halloween Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 34 minutes ago, CGW said: We see this a lot in the mainstream media, USA national debt, money owed from "pledges etc, who exactly is this money owed to- anybody? If its the "banks" they seem to be doing rather well out of it The bank in this case is BAAC, a state owned bank which issued Finance backed bonds for B400 billion and directly paid out B110 billion on government instruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 1 hour ago, halloween said: The bank in this case is BAAC, a state owned bank which issued Finance backed bonds for B400 billion and directly paid out B110 billion on government instruction. So the "state" owes the "state" why don't they just write it off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFishman1 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 The whole thing is just to unbelievable for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 19/09/2016 at 7:12 PM, CGW said: So the "state" owes the "state" why don't they just write it off? The "state" is not holding B400 billion in bonds, and the BAAC requires its operating capital to fulfill its purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George FmplesdaCosteedback Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/19/2016 at 11:04 AM, jonclark said: Gentlemen, can we focus on the article and not get sidelined into the rights / wrongs of Taksin and how that translates or is interpreted as justification for action against his sister. The issue with this order is not whom it is directed at, but the nature of the order. That the government has granted itself the power judge, jury and executioner, against its enemies. (I use the term enemies as I assume the previous government wasn't removed because they were viewed positively). By sidelining the entire legal system the government clearly has shown that this is a political witch hunt. And lets not forget the government has granted itself immunity from future prosecution as a handy little caveat. If you agree with the actions then consider if you would feel as agreeable if a future government aligned to the shinawatras old power cliche were to grant itself similar powers? In a nutshell this discussion should be able whether governments should be allowed to steamroller the legal framework of a country for their own political goals, or should the legal system (for all it misgivings and wrongs) be the framework by which all citizens are tried under? And is enshrined in all previous Thai Constitutions. You decide. The trouble with leaving it to the Thai legal system is simple: It doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George FmplesdaCosteedback Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/19/2016 at 4:12 PM, CGW said: So the "state" owes the "state" why don't they just write it off? Yeah easy, just print some more baht. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said: Yeah easy, just print some more baht. Ah! Understand now it's the same as the western "banking" system................... Yep she should pay, sure the money will end up in the right place........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbthailand Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) On September 19, 2016 at 6:04 AM, jonclark said: Gentlemen, can we focus on the article and not get sidelined into the rights / wrongs of Taksin and how that translates or is interpreted as justification for action against his sister. The issue with this order is not whom it is directed at, but the nature of the order. That the government has granted itself the power judge, jury and executioner, against its enemies. (I use the term enemies as I assume the previous government wasn't removed because they were viewed positively). By sidelining the entire legal system the government clearly has shown that this is a political witch hunt. And lets not forget the government has granted itself immunity from future prosecution as a handy little caveat. If you agree with the actions then consider if you would feel as agreeable if a future government aligned to the shinawatras old power cliche were to grant itself similar powers? In a nutshell this discussion should be able whether governments should be allowed to steamroller the legal framework of a country for their own political goals, or should the legal system (for all it misgivings and wrongs) be the framework by which all citizens are tried under? And is enshrined in all previous Thai Constitutions. You decide. exactly. Love em or hate em, this is an abuse of the system... such as that system is... BTW, there is a precedent for your argument, .... The last junta passed the computer crimes act in 2007. That allows trumped up charges and years in jail to be used against almost anyone. And as far as I recall, both the Dem and PTP governments threatened to use or did use it in a politically motivated way... Edited September 20, 2016 by tbthailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George FmplesdaCosteedback Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 1 minute ago, tbthailand said: exactly. Love em or hate em, this is an abuse of the system... such as that system is... That's the point, the system DOESN'T work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucec64 Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/19/2016 at 2:00 PM, Baerboxer said: So no governments around the world seize assets as a preventative measure to stop people hiding them whilst investigations, court cases, and deliberations are ongoing. Some mask this through various judicial systems. Here, the court processes are so low that lawyers can play smoke and mirrors and delay, delay, delay and then say oh dear statute of limitations have expired. More witch hunt crap. Poor sweet little YL. Blx - she was part of a massive scam that has defrauded the country of billions seemingly as she either can't or is unwilling to proved accounts and explain where the money all went. An appalling example of willful negligence. At be sensible, what do you think was in a lot of the huge amount of cases she and her relations took on travels to Europe? What is annoying is the whilst we mere mortals have to suffer the near Gestapo tactics the banks now apply on sources of wealth, control of fund movements and cash transactions, scum like this still apparently can launder at will. The rules just don't apply to billionaires. You miss a very important distinction that invalidates your argument. Many governments freeze assets prior to the due process. The seize part happens after a conviction. The seize before any conviction is what makes this so wrong, and a corruption of the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiChai Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Dont most countries freeze assets and then grab them once proven guilty? Also I thought the PM was saying the other week that rule of law should be followed? He does say alot of things, especially with his Friday night TV broadcast so maybe he forgets all the things he has said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George FmplesdaCosteedback Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Maybe we are losing something in translation, are assets being frozen or seized? Are we all sure what has happened or will/might happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilsonandson Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 The Shinawatra clan, regime, a bit like the Clinton's and Bush clan and regime. Seize power, seize assets, reform, end of corruption. Now you know why people say don't talk politics, religion or work whilst socializing outside. Fairy tales are best kept for telling you children at bedtime.What was once yours is now mine. "It's mine!" Asset seizure case. Big baby not brother is watching you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 21 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said: Maybe we are losing something in translation, are assets being frozen or seized? Are we all sure what has happened or will/might happen? They are seized. By an administrative decision which is completely independent from the current court case in which she testify regularly. It means whatever the future court decision on the judicial case, it's seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwpage3 Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Who in the world ever said Thailand is fair? It is only fair if you are making the rules and lining your own pockets. However, once you get caught it is no longer fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George FmplesdaCosteedback Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 22 hours ago, candide said: They are seized. By an administrative decision which is completely independent from the current court case in which she testify regularly. It means whatever the future court decision on the judicial case, it's seized. Okay, but in the somewhat unlikely event she is found not guilty on all charges and is let off all responsibility for the "lost" money, it will be released back into her account, will it not. The fact that she will have millions hidden overseas by now doesn't matter of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tukkytuktuk Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Yingluck's assets frozen, I volunteer to warm them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 1 hour ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said: Okay, but in the somewhat unlikely event she is found not guilty on all charges and is let off all responsibility for the "lost" money, it will be released back into her account, will it not. The fact that she will have millions hidden overseas by now doesn't matter of course. No, the two procedures are distinct. The assets are seized because the ministry of commerce has fined her for the estimated damage. This is to pay the fine that has been already decided. Nothing to do with a possible conviction by a court later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xircal Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 On 9/19/2016 at 6:04 AM, jonclark said: Gentlemen, can we focus on the article and not get sidelined into the rights / wrongs of Taksin and how that translates or is interpreted as justification for action against his sister. The issue with this order is not whom it is directed at, but the nature of the order. That the government has granted itself the power judge, jury and executioner, against its enemies. (I use the term enemies as I assume the previous government wasn't removed because they were viewed positively). By sidelining the entire legal system the government clearly has shown that this is a political witch hunt. And lets not forget the government has granted itself immunity from future prosecution as a handy little caveat. If you agree with the actions then consider if you would feel as agreeable if a future government aligned to the shinawatras old power cliche were to grant itself similar powers? In a nutshell this discussion should be able whether governments should be allowed to steamroller the legal framework of a country for their own political goals, or should the legal system (for all it misgivings and wrongs) be the framework by which all citizens are tried under? And is enshrined in all previous Thai Constitutions. You decide. The problem is a new constitution was presented to the people and they voted for it without understanding what it contained. I say without understanding because the opposition was forbidden to campaign against it. The uneducated masses aren't really to blame since their lack of education works against their interests when faced with events over which they have little or no control. They play the 'follow the leader' role with the military presenting itself as the good guys who were going to tackle corruption and make Thailand a country to be proud of again. So it seemed to them that they were betting on the favourite even though it was always going to be a one horse race. Nothing changes in Thailand. Too many people are willing to accept corruption as long as they benefit from it. It's always been that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George FmplesdaCosteedback Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 (edited) On 9/21/2016 at 11:20 PM, candide said: No, the two procedures are distinct. The assets are seized because the ministry of commerce has fined her for the estimated damage. This is to pay the fine that has been already decided. Nothing to do with a possible conviction by a court later. So what they have seized remains in the hands of the ministry of commerce as compensation "fine" for damages, which does not require a court to determine, is that right? And then when (or if?) she is found guilty on the other charges there will be lots more fines and possible jail time. Oh I do hope so Edited September 23, 2016 by George FmplesdaCosteedback change detail 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