Thai court orders seizure of ex-Treasury chief's assets

[webfact]

Court orders seizure of ex-Treasury chief's assets
THE NATION



BANGKOK: -- THE CIVIL Court has ordered the seizure of Bt49 million worth of savings from Nibhat Bhukkanasut, former director-general of the Treasury Department, because of his unusual wealth.

The court ruled that Nibhat, 72, failed to prove that he had lawfully gained the Bt49 million in his savings account, so the money was sequestered by the state as requested by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The court passed the judgement on September 29 but released the verdict yesterday.

Nibhat argued that the money was proceeds from the sales of his Buddha amulets and his wife's land.

According to the court, Nibhat did not introduce witnesses who had bought the amulets and land and failed to show transaction records for the deposits to his account.

Nibhat has 30 days from September 29 to file an appeal.

The NACC decided in October 2006 to ask the court to confiscate Nibhat's assets on suspicion that they were illegally obtained.

The NACC alleged that Nibhat received Bt30 million as a kickback from a company that won the bid to develop the Crown Property Bureau's property at Mochit Terminal when he headed the Treasury Department.

The NACC also accused Nibhat's wife of receiving Bt14 million unlawfully.

She claimed that she got the money from selling some land but she failed to show a record of the sale to the NACC.

The Bt30 million and Bt14 million had earned Bt5 million in interest, so the NACC asked the court to freeze Bt49 million from Nibhat's savings account.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Court-orders-seizure-of-ex-Treasury-chiefs-assets-30270928.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-15

[aussieinthailand]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

[casualbiker]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

You don't get a receipt at mom and pop stores though!!

[Ricardo]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

Or perhaps the Inspector Clouseau defence will be wheeled-out ?

Edited October 15, 2015 by Ricardo

[halloween]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

Try that argument with any country with proceeds of crime legislation, and see how far you get. Yes, they have taken it one step further here. OTOH they seem fairly confident with where the money came from.

I would like to see the same standard applied to anyone seeking election (even closer checking for party list candidates), or promotion in the senior public service.

[zaphod reborn]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

Nope, that's the way it's done in the U.S. as well. The assets are frozen and then the owner of the assets can file an action to show that the assets were not tied to ill-gotten gains. He's already had one chance to prove the funds came from the sale of amulets and property and failed to proffer any evidence to support that claim. There's lots of these clowns that need to have their assets frozen, particularly Somyot, who may end up losing them playing his casino games in Poipet. If they wait for an actual criminal conviction of corruption, the assets, and probably the defendant, will be long gone.

[whatproblem]

What about a penalty as well ,just taken the money that was got illegally is no deterrent,should be a 100% extra penalty on top .

[jcsmith]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

I don't know if these funds were obtained illegally or not. Quite possibly so. But there is a burden of proof that needs to be met instead of simply taking stuff. I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into Prayuth's brother who is ludicrously wealthy for a military man. When people questioned this they enraged the PM but no further inquiry was made.

[EJK]

Of course they would sieze anything where theres baht concerned

I have not even read the article no need

[novo58]

Of course they would sieze anything where theres baht concerned

I have not even read the article no need

With that approach .....................you will fit in quite well here on TVF

[Ricardo]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

I don't know if these funds were obtained illegally or not. Quite possibly so. But there is a burden of proof that needs to be met instead of simply taking stuff. I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into Prayuth's brother who is ludicrously wealthy for a military man. When people questioned this they enraged the PM but no further inquiry was made.

I think that, where the person is a senior politician or bureaucrat, it's more reasonable that the burden of proof should be the other way, or how are you ever going to even start to reduce corruption here ?

And of course it's a standard that should apply from the very top downwards, starting with Prime Ministers, whether present or past. And Caesar's wife (or brother) must also be above suspicion, I feel.

There have been previous PMs, who acted as though they were above-the-law, when in fact the law is rightly more-rigorous for holders of senior political posts.

Anyway the gentleman in question in the OP has merely to provide some witnesses or evidence, that his story about the source of these funds is true, to get his money back. Hopefully he'll take the case more seriously, and now be able to provide the evidence, with no further harm done to his reputation.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Ricardo

[MZurf]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

I don't know if these funds were obtained illegally or not. Quite possibly so. But there is a burden of proof that needs to be met instead of simply taking stuff. I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into Prayuth's brother who is ludicrously wealthy for a military man. When people questioned this they enraged the PM but no further inquiry was made.

This brother? What about the man himself?

[NCC1701A]

i got a idea. i am going to steal something and then create a paper trail.

[Orac]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

I don't know if these funds were obtained illegally or not. Quite possibly so. But there is a burden of proof that needs to be met instead of simply taking stuff. I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into Prayuth's brother who is ludicrously wealthy for a military man. When people questioned this they enraged the PM but no further inquiry was made.

I think that, where the person is a senior politician or bureaucrat, it's more reasonable that the burden of proof should be the other way, or how are you ever going to even start to reduce corruption here ?

And of course it's a standard that should apply from the very top downwards, starting with Prime Ministers, whether present or past. And Caesar's wife (or brother) must also be above suspicion, I feel.

There have been previous PMs, who acted as though they were above-the-law, when in fact the law is rightly more-rigorous for holders of senior political posts.

Anyway the gentleman in question in the OP has merely to provide some witnesses or evidence, that his story about the source of these funds is true, to get his money back. Hopefully he'll take the case more seriously, and now be able to provide the evidence, with no further harm done to his reputation.

I think there is far more proof in this case than the article suggests as can be seen from this article from 2006

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NCCC-seeks-Nibhat-s-prosecution-30016082.html

This case has been dragging on for many years and the accused has also been involved in various other dubious deals in the past.

Can't help his case being an advisor to Yingluck in the last government.

[ianf]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

Try that argument with any country with proceeds of crime legislation, and see how far you get. Yes, they have taken it one step further here. OTOH they seem fairly confident with where the money came from.

I would like to see the same standard applied to anyone seeking election (even closer checking for party list candidates), or promotion in the senior public service.

I would like to see the same standards applied everywhere in this corrupt-to-the-teeth country.

Example: National Sports Association ("which sport?" you are asking!) raise money through sponsorship, government and so on.

Does the money go to the development and benefit of young athletes?

The answer is "NO" - it goes straight into the pockets of national officials.

As a coach working for free and spending some of my own limited resources - this stinks.

[Orac]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

Try that argument with any country with proceeds of crime legislation, and see how far you get. Yes, they have taken it one step further here. OTOH they seem fairly confident with where the money came from.

I would like to see the same standard applied to anyone seeking election (even closer checking for party list candidates), or promotion in the senior public service.

I would like to see the same standards applied everywhere in this corrupt-to-the-teeth country.

Example: National Sports Association ("which sport?" you are asking!) raise money through sponsorship, government and so on.

Does the money go to the development and benefit of young athletes?

The answer is "NO" - it goes straight into the pockets of national officials.

As a coach working for free and spending some of my own limited resources - this stinks.

The problem in your case is the young athletes have no influence and are therefore important. The guy in the op took a slice out of a deal where one of the parties was the CPB which is not a organisation you can steal off with impunity.

[GAZZPA]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I disagree and you are kind of contradicting yourself here.

If you earn 100,000 baht a month but you have savings of over 49 million then you absolutely should be able to show where that money came from (if its legitimate). If the NACC believe that he has received money fraudulently and both the ex treasurer and his wife cannot account for such huge sums of money then it should be taken.

After all, how would a person manage to save 1.5 million USD in their savings account without having the means to do so? If in any other country you would for sure be investigated,, but then in most Western countries the banks are all over money laundering,, so maybe a new banking code is needed as well.

Now they should start checking all of the assets belonging to the highest ranking police officers down and check those against legitimate income. I bet the NACC would have their hands full and be busy for a long time but this is what is needed. A big clamp down, thorough investigations, heads rolling, custodial sentences and all of the big corrupt boys sitting on the edge of their seat hoping it will bypass them.

China is doing this, it is trying to purge all of the corruption and people are running for the hills.... Thailand will need to follow...

The big boys will eventually face the music, I believe the clock is ticking, I really do..

[chainarong]

Both finance and treasury Departments were held in high regard back in the naughty nineties and up to 2003, since then it would seem that the high standards have slightly slipped, disappointing this, as they did have a great reputation internationally.

[Orac]

Both finance and treasury Departments were held in high regard back in the naughty nineties and up to 2003, since then it would seem that the high standards have slightly slipped, disappointing this, as they did have a great reputation internationally.

The dodgy deal that he is being done for happenned back in 1996.

[speedtripler]

Both finance and treasury Departments were held in high regard back in the naughty nineties and up to 2003, since then it would seem that the high standards have slightly slipped, disappointing this, as they did have a great reputation internationally.

The dodgy deal that he is being done for happenned back in 1996.

But the time they can seize anything, another 5 years will have passed, he can I would imagine appeal once normally and again at supreme Court level... If his friends get back into govt it will be swept under the rug... Why is he wearing lipstick anyway?....

[Thai at Heart]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

All Thai companies are allowed a percentage of unaccounted revenue for "entertainment" and "fees"...

[Thai at Heart]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

Or perhaps the Inspector Clouseau defence will be wheeled-out ?

They could follow this same accusation against thousands of civil servants. What did this guy do to annoy someone?

[Baerboxer]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

I don't know if these funds were obtained illegally or not. Quite possibly so. But there is a burden of proof that needs to be met instead of simply taking stuff. I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into Prayuth's brother who is ludicrously wealthy for a military man. When people questioned this they enraged the PM but no further inquiry was made.

I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into the Shins, any of them, or any of their gang such as Chalerm, Tharit or the red shirt's self appointed leaders either.

All the "players" seem to be immune from such inconvenient investigations, whatever side.

[Orac]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

I don't know if these funds were obtained illegally or not. Quite possibly so. But there is a burden of proof that needs to be met instead of simply taking stuff. I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into Prayuth's brother who is ludicrously wealthy for a military man. When people questioned this they enraged the PM but no further inquiry was made.

I doubt we'll see that sort of inquisition into the Shins, any of them, or any of their gang such as Chalerm, Tharit or the red shirt's self appointed leaders either.

All the "players" seem to be immune from such inconvenient investigations, whatever side.

You seem to have a short memory.

They actually set up a committee to look specifically into Thaksin after the 2006 coup, the Asset Examination Committee, their biggest problem was finding something they could tie Thaksin into that didn't implicate someone else.

Thaksin was a crook but, because he played within the system that was already in place, they ended up using the slightly dubious land deal his wife was involved in to neutralise him.

Nothing would please me more than seeing Thaksin and his ilk permanently removed from the picture in Thailand but the problem is that, by doing so, there would be nobody left.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Orac

[Ricardo]

It's all well and good to freeze /seize someone's assets, but it should be done with more than "suspicion" alone and with at the least circumstantial evidence.

Follow the money, ie if a company gave this bloke a 30 million baht kickback, then surly that money can be traced from the withdrawal of funds from the company's accounts,(if there is no slush fund) and the time of deposit into the suspects account and his wife, seems like a full audit on everyones accounts are what's needed.

but since there seems to be no evidence regarding very large sums of money it dose lend itself towards suspicion. I mean dam man you even get a receipt at 7/11 for buying a beer.

I hear what you're saying, about needing more than just a suspicion, but B49-million in one's savings account and a refusal to provide any evidence for the sale of amulets or land is quite odd.

Perhaps he/she will now have the incentive to find the back-up documentation or witnesses willing to confirm the transactions in court ? Pity he didn't do so before it reached this point.

Or perhaps the Inspector Clouseau defence will be wheeled-out ?

They could follow this same accusation against thousands of civil servants. What did this guy do to annoy someone?

I've no idea, but I really would welcome it, if similar accusations and cases were filed against all the suspiciously-amply-rich politicians and functionaries, even with the slow pace of court-justice here.

And no broad-ranging amnesties meanwhile, to cover their tracks, or absolve them for responsibility for their smutty actions ! Meanwhile the NACC should be properly-funded, not cut back, as some politicians connived at !

They all deserve the opportunity to explain the sources of their wealth, in court !

[duckmandon]

What about the current Treasury Head. He as stated in an article this week has more money than that. Where did it come from????