Thailand To Seize Thaksin's Assets

[billd766]

Page 12 of wishful thinking that the PM is going to be hurting for funds.

These funds were never meant to be stored in the LOS in the first place. Would you keep the bulk of your funds in a country that automatically taxes your interest revenue?

Like Australia ?

plus the UK and the EU.

The only reason that I am not taxed on my pitiful interest is that I live in Thailand and I have declared it to my offshore bank and the tax authorities in the UK.

Also if you live in the UK and have an offshore account the bank now has to declare it so that they can tax it.

Another nail.....

[sriracha john]

That the funds are still in Thailand is an "open secret" published in the Nation. Perhaps our own "middle ranking banking official" can add something to the rumor mill here. Over to K. Siriporn.

Maybe Thaksin didn't expect the funds to be quietly frozen. He miscalculated the whole deal and inability to transfer the funds out of the country could have been one of the mistakes.

I mean yes, it sounds stupid, but can anyone give a good reason to sell Shin in the first place?

I believe that it was to finally avoid the conflict of interest that had been dogging him for the past 6 years. What happened was that in a quiet moment of self-reflection he had come to the realization that it was wrong and that as an elected official he really should divest himself from the company.

It was all part of his turning over a new leaf to truly become a better person and a better leader.... that he was going to start listening to his critics and begin to conduct himself in a proper manner by placing the interests of the nation above his own.

It's a real shame he was never afforded the opportunity to fully reach the potential of this new persona. Even more tragic is that he was never able to finalize his plans that were in the works to donate 70 billion baht of his money from the sale to the National Treasury to improve the educational standards of his beloved people. That was going to be the main thrust of his speech at the U.N. that he was prevented from presenting.

This is what a very clever person well versed in the going-ons of the government told me.

[Plus]

I mean yes, it sounds stupid, but can anyone give a good reason to sell Shin in the first place?

Because the event of the next generation of telekom technology, the necessary huge investments, and WTO rules places a internationally comparable small, mainly family owned public company in the telekom business at a huge disadvantage in competition to the other, far larger global players.

He sold at the right time in order to leave the business at the top of the game.

That is how you generally do business nowadays - you build up a company, and sell it when the price is right and move on.

There are few holes in this plan. First, they could have got Sintel or any other partner on board without selling the whole company. Second, telecoms are nowhere near collapse. I seriously doubt that AIS and all other Shin subsidiaries have no growth left in them. Third, he couldn't invest this money into anything without running into serious "conflict of interest" opposition. Maybe he had something in mind, something better than Shin, but we haven't seen any evidence of any plan. Some speculations about where he could invest his money, but nothing concrete. Fourth, AIS was a steady revenue stream paying for TRT expenses, why kill the goose? Was he going to finance TRT from bank interests?

Or what if he was told to cash in and stop mixing business with politics? Then his "advisors" were unplesantly surprised when he sold it to another country and the hel_l broke lose.

I don't know, it just doesn't add up. We don't have a nice theory that would explain everything.

[ColPyat]

There are few holes in this plan. First, they could have got Sintel or any other partner on board without selling the whole company. Second, telecoms are nowhere near collapse. I seriously doubt that AIS and all other Shin subsidiaries have no growth left in them. Third, he couldn't invest this money into anything without running into serious "conflict of interest" opposition. Maybe he had something in mind, something better than Shin, but we haven't seen any evidence of any plan. Some speculations about where he could invest his money, but nothing concrete. Fourth, AIS was a steady revenue stream paying for TRT expenses, why kill the goose? Was he going to finance TRT from bank interests?

Or what if he was told to cash in and stop mixing business with politics? Then his "advisors" were unplesantly surprised when he sold it to another country and the hel_l broke lose.

I don't know, it just doesn't add up. We don't have a nice theory that would explain everything.

At present AIS etc. was a nice steady income, but as far as i was informed WTO regulations made it necessary to open the markets here to global players sooner than later. And these global players would have pushed ShinCorp out, especially because the next generation of mobile technology needs vast investments (so i was told, maybe somebody here who does not just shoot his mouth but knows about that particular business can clarify this).

He sold at the top of the game. Additionally, there is very little chance that any of his children, and especially not his son, would have been able to take over without running the company into ruin.

Now the money is freed to invest into large funds and whatever. The children can play around without being in too big danger to waste the fortune.

Thaksin "selling" the country so that the communists in TRT can destroy the monarchy and install a republic is utter lunacy.

Thaksin suddenly morphing into a benevolent elder statesman and therefore selling his company (be it by his own sudden enlightenment, or because he got the advise) but being misunderstood shows a complete misunderstanding of business and politics and the people involved.

Both theories have been propagated, both theories are idiocy to rouse the rabble.

What is so difficult to understand in the simple fact that somebody sells a company when he gets the best price for it, and actually can find a buyer who can come up with that sort of cash?

People do that all the time. Why look for conspiracy theories when simple logic can give you the answer?

[womble]

There are few holes in this plan. First, they could have got Sintel or any other partner on board without selling the whole company. Second, telecoms are nowhere near collapse. I seriously doubt that AIS and all other Shin subsidiaries have no growth left in them. Third, he couldn't invest this money into anything without running into serious "conflict of interest" opposition. Maybe he had something in mind, something better than Shin, but we haven't seen any evidence of any plan. Some speculations about where he could invest his money, but nothing concrete. Fourth, AIS was a steady revenue stream paying for TRT expenses, why kill the goose? Was he going to finance TRT from bank interests?

Or what if he was told to cash in and stop mixing business with politics? Then his "advisors" were unplesantly surprised when he sold it to another country and the hel_l broke lose.

I don't know, it just doesn't add up. We don't have a nice theory that would explain everything.

What is so difficult to understand in the simple fact that somebody sells a company when he gets the best price for it, and actually can find a buyer who can come up with that sort of cash?

People do that all the time. Why look for conspiracy theories when simple logic can give you the answer?

Yeah it makes good sense to sell a business when share prices are at record highs, the thing is we have to look at what made the shares rise in price so much, and then ask our selves if the methods employed were acceptable.

[ColPyat]

Yeah it makes good sense to sell a business when share prices are at record highs, the thing is we have to look at what made the shares rise in price so much, and then ask our selves if the methods employed were acceptable.

Those methods were rather dirty. Unfortunately though while all this was going on all our great heroic demonstrators and their leadership was staunchly on Thaksin's side, and detractors were labeled as national traitors.

Ironically - the sale of his company was maybe the cleanest decision Thaksin has made in the whole history of ShinCorp.

[englishoak]

I believe that it was to finally avoid the conflict of interest that had been dogging him for the past 6 years. What happened was that in a quiet moment of self-reflection he had come to the realization that it was wrong and that as an elected official he really should divest himself from the company.

It was all part of his turning over a new leaf to truly become a better person and a better leader.... that he was going to start listening to his critics and begin to conduct himself in a proper manner by placing the interests of the nation above his own.

It's a real shame he was never afforded the opportunity to fully reach the potential of this new persona. Even more tragic is that he was never able to finalize his plans that were in the works to donate 70 billion baht of his money from the sale to the National Treasury to improve the educational standards of his beloved people. That was going to be the main thrust of his speech at the U.N. that he was prevented from presenting.

That quote should be moved to the jokes page........ Nice one SJ

[ya5702]

> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:43:11 +0800

Thai adventure backfires on Singapore Inc - The Age

Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:47 PM

Subject: Fwd: Thai adventure backfires on Singapore Inc - The Age

Thai adventure backfires on Singapore Inc[image: Emacs!]

Coup trigger: Ho Ching, CEO of Temasek (with chairman S. Dhanabalan, left),

bought out the family business of Thailand's then prime minister in a deal

that has enraged Thais.

Eric Ellis, Singapore

September 25, 2006

*THAILAND'S military junta has gone out of its way to assure all that it's business as usual in Bangkok. The baht has wobbled, as has the stock exchange, but neither with symptoms that would have neighbours sniffling with the contagion they caught during the late-'90s financial crisis. The coup has been smooth as silk, as Thais like to say.

But one woman in Singapore desperately hopes the generals are as good as their word: the person whose deal with Thailand's ousted prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, precipitated the coup. She is Ho Ching, the chief executive of the Singapore government-owned Temasek Holdings, which controls a $US100 billion-plus ($A130 billion) portfolio, including Australia's Optus.

She bought Thaksin out of his family businesses, Shin Corporation, in March in a questionable $US4.5 billion transaction that outraged Thais. Temasek bought the Thai leader's controlling half-share in Shin Corp and then snapped up most of the rest on the stockmarket. It now controls 96 per cent.

As Thaksin banked Temasek's tax-free cash, Thais burnt Ho's effigy on Bangkok streets, maligning the reputation created for her by Singapore spin-doctors as a safe pair of hands. It was, at best, a spectacular misjudgement. Far from being the great buy Temasek claimed, the deal ignited six months of political turmoil, culminating in the coup. Thais stopped using the businesses Temasek had bought, including an airline, a finance company and telco AIS Thailand, also part-owned by Singapre Telecommunications. Now the Shin buyers wear a $US2 billion paper loss on the deal after less than six months.

As Thai regulators deepen their probe into the transaction and Thaksin's "rampant corruption", Temasek and partners face fines of up to $US2 billion if it's proved, as many suspect, that Thai laws have been breached.

In these post-Enron days where blameless corporate governance is paramount, if the chief executive blows $US2 billion in six months, the blood-letting in the boardroom would be swift and brutal. But even if her Thai adventure worsens, that seems unlikely to happen to Ho, the wife of Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and the approved daughter-in-law of Singapore's

long-time strongman Lee Kuan Yew.

Ho has been Temasek's unsmiling chief executive since 2001, presenting as a corporate dominatrix protected by the formidable Lee family edifice. The Lees maintain Ho got her job on merit and the appointment had nothing to do with her being part of the family.

The Lees, as compliant Singaporeans famously know, don't make mistakes. Any questioning of their methods ­ as bankrupted opposition politicians and the foreign press have frequently discovered ­ risk libel suits heard in Singapore's courts where the family's history of success is unparalleled.

Not that the Singaporean media does much questioning either. On the day after the coup, its newspapers did not report Temasek's dilemma ­ odd given that it's ultimately Singapore taxpayers' money Ho has risked. It was left to a sole letter-writer, presciently published a week before the coup, who suggested that an alliance with the much-hated Thaksin might not be a wise risk for the national nest egg.

"Hitching our investment bandwagon to the first family is a double-edged sword," wrote Danny Chua in *Today*. "We can go higher with their rising star but when they fall, we can fall too … We must be able to sleep peacefully, knowing that we have done the right thing."

Singapore loves to control and, when it can't, to work its power relationships behind the scenes. Temasek claims to be independent of government but often seems to follow government policy in its investment portfolio, spending to boost neighbours.

Thaksin was a big fan of the Lees' long-ruling People's Action Party and its compliant "Singapore System". Thaksin and Lee were allies in pushing European Union-style integration of the Association of South-East Asian Nations. There was resentment in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur of a supposed

Singapore-Bangkok axis within the group. Not any more.

Serious questions abound for a Singapore that likes to lecture the world about the "best practices" of corporate governance it supposedly employs.

Temasek is suspected of funding Thai partners in the Thaksin deal, the implication being that this was done to avoid breaching foreign investment laws. And where did Temasek pay Thaksin?

Thailand's central bank limits personal cash transfers to $US1 million a year ­ it would take 2000 years to transfer Thaksin's pile ­ and needs special permission from the central bank to go higher.

But Thailand's central bank governor is seen as a cleanskin, and a contender to be appointed caretaker prime minister by the generals. Thaksin presumably knew that, raising questions over whether Temasek paid some of the funds offshore, in a foreign tax haven perhaps, avoiding Thai rules altogether.

Temasek is in serious trouble in Thailand. It has lost its main political ally in Bangkok and his cronies, and runs the risk of having its assets seized as the Thaksin probe deepens. The deal itself is a fait accompli; Thaksin banked his $US2 billion months ago. In gilded exile in London, he is

unlikely to return the cash.

If Temasek and Thaksin fall out, the legal implications are fascinating. For the moment, however, the silence from Temasek has been deafening. It simply says it is "monitoring events". With $US4 billion of other peoples' money in the balance, it might have added "anxiously".

*Eric Ellis is South-East Asia correspondent for Fortune Magazine.

[LaoPo]

Would you keep the bulk of your funds in a country that automatically taxes your interest revenue?

1. In my (EU)-country one pays taxes on interest revenues.

2. But, there are NO taxes on -personal- gain (profit) on stocks/shares; but IF you loose (on your stocks/shares) you can't deduct the losses from your personal income taxes either.

If you hold the shares through a company/limited, taxes would be in place though.

3. So, that's why I never understood the hassle about the gain on the Shin shares of Thaksin (and thus not paying any taxes).

I have to admit however that I don't have a clue about taxes (gain/profit on shares) in Thailand.

4. The Shin-share construction (Thai- or Off-shore) however would have been in place a long time before Thaksin sold the shares to Temasek/Singapore.

Now, IF that was the case...WHAT would have been said if Shin (Thaksin) would have lost a lot of money instead of making a huge profit.........?

I think it will be very, if not extremely, difficult to prove that 'Shin' did something wrong, according to the Thai Tax-Laws.

But....just my 2 Satang of course

LaoPo

[Johpa]

Page 12 of wishful thinking that the PM is going to be hurting for funds.

These funds were never meant to be stored in the LOS in the first place. Would you keep the bulk of your funds in a country that automatically taxes your interest revenue?

I have no issues with paying taxes for the betterment of the larger society. Yes, I understand that there are many very wealthy people in the world who feel they owe nothing to the larger society and who have the means and are very happy to move their funds offshore to a tax free haven. We have such such people [posting on these boards singing the praises of the "free market" and playing the role of the neo-sahib in Thailand whilst taking advantage of the more affordable living and even more affordable sex available in the Kingdom.

Where exactly Taksin's untaxed money went nobody knows. But there are many here congratulating him. I am not one of them. But in a sense Taksin was almost an inevitable outcome of the Bangkok Sino-Thai monopoly on economic power over Thailand.

[Plus]

What is so difficult to understand in the simple fact that somebody sells a company when he gets the best price for it, and actually can find a buyer who can come up with that sort of cash?

People do that all the time. Why look for conspiracy theories when simple logic can give you the answer?

The moment he sold it he started losing money. Without any clear investment plan he was destined to lose money for a long long time. It's not easy to find a business in Thailand to invest 70 bil into.

Lots of foreign telecoms came to Thailand and left - Orange and Hutchison are the biggest, but before them there were others. AIS was never under any threat from competition, and it was the only company Temasek really wanted.

Selling it doesn't make any business sense, but it was a good deal if one wants to retire.

Here's a consiracy theory I like:

After winning 2005 elections Thaksin has been told by a "charismatic person" that he should sell his business and focus on politics, his first term was to feed himself, second should be dedicated to the country.

Thaksin didn't like taking orders, and defiantly sold his company to Singaporeans - if it's not mine, it won't be yours either. That's when the rift appeared and he lost support needed to deal with "people's power".

When he returned as a caretaker PM he was told he was not welcome anymore. That's when he publicly complained about "charismatic person". His fate was sealed then, it was just a matter time before he'd either quit himself or be removed.

"Charismatic" is a word given by English press. In Thai the meaning is not the same.

[Old Man River]

Here's a consiracy theory I like:

After winning 2005 elections Thaksin has been told by a "charismatic person" that he should sell his business and focus on politics, his first term was to feed himself, second should be dedicated to the country.

Thaksin didn't like taking orders, and defiantly sold his company to Singaporeans - if it's not mine, it won't be yours either. That's when the rift appeared and he lost support needed to deal with "people's power".

When he returned as a caretaker PM he was told he was not welcome anymore. That's when he publicly complained about "charismatic person". His fate was sealed then, it was just a matter time before he'd either quit himself or be removed.

"Charismatic" is a word given by English press. In Thai the meaning is not the same.

While I am sure the rift between the former PM and the powers that be began early, a major area of disagreement, so I'm told, was when the TRT first announced the draft bill for the airport economic zone. As originally planned, it was viewed by people who make a difference as setting up a separate republic within the boundaries of Thailand (i.e. a separate country within a country). This airport economic zone was later changed to more of a province within Thailand and not a separate juristic entity, probably as an appeasement, although the former PM still planned to control it for 8 years before allowing elections.

[CL0R0X]

he didn't plan to go into politics to help the people, he plan to go into politics to make money.

Edited September 28, 2006 by CL0R0X

[Tony Clifton]

he didn't plan to go into politics to help the people, he plan to go into politics to make money.

He actually did both, he helped HIS people make money while gorging himself on the bigger portions.

[ColPyat]

The moment he sold it he started losing money. Without any clear investment plan he was destined to lose money for a long long time. It's not easy to find a business in Thailand to invest 70 bil into.

Why on earth do you believe that he would invest the 2 billion dollar he got for the sale in Thailand?

We live in the age of globalisation and global movements of money. As far as i am aware of nobody knows where the money actually is, there is no proof that the money ever went into Thailand (i remember having read that the influx of money during the time of the sale was only for the tender offers for the other shareholders).

Logic would dictate that the money is invested in several global megafunds.

I very much doubt that it comes to a a seizure of Thaksin's assets (other maybe than a small face saving amount), neither will the Temasek deal be nullified, regardless of media and activist speculation. Such a move would open a can of worms that could easily embarass many poeple, companies, families and institutions that would not exactly want to be seen having benefitted from a the sale of ShinCorp . I also have my doubts that the sale has broken any laws clearly enough to warrant nullifying such a deal.

We have a system of free market economy. As much as one may rave and rant against it (which i regularly do), this is the way how things are.

[Heng]

Would you keep the bulk of your funds in a country that automatically taxes your interest revenue?

So, that's why I never understood the hassle about the gain on the Shin shares of Thaksin (and thus not paying any taxes).

The 'hassle' IMO is for the most part a combination of predisposed dislike and wishful thinking (perhaps with a touch of envy or dissatisfaction with their own personal situations, not necessarily financial) that laws were broken.

[LaoPo]

Would you keep the bulk of your funds in a country that automatically taxes your interest revenue?

So, that's why I never understood the hassle about the gain on the Shin shares of Thaksin (and thus not paying any taxes).

The 'hassle' IMO is for the most part a combination of predisposed dislike and wishful thinking (perhaps with a touch of envy or dissatisfaction with their own personal situations, not necessarily financial) that laws were broken.

I agree.

Is there a gain/profit-tax on shares, held by a private individual, in Thailand?

LaoPo

Edited September 28, 2006 by LaoPo

[Heng]

Page 12 of wishful thinking that the PM is going to be hurting for funds.

These funds were never meant to be stored in the LOS in the first place. Would you keep the bulk of your funds in a country that automatically taxes your interest revenue?

I have no issues with paying taxes for the betterment of the larger society. Yes, I understand that there are many very wealthy people in the world who feel they owe nothing to the larger society and who have the means and are very happy to move their funds offshore to a tax free haven.

More like... who feel they 'owe nothing' more than the typically huge -when compared to most individials in society, their critics no doubt included- amounts of taxes they are already paying.

But in a sense Taksin was almost an inevitable outcome of the Bangkok Sino-Thai monopoly on economic power over Thailand.

Yeah, if you can't beat them or join them.... blame them.

[Plus]

Yes and no. In Thaksin's case they are looking at time when he consolidated all his shares in children's accounts, not the sale to Temasek. Taxes, if any, would be collected from gains made when Ample Rich sold shares at 1 Baht to Thaksin's children, way below their market price. We know that there were their shares anyway, but not technically so. Techinically it could be found that there were undeclared Thaksin's assets, or that his children were employees of Ample Rich and got the shares from the company - all empoyees are taxed in this case in Thailand.

Surely people want taxes to be paid out of vengence, they always do. If your neighbour cheated on taxes you'd be insensed, and then asked him how he did it.

I believe there are restrictions on Thais investing overseas, it would be difficult, though not impossible, to invest in overseas based funds for Thaksin.

It's the lack of plan of what to do next that makes it suspicious from business point of view. It looks more likely he was forced to sell.

There were several reports that the money is still in Thailand, never detailed, though.

[ColPyat]

It's the lack of plan of what to do next that makes it suspicious from business point of view. It looks more likely he was forced to sell.

There were several reports that the money is still in Thailand, never detailed, though.

Too many unbased suspicions. Reports based on speculation and rumor only add to the confusion.

I would not be too hung up about the ShinCorp sale and Thaksin, blinds you towards far more serious and devious developments that are presently not allowed to be discussed here.

I would even wager a small sum that after this whole Thaksin business has blown over, no assets were seized, and different matters will dominate the current affairs, still though blinding people towards real issues. All smoke and mirrors...

Edited September 28, 2006 by ColPyat

[Plus]

Well, start another thread about real issues then. This one is called

"Thailand To Seize Thaksin's Assets"

Issues that can't be discussed will have to wait. I had a post removed this morning again. What can I do? It's not my board, I don't make the rules.

News reports mentioning banks where the money is held are signed and dated and publicly accessible. The notion that the money never even entered Thailand is based on what?

[ColPyat]

News reports mentioning banks where the money is held are signed and dated and publicly accessible. The notion that the money never even entered Thailand is based on what?

Good, then tell us exactly where which assets of Thaksin are held, and not just about all sorts of reports and suspicions.

Give me the facts, please, including proof, sources, etc.

Edited September 28, 2006 by ColPyat

[Hermano Lobo]

I'm a bit worried about Pojamarn flying to London. They might get funny ideas about mobilising support and staging a comeback. Than it might get bloody serious. You would have thought Thaksin got an idea of what he's up against but he'd never listened before. For all his smartness, he might really understand the seriousness of his situation only with a rope around his neck.

Staging a comeback is likely to be uppermost in their thoughts. They still have support in Thailand. Don't forget they split the country Pro-Thaksin vs. Anti-Thaksin.

I am sure that the CDR is aware of this and that is why they are not rushing and are being cautious ?

The September 22nd edition of Heathrow Skyport newspaper has a picture of Thaksin's ugly mug at Gatwick when he arrived from New York. He looks grim.

Quote: The billionaire businessman-turned-politician is weighing his next move in response to Tuesday's coup.

I bet he is !

Edited September 28, 2006 by Hermano Lobo

[AlexLah]

How about the 'Thai Air Force One', is he still using it?

Or can he keep using it untill the new caretaker PM is appointed?

[Plus]

No, it was parked in Finland for about a week while Thaksin got a separate plane to fly to Cuba and then the US. Then he had to scramble for a plane to the UK. At first he was reported as trying to hire a Russian charter but had to use Thai Airways in the end.

Air Force One has returned quietly a few days ago.

[Hermano Lobo]

No, it was parked in Finland for about a week while Thaksin got a separate plane to fly to Cuba and then the US. Then he had to scramble for a plane to the UK. At first he was reported as trying to hire a Russian charter but had to use Thai Airways in the end.

Air Force One has returned quietly a few days ago.

I thought the press reported Thaksin went to Cuba via the UK ?

[Plus]

The point is Air Force was parked in Finland. I think it was all in Bangkok Post.

[ColPyat]

No, it was parked in Finland for about a week while Thaksin got a separate plane to fly to Cuba and then the US. Then he had to scramble for a plane to the UK. At first he was reported as trying to hire a Russian charter but had to use Thai Airways in the end.

Air Force One has returned quietly a few days ago.

Dear Plus,

I am still waiting for your answer to my question where Thaksin's money actually is, including proof, sources, etc. According to you this information is in the public domain.

eagerly awaiting your response,

ColPyat

[Plus]

Colpyat, look at my post #172, it's on page 12. Then punch some key words in the Nation's search and voila - you have the date it was published and the name of a journalist who wrote it. Sue them if you like.

News reports mentioning banks where the money is held are signed and dated and publicly accessible

As I know you like serious research, you can also look through archives beginning from January. Try key words like Temasek, Thaksin, bank, money, transfer. You can restrict your search to Opinion sections. Most likely journalists are Thanong Khanthong and Sopon Ongkara. Try different spellings.

Good luck.

[ColPyat]

Colpyat, look at my post #172, it's on page 12. Then punch some key words in the Nation's search and voila - you have the date it was published and the name of a journalist who wrote it. Sue them if you like.

News reports mentioning banks where the money is held are signed and dated and publicly accessible

As I know you like serious research, you can also look through archives beginning from January. Try key words like Temasek, Thaksin, bank, money, transfer. You can restrict your search to Opinion sections. Most likely journalists are Thanong Khanthong and Sopon Ongkara. Try different spellings.

Good luck.

Sorry, but Nation reporters speculating on where Thaksin's money might be is not proof of where the money actually is. These are only speculative news reports based on gossip and rumors such as the one you repeated in post #172.

If you come up with an official of those banks actually confirming that they are holding Thaksin's money, and how much, than i might give it some thought. Or an independent commision making a statement on where Thaksin's money is, than i might be convinced.

So far though you have not answered my question.

Therefore i go with logic - and guess that Thaksin has done what anybody in his situation would have done: invest his money in different global funds.