Yingluck’s assets frozen

[webfact]

Yingluck’s assets frozen

By THE NATION

 

Yingluck Shinawatra

 

Deputy pm Wissanu clarifies that land plots, condos, houses and bank deposits of ex-premier have been temporarily blocked

BANGKOK: -- HOUSES, CONDOMINIUMS and 37 land plots belonging to former premier Yingluck Shinawatra have been frozen by the Department of Legal Execution as part of the government’s civil liability lawsuit seeking Bt35-billion compensation over her alleged wrongdoing in her government’s rice-pledging scheme. The combined value of the properties has not been disclosed, according to Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam.

 

However, Yingluck reported in 2015 after leaving public office that she had total assets worth Bt610.8 million. In the report filed with the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Yingluck’s assets included Bt14.2 million in cash, Bt24.9 million in bank deposits, Bt115.5 million in investments, Bt108 million in loans, Bt117 million in land plots, and Bt162 million in other properties.

 

The Legal Execution Department had told Yingluck’s banks to transfer deposits from her seven accounts to the agency on July 19, Yingluck’s lawyer Noppadon Laothong said yesterday. He said he was not aware of the exact amount of the deposits.

 

Yingluck has been notified by Bangkok Bank of the action, but she has not been informed by her other banks, the lawyer said.

 

Meanwhile, the Administrative Court has ordered the Legal Execution Department and the Finance Ministry to explain to the court within 15 days why they need to seize money from her bank accounts, the court’s deputy spokesman, Terdpong Kongchan, said yesterday.

 

Yingluck has petitioned the court, seeking an injunction after learning that authorities had started seizing her assets.

 

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha urged the public to avoid misunderstandings over the separate criminal and civil liability actions being taken against the ex-premier, since it could be abused to create public unrest.

 

Yingluck wrote on her Facebook page that some money in her bank accounts had already been seized by authorities as part of the civil-liability lawsuit filed against her over alleged wrongdoings.

 

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders will deliver a verdict on August 25 on Yingluck’s alleged negligence of official duty while implementing the rice-pledging scheme that resulted in corruption and a huge loss to the state.

 

Prayut explained that these are two separate actions against the former premier. The Finance Ministry’s civil liability lawsuit, which has led to authorities freezing Yingluck’s assets, including her bank accounts, is pending a final court decision on compensation claims totalling Bt35 billion to the state.

 

The other action is the criminal lawsuit, on which the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on August 25. 

 

Regarding Yingluck’s assets, deputy premier Wissanu said the Department of Legal Execution had requested that the Department of Land freeze the former premier’s land plots and other properties so the ownership could not be transferred at this stage.

 

However, these properties have not yet been seized by the state and would be seized only after a final verdict in the civil liability case that demands a compensation from Yingluck to cover losses suffered by the state due to alleged corruption and negligence of official duty in the management of the rice pledging scheme.

 

Earlier, Yingluck’s 16 bank accounts were also frozen by the Department of Legal Execution, with some deposits in five bank accounts already withdrawn by the agency. 

 

Wissanu said the agency is empowered to do so, but the case is not final so the funds, amounting to several hundreds of thousands of baht, have not been transferred to the Finance Ministry.

 

Asked if Yingluck would get the funds back if the Supreme Court ruled her not guilty on August 25, Wissanu explained that verdict was separate from the civil liability action being taken by the government.

 

Yingluck has petitioned the Administrative Court to issue an injunction on the civil liability case so that seizure of her assets could be put on hold, pending a final judgement.

 

Wissanu said the government would suspend freezing of Yingluck’s assets until the court delivers its verdict on the criminal case late next month.

 

In a related development, National Anti-Corruption Commission secretary-general Sansern Poljeak said yesterday that a separate case against former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, stemming from his government’s rice price-guarantee project, was being investigated by an NACC subcommittee.

 

Sansern said he did not know exactly what progress has been made in the investigation on alleged irregularities involving the project.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30322023

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-28

[Moonmoon]

I see many businesses folding up and many not doing well as before.

 

WHose Assets will be frozen and seized for the damages done to the country currently?

[webfact]

Govt tried to seize Yingluck’s funds on July 19: lawyer

By The Nation

 

Noppadol

 

BANGKOK: -- The Legal Execution Department on July 19 ordered former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s bank to transfer the funds from her seven deposit accounts to the agency, Yingluck’s attorney Noppadon Laothong said on Thursday.

 

He added that he did not know the exact amount of money.

 

Yingluck had been notified of the order by Bangkok Bank, where she has seven accounts, but not by her other banks, he said.

 

The Administrative Court has ordered the Legal Execution Department and the Finance Ministry to explain to the court within 15 days why they needed to seize her bank accounts, the court’s deputy spokesman Terdpong Kongchan said yesterday.

 

Yingluck has petitioned the court for an injunction after learning that authorities began sequestering her assets.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30322012

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-28

[amdy2206]

I really don't expect anyone was expecting a fair trial. 

[steven100]

3 minutes ago, amdy2206 said:

I really don't expect anyone was expecting a fair trial. 

did the rice farmers get a fair deal ?  did the thai people get a fair go with billions being reaped from alleged dubious rice schemes ?

[steven100]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Earlier, Yingluck’s 16 bank accounts were also frozen by the Department of Legal Execution, with some deposits in five bank accounts already withdrawn by the agency. 

16 bank accounts .....   boy  '  she was really doing it tough ..

[NCC1701A]

she can live with me.

[eggers]

Play the game....pay the price... The "Puppeteer of Dubai" will  take care of her, sure she won't be begging on the streets. Though the pic in article, will pull at supporters "heart strings & purses"!!!

[mikebell]

5 minutes ago, NCC1701A said:

she can live with me.

Sharing a cell?

[NCC1701A]

5 minutes ago, mikebell said:

Sharing a cell?

There will be guard and prisoner cosplay, if that is what you mean.

 

 I figure she still has a box of cash somewhere in Thailand and we can party until the appeal ends in 2021.

[robblok]

Just frozen, the same is done all over the world to make sure that people can't hide their money before the court case is done. Her money is not taken from her.. just frozen lot of inaccurate reporting yesterday. Done all over the world.. nothing new nothing sinister. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing

[LazySlipper]

41 minutes ago, NCC1701A said:

she can live with me.

 

So in the land of plenty you would choose an old hag?

[YetAnother]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

However, these properties have not yet been seized by the state and would be seized only after a final verdict in the civil liability case that demands a compensation from Yingluck to cover losses suffered by the state due to alleged corruption and negligence of official duty in the management of the rice pledging scheme.

doubtless, her army of lawyers will find a way to transform those assets to circumvent the seizure before sentencing date

[baboon]

41 minutes ago, robblok said:

Just frozen, the same is done all over the world to make sure that people can't hide their money before the court case is done. Her money is not taken from her.. just frozen lot of inaccurate reporting yesterday. Done all over the world.. nothing new nothing sinister. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing

However freezing assets because of a 'law' tailor made to target you personally doesn't go on all over the world.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

However freezing assets because of a 'law' tailor made to target you personally doesn't go on all over the world.

True, but that is not the case here.. we got someone causing huge losses to the country while chairing a rice program.. but she never attended any meetings, nor did she react to warnings from international and national organisations. She also did not take the loss up in the central budget (huge accounting failure) as it was touted as cost neutral. Then she stepped down without taking steps to ensure the farmers would get paid, and the caretaker government was not allowed to do so, resulting in suicides of farmers.  I fail to see how this is anything else then gross negligence.. and guess what she is charged for. I also see that more and more cases are filed against YL, the chickens come home to roost. Maybe the next PM will listen less to big brother and follow the laws better. 

[baboon]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

True, but that is not the case here.. 

Yes it is. Article 44. 'Whatever I say is the law' is what she is 'charged' under. End of story.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

Yes it is. Article 44. 'Whatever I say is the law' is what she is 'charged' under. End of story.

You should read what she is charged with.. its negligence causing losses, end of story.

 

Do link where she is charged with article 44

Edited July 28, 2017 by robblok

[AGareth2]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Just frozen, the same is done all over the world to make sure that people can't hide their money before the court case is done. Her money is not taken from her.. just frozen lot of inaccurate reporting yesterday. Done all over the world.. nothing new nothing sinister. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing

Sorry but you are not up with the news

a certain bank cleared her frozen assets

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

Sorry but you are not up with the news

a certain bank cleared her frozen assets

Do explain, if I am not up to this news let me know what it is. 

[smutcakes]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Do explain, if I am not up to this news let me know what it is. 

So why just now, why not 3 years ago?

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

So why just now, why not 3 years ago?

?

What are you talking about ?.. he is talking about a bank that cleared her assets.. that is something I did not read about, I am curious and want to know where he got that piece of information, its not in the OP. I did not read it in the Bangkokpost. 

[tomacht8]

 

In the report filed with the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Yingluck’s assets included Bt14.2 million in cash, Bt24.9 million in bank deposits, Bt115.5 million in investments, Bt108 million in loans, Bt117 million in land plots, and Bt162 million in other properties.

 

I think she has traded the bulk of her fortune in handbags and shoes.

[smutcakes]

Just now, robblok said:

?

What are you talking about ?.. he is talking about a bank that cleared her assets.. that is something I did not read about, I am curious and want to know where he got that piece of information, its not in the OP. I did not read it in the Bangkokpost. 

 

Perhaps i quoted the wrong point. My question was why freeze her assets now, a week away from decision time, rather than 3 years ago when proceedings commenced if they were concerned with her moving money etc.

 

I cant help but feel there are feverish negotiations going on behind the scenes as to how they can all walk away unscathed without losing face, but also counting it as a victory. I am not sure really what finding her guilty would really do. They don't care about the money, or the negligence, so i suppose they are frantically trying to negotiate the Shinawatras away from politics for good. Not that that in isolation would be a bad thing.

[baboon]

58 minutes ago, robblok said:

You should read what she is charged with.. its negligence causing losses, end of story.

 

Do link where she is charged with article 44

She is being 'charged' under article 44, not with, but then you knew that and are just being a smartass. 

[robblok]

44 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

Perhaps i quoted the wrong point. My question was why freeze her assets now, a week away from decision time, rather than 3 years ago when proceedings commenced if they were concerned with her moving money etc.

 

I cant help but feel there are feverish negotiations going on behind the scenes as to how they can all walk away unscathed without losing face, but also counting it as a victory. I am not sure really what finding her guilty would really do. They don't care about the money, or the negligence, so i suppose they are frantically trying to negotiate the Shinawatras away from politics for good. Not that that in isolation would be a bad thing.

The freeze does not even amount to the damages, and your right it should have been done long before. Its a point less exercise. 

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, baboon said:

She is being 'charged' under article 44, not with, but then you knew that and are just being a smartass. 

No I did not know as far as I am concerned she is charged with negligence.. I have yet to see how that relates to article 44. That is why I asked you. 

[david555]

Ohoo......trouble's in Thailand ahead.....

[baboon]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

No I did not know as far as I am concerned she is charged with negligence.. I have yet to see how that relates to article 44. That is why I asked you. 

She. Is. Being. 'Charged'. With. Negligence. And. Her. Assets. Frozen. Under. Article. 44.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

She. Is. Being. 'Charged'. With. Negligence. And. Her. Assets. Frozen. Under. Article. 44.

So your saying that her assets are frozen under article 44 ? Does that really matter as its normal to freeze assets in cases like this all over the world. Does not really matter what law you use for it. I am quite sure that her assets would be frozen in other countries to given the claim that is asked of her. Also her assets don't even cover the claim.

 

And thanks, I really did not know that article 44 was used for the freeze. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by robblok

[idman]

Who in their right mind would ever think that Yingluck and her misadventures would be so much on the minds of Farangs living here?. Just what does she have to do with the daily way we live our lives here in Thailand?? Our just perhaps it's commenting for the sake of commening?

Sent from my SM-T805 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app