If he told them that the world was being carried on the back of a turtle they would believe him.

It's actually on 4 Elephants on the back of a Turtle (per Terry Pratchit)

l##r l##r pants on fire ???

Far more likely that the judges - 'influenced' by his wife & Sanoh - were offered bribes by Thaksin or his negotiators. Judging by the astounding result (4-3) the bribes were accepted.

So started the highly divisive dynasty following that of the Philippines.

continue to lie to make sure the supporter don't get tired of same old same

He did nothing about it while he was PM because it would have opened up a whole can of worms.

He will never do any thing about it. If indeeed there is in fact an IT,

Nobody accuses Thaksin of being an honest man. and as we have already seen in a court of law he is convicted of the opposite.

Of course he was speaking to the red shirts. If he told them that the world was being carried on the back of a turtle they would believe him.

Too late HD, they already had that one down pat.

Soon a politican with the initials CY will step out of the woodwork with claims that his master with the initials TS got help in exchange for money from an official with the initials { make your choice} who works for a government organisation starting with the letter N.

He will claim that he has a video of all he claims, the disappear back in the woodwork he appeared from earlier and the video will never see daylight.

I believe in some cases "Birth Control" should be retroactive!!

So we can presume it wasn't the judge who admitted shortly before his death that he and one other accepted a bribe to reverse their original verdict.

So we can presume it wasn't the judge who admitted shortly before his death that he and one other accepted a bribe to reverse their original verdict.

I hadn't heard about this one yet. If possible does anyone have a link?

Why is anybody even listening to this convicted criminal on the run?

Just ignore the thief and maybe he'll go away. But somehow I doubt it.

It says someone "asked" it doesn't say that he didn't pay.

I mean honestly, they created a 4:3 verdict claiming that having his maid and gardener in ownership of shares in his companies didn't represent a conflict of interest. Anyone please explain the legal logic behind that one?

This is Thailand. Logic is not practiced here. Logic requires thinking. How many Thais do you know that actually have the ability, and use it, to think something through to its loqical conclusion?