webfact Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 EDITORIALFinancial crimes are a national scourgeThe Nation "Social justice" starts with ending undeserved immunityBANGKOK: -- Thailand is unfamiliar with crackdowns on insider trading. In fact, financial crimes are not commonly heard of here, and major cases dating back two decades can be counted on one hand. This has arguably made perpetrators love this country, so an ongoing investigation into a high-profile case a good sign, something that should be welcomed.As with all criminal cases, all the suspects presently in the headlines must be deemed innocent until proved guilty by a court. But this doesn't mean the current case, which involves one of the country's largest companies, must fade with time, allowing political or financial influences to assert their power. Instead, the hand of the law must deal with this case swiftly to provide justice to all, whether the victims are business executives or small-time shareholders.Thailand has learned the hard way how alleged insider trading can wreak havoc beyond the business realm. In the early 2000s, one Thaksin Shinawatra narrowly escaped a guilty verdict although it had been established that a massive number of shares of his Shin Corp empire were given to a number of servants. It was claimed that their murky stock ownership was part of a share manipulation scheme. While such a charge has never been settled in court, everybody knows the consequences of letting an alleged business crime of that magnitude hang in the air. The pro-Thaksin camp decried it as a "conspiracy" and its opponents labelled it "exploitation" on a grand scale. The rest is history.The use of "business nominees" is common in Thailand. The phenomenon is caused by many things, but it certainly has something to do with insider trading. The laws restrict or scrutinise vast movements of shares related to company owners, so the unscrupulous ones have found it convenient to have people who they trust act on their behalf. However, insider trading can also happen in other forms, even seemingly legitimate ones.Insider trading can make share prices plummet or skyrocket to the benefit or the future benefit of those who commit the crime. When stock prices go down because of insider trading, it's extremely unfair to small-time investors. When the prices go up, it's also an injustice, as those involved in insider trading are the first to reap undue profits. Small-time investors might stand to profit if share prices go up, but that doesn't make insider trading less of a crime as someone somewhere will always end up as a victim.It's obvious why insider trading is a rich man's crime. Small-time investors certainly have no access to crucial information such as whether or when a business will shut down or undergo a massive re-capitalisation. Insider trading normally involves that sort of information. This somewhat explains why we have seen so few insider trading legal cases, let alone successful crackdowns. In a country where money can buy people out of legal trouble, those who commit insider trading can be forgiven for thinking they are immune from prosecution.The authorities must see to it that this current case goes all the way, in a swift and transparent manner. A fair handling of the case would do a lot for Thailand's image, politically and economically. But more importantly, how the case ends will set the standard for all.Embattled Thailand requires a true statement that it has legal fairness for all, no matter how much money is involved. Without such a statement, all the problems related to "injustice" are not likely to go away.Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Financial-crimes-are-a-national-scourge-30274853.html-- The Nation 2015-12-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetime Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Since, '"injustices" are not likely to go away', I exercise my right to stay away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaidam Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Insider trading should not be illegal, so long as there is transparency as to which insider bought/sold stock. Indeed many investors follow the boards personal trading, when a director buys his own companies stock it should give confidence to potential investors and vice-versa. Back in the good old days in the UK insider trading was legal and normal, before leftist <deleted> in the 70s outlawed it. Now it goes on through nominees and gives the small investor no signs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldroj Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Swift justice? Without resorting to the ubiquitous Section 44, it ain't going to happen! Legal fairness for all? Not even Section 44 will create that miracle. Financial crime is much more than a national scourge, it's the national sport. Maybe The Nation should really be arguing that the first institution in need of investigation and reform is the SET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LomSak27 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Bogus article, their are tons of financial crimes here and they select "insider trading" and then as their only example link to shin corp. If people remember that brouhaha it was nothing as far as Thai financial scandals go BUT It's the only one that can "safely" be brought up. If another real case was put up likely they would get their hineys sued for defamation by the rich and well connected people who pulled off the scam. That in a nutshell is why financial crimes will never be prosecuted as they should be here in the Magic Kingdom. This Opinion Editorial piece is the proverbial urinating in the wind by the Nations Team of Urinating Experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lujanit Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Money is everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noikrit Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Financial crimes a "National Scourge" ??? I thought it was a National pastime .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTIRIOS Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 ......all's fair....in a free-for-all hell........ ...remember...80-90% of teachers and students said 'it's okay to cheat'.... ....these people 'grow up.....and.....'they must have learned that 'mentality' from someone.... ...being closed off or isolated you lose perspective.... ...60 million...compared to 7-8 billion..... ....just with the English language alone....such a big issue....bad bad foreign teacher wants to teach you English..... ...duhh...60 million versus....1.....or 60 million versus approximately 1.5 billion....*** ***(One out of every five people on earth can speak English to some level of competence.) .......a self-contained....self-validating mad house..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srikcir Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Insider trading should not be illegal, so long as there is transparency as to which insider bought/sold stock. Indeed many investors follow the boards personal trading, when a director buys his own companies stock it should give confidence to potential investors and vice-versa. Back in the good old days in the UK insider trading was legal and normal, before leftist <deleted> in the 70s outlawed it. Now it goes on through nominees and gives the small investor no signs The legality of insider trading is not as simple as this article suggests. It can be legal. In some countries like the USA trading of one's own company stock conducted by corporate officers, key employees, directors, or significant shareholders must only be reported to the regulator or publicly disclosed. Only if undisclosed and proprietary information is used on such trading does its legality become questionable. Employees of a publicly held company may trade their company stock based on personal perceptions and intuition without committing illegal insider trading nor required to report to regulators their trades. Small investors everywhere have the same disadvantage - they are minority shareholders whose investment goals may not be the same as the majority shareholders in a company. While the majority shareholder(s) have a fiduciary responsibility to the minority shareholders to clearly report company operations and financial health, they do not need their permission or concensus to direct the course of the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sendintheclowns Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Surely this editorial comes about in light of the CP Group insider trading scandal. ? And follows the remarks of one of the Executives, who said something like ' I increased shareholder value of this company, so I am entitled to break the Code of Conduct set out for Executives of Thai-listed public companies'. As for what is illegal in most of the major Security Exchanges; a Director or Officer (CEO, etc) cannot trade on significant information which is available to him due to his position and which is not available to the investment houses and the investing public. This 'gent' went on to say that the information was public; contradicting what he had told the Nation & BP, on the same day he made his insider trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brer Fox Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Just spotted this story in a local newspaper. Nothing surprising but worth a read http://www.theage.com.au/world/thai-general-paween-pongsirin-influential-people-help-thai-human-trafficking-20151214-glmv3u.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prbkk Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Insider trading should not be illegal, so long as there is transparency as to which insider bought/sold stock. Indeed many investors follow the boards personal trading, when a director buys his own companies stock it should give confidence to potential investors and vice-versa. Back in the good old days in the UK insider trading was legal and normal, before leftist <deleted> in the 70s outlawed it. Now it goes on through nominees and gives the small investor no signs You characterize insider trading as some harmless activity in which there are only winners. The reality is very different : some people seek to take adanatage of information that is not known in the market, perhaps a takeover, higher or lower than anticipated profit forecasts...anything that could have an effect on the share price. It is criminal and should remain so. The case last week was outrageous and 32,000,000 was getting off lightly. It wasn't leftists who queered the pitch for the good old boys in the 70s....the inside traders were the victims of their own unbridled greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageurreotype Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Financial crimes are a national scourge passtime There. Fixed that for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupatria Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) I think the words "financial crimes" are a little too harsh for the term Thais always use to describe the thing farrangs cannot understand- what was it? Oh I forgot again... Edited December 14, 2015 by Lupatria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Funny, The Nation editorial never even mentioned CP by name. Wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Insider trading should not be illegal, so long as there is transparency as to which insider bought/sold stock. Indeed many investors follow the boards personal trading, when a director buys his own companies stock it should give confidence to potential investors and vice-versa. Back in the good old days in the UK insider trading was legal and normal, before leftist <deleted> in the 70s outlawed it. Now it goes on through nominees and gives the small investor no signs It's a market distortion, and should be outlawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now