Thai court seizes more than half of Thaksin's fortune

[Cerberus]

Thai court seizes more than half of Thaksin's fortune

 

BANGKOK, February 26, 2010 (AFP) - Thailand's highest court said Friday that it would confiscate more than half of Thaksin Shinawatra's 2.3-billion-dollar fortune after ruling that the fugitive former premier had abused his power.

 

After reading out a lengthy seven-hour verdict, the judges said the court would seize 46 billion baht (1.4 billion dollars) of the assets from the sale of his telecoms firm, which were frozen after the 2006 coup that toppled him.

 

Thousands of troops and police were deployed across the country for what the local media have dubbed "Judgement Day", amid fears that Thaksin's supporters would react violently to an unfavourable verdict.

 

"The majority of the judges rule that the wealth of Thaksin to be confiscated, from share dividends and part of the share sales... is altogether 46.37 billion baht," the judges said in their verdict.

 

Thaksin said in a video speech from exile in Dubai that the ruling was "very political" and a "joke for the world".

 

He is living abroad, mainly in Dubai, to avoid a two-year prison sentence for corruption which was imposed in absentia in 2008.

 

The government applied for the seizure of the proceeds from the sale of shares owned by Thaksin and his family to Singapore-based Temasek holdings in January 2006, a move that sparked mass protests and led to the putsch.

 

The judges said in the ruling read out on national television and radio that Thaksin had "used his power in favour of Shin Corp."

 

"The dividends and the sale of the shares in Shin Corp is wealth acquired through inappropriate means," they said.

 

The court ruled that Thaksin illegally hid his ownership of shares in Shin Corp during his two terms as prime minister, despite saying that they had transferred them to his children.

 

Thaksin had also issued a cabinet resolution in favour of the mobile telephone arm of his empire and his government set satellite policies that were "to benefit Shin Corp", they said.

 

His government additionally gave a loan to Myanmar in exchange for the neighbouring military-ruled state doing deals with his company, they said.

Around 450 police in riot gear guarded the court but there were only around a dozen protesters from his so-called "Red Shirt" movement outside, and fewer than 100 at another protest site in the capital.

 

The government says up to 35,000 police and soldiers are on alert. Security was also tight around Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's office and the government said it had prepared several safe houses for him.

 

Thaksin, the former owner of Manchester City football club, earlier denied the accusations against him and gave a speech to hundreds of Red Shirts at the headquarters of Thailand's main opposition party.

 

"I want to reaffirm that I and my family earned all of the money with our hard work, brains, and sweat. We have never been corrupt as accused," he said on Twitter early Friday.

 

Thailand's media has whipped up a frenzy ahead of the verdict, counting down to the day and reporting rumours of a possible coup against Vejjajiva.

The case goes to the heart of the rifts that have opened up in Thai society since the coup.

 

The Red Shirts, largely from his stronghold in Thailand's impoverished north and northeast, loved his populist policies and accuse the current government of being an unelected elite that has hijacked their democratic rights.

 

The tycoon's opponents in the Bangkok-based circles around the Palace, military and bureaucracy accuse Thaksin of being corrupt, dictatorial and of threatening Thailand's widely revered monarchy.

 

The main Red Shirt movement says it will hold off mass protests until mid-March. Red Shirt riots at an Asian summit and in Bangkok in April 2009 left two people dead and scores injured.

[monkeygib]

let's see how this plays out

But once again uncertainty hangs over a country that really cannot go on year after year like this...

[Darkside Bob]

This does assure that he personally can never return to public office. There was no way all his money would be taken away, it would not have been fair despite the fact his whole family is corrupt. The best option for Thailand for both red and yellow would be for mister Thaksin to have a serious illness and pass away very soon.He has fractured the country like never before. I have lived here 10-15 years and been coming since the mid 70’s. This is the worst it has ever been, and with another certain person not having long left things could get worse, but i hope not, as if you live in Thailand you know what Thaksin really wants to do and that option is frightening.

[monkeygib]

You reckon there can ever be a solutin???

The way I understand it (simplistic no doubt) is that the supporters of whoever is in power make money whereas the supporters of the opposition don't - there will always be 30 or 40 percent of Thais who will be pissed off enough to make trouble...

What to do!!!

[Darkside Bob]

You reckon there can ever be a solutin???

The way I understand it (simplistic no doubt) is that the supporters of whoever is in power make money whereas the supporters of the opposition don't - there will always be 30 or 40 percent of Thais who will be pissed off enough to make trouble...

What to do!!!

 

 

Basically yes. Thailand never has, nor will it ever be politically stable.

[Cerberus]

Whilst, not disagreeing with you to the point of contradiction

 

We should consider there is nothing democratic about a coup d'etat, or a PM who wasn't freely elected.

 

Then, Thaksin is not receiving the remaining funds they are to remain frozen subject to claims by the Inland Revenue and interest charges being applied. The way it stands I doubt that he will get any of it back. He was however already wealthy when he entered politics.

 

The court went to great lengths to explain why it was authorising the seizure of this enormous amount of personal money from him and his family. They failed however to make a single reference as to how this "wind-fall" to the country's budget should accounted for or spent, nor alternatively make demand that there must be clarity in its expenditure.

 

This is not about seizing money for the good of the country, lets see where it goes and with how much evidence to support any claims of its correct and regular expenditure.

 

The court found that it was not just him but all the Government officers at that time that practised such corruption , why have their assets not also been seized?

 

In fairness, has corruption within Thailand decreased or increased since his illegal removal? My opinion on that, is based on direct observation and is not favourable to those holding power at this time.

 

Is this not possibly a case of the corrupt condemning the corrupt?

[monkeygib]

you make good sense sir

I hope for the best for this beautiful country

[Darkside Bob]

Whilst, not disagreeing with you to the point of contradiction

 

We should consider there is nothing democratic about a coup d'etat, or a PM who wasn't freely elected.

 

Then, Thaksin is not receiving the remaining funds they are to remain frozen subject to claims by the Inland Revenue and interest charges being applied. The way it stands I doubt that he will get any of it back. He was however already wealthy when he entered politics.

 

The court went to great lengths to explain why it was authorising the seizure of this enormous amount of personal money from him and his family. They failed however to make a single reference as to how this "wind-fall" to the country's budget should accounted for or spent, nor alternatively make demand that there must be clarity in its expenditure.

 

This is not about seizing money for the good of the country, lets see where it goes and with how much evidence to support any claims of its correct and regular expenditure.

 

The court found that it was not just him but all the Government officers at that time that practised such corruption , why have their assets not also been seized?

 

In fairness, has corruption within Thailand decreased or increased since his illegal removal? My opinion on that, is based on direct observation and is not favourable to those holding power at this time.

 

Is this not possibly a case of the corrupt condemning the corrupt?

 

I agree with you whole heartedly. This is the tip of the iceberg. Now they have delt with Thaksin hopefully they will move down the ladder and go after his friends. Nothing is clear cut in Thai politics. Yet it has never really effected my life in any way or form here. I just love the Thai people so much that i want a way out of this mess. If you know Thailand well, and you obviously do, Thaksin has fractured it like never before. I like the guy in power now, he has installed a certain degree of stability for the moment. Now we will see what he is really made of. I am English. I have not lived in England for 30 years. Am i correct in saying that the United Kingdom also has an unelcted Prime Minister?

[hammerman]

I agree with you whole heartedly. This is the tip of the iceberg. Now they have delt with Thaksin hopefully they will move down the ladder and go after his friends. Nothing is clear cut in Thai politics. Yet it has never really effected my life in any way or form here. I just love the Thai people so much that i want a way out of this mess. If you know Thailand well, and you obviously do, Thaksin has fractured it like never before. I like the guy in power now, he has installed a certain degree of stability for the moment. Now we will see what he is really made of. I am English. I have not lived in England for 30 years. Am i correct in saying that the United Kingdom also has an unelcted Prime Minister?

 

I know nothing of Thai politics,

 

But the UK does not elect a Prime Minister,

 

he/she is an elected member of parliament who is the leader of the party that has the majority in Parliament at that time.

[tl6237]

In the UK you vote for a party and that party's beliefs

 

not the beliefs of a single individual

[hammerman]

In the UK you vote for a party and that party's beliefs

 

not the beliefs of a single individual

 

Correct.

 

Though it may not seem that way at times.

[stevxpl]

Whilst, not disagreeing with you to the point of contradiction

 

We should consider there is nothing democratic about a coup d'etat, or a PM who wasn't freely elected.

 

Then, Thaksin is not receiving the remaining funds they are to remain frozen subject to claims by the Inland Revenue and interest charges being applied. The way it stands I doubt that he will get any of it back. He was however already wealthy when he entered politics.

 

The court went to great lengths to explain why it was authorising the seizure of this enormous amount of personal money from him and his family. They failed however to make a single reference as to how this "wind-fall" to the country's budget should accounted for or spent, nor alternatively make demand that there must be clarity in its expenditure.

 

This is not about seizing money for the good of the country, lets see where it goes and with how much evidence to support any claims of its correct and regular expenditure.

 

The court found that it was not just him but all the Government officers at that time that practised such corruption , why have their assets not also been seized?

 

In fairness, has corruption within Thailand decreased or increased since his illegal removal? My opinion on that, is based on direct observation and is not favourable to those holding power at this time.

 

Is this not possibly a case of the corrupt condemning the corrupt?

 

We provide English training for all our Thai staff during slow periods and refund any English training for staff that do it in their own time. There is also pay incentives for those that can communicate clearly in English along with opportunities for international work.

 

On the note of Thaksin being removed illegally – was he elected legally? When you look at all the vote buying his party did one would have to say no. I remember being up the sticks during the last election his party won and seeing everybody being paid 200 baht to vote for Thai Rak Thai. That is the only reason that Thai Rak Thai got in, through vote buying which is illegal and stupid hand outs throughout the year. Look at the 1 million baht payment each village got for self investment – all of it went to by TVs or fridges and was only a legalised way of vote buying

 

As I see it democracy won’t exist in Thailand until all those that vote understand what voting is, what is stands for and then vote beyond a cash payout on the day. But keeping the poor stupid pays for all government parties so I don’t see a change coming for a long time to come.

 

The funny thing with the vote buying on the last election Thai Rak Thai won was not the next day the government increased the price of diesel – mentioning that they had the 200 baht that Thai Rak Thai had just given them made more than a few people in the village drop their heads.

[Darkside Bob]

[/color]

 

I know nothing of Thai politics,

 

But the UK does not elect a Prime Minister,

 

he/she is an elected member of parliament who is the leader of the party that has the majority in Parliament at that time.

 

 

That is true by the letter of the law. I think if it was Gordon Brown that was head of the labour party at the time of the previous election they would not have won them. It’s a whole other debate and i have had it on many a bar stool and normally the conclusion is the same. The UK does not have an elected head of state, his friend gave him the job. When Blair stood down there should have been a general election because the person leading a party has a huge influence on the way people vote. In the USA people voted for Obama because they hated Bush. People that were hardcore republicans were fed up with Bush so crossed the party line and did something they thought they would never do and vote Democrat. I am sure most regret that now though as Obama is turning out to be a disaster.

[Temujin]

This brings to mind a quote...

"Any man who has political aspirations should automatically be disavowed of any opportunity to pursue them." - Mark Twain

 

From an outsiders perspective...

The current govt just seems pissy that they can't imprison him and took his money instead.

... and it's a great excuse to get their hands on a HUGE amount of Baht.

 

They tried to placate their followers by taking half of his money.

They are also tried to ease tensions with their opponents by only taking half his money.

 

A compromise is where every-one loses. Neither side is happy.

 

The question becomes... What happens to that money now?

 

...threatening Thailand's widely revered monarchy.

 

I love the way the Thai politicians dust off this old chestnut every time they want to destroy or discredit an opponent.

Sadly it works every time.

 

I don't see a lot of future for the current man in charge as he seems as popular as a fart in a space suit.

He needs how many safe houses?!?

 

As Cerberus mentioned "Theft has many faces".

In LOS corruption is so ingrained it is almost part of their national identity.

 

Thaskin probably stole... aiding Burma seriously pisses me off if it's true.

AV and co. stole his power and then his money...

Most of the senior bureaucrats under both administrations probably stole from both of them...

 

Business as usual... TiT

Edited February 28, 2010 by Temujin

[Thaihot]

Lets see what Sunday March 14th brings to the streets & to the nation.

Thats the day the red shirts are going to show there hand so the word goes.

Budda help Thailand it does not need any more problems.

[hammerman]

That is true by the letter of the law. I think if it was Gordon Brown that was head of the labour party at the time of the previous election they would not have won them. It’s a whole other debate and i have had it on many a bar stool and normally the conclusion is the same. The UK does not have an elected head of state, his friend gave him the job. When Blair stood down there should have been a general election because the person leading a party has a huge influence on the way people vote. In the USA people voted for Obama because they hated Bush. People that were hardcore republicans were fed up with Bush so crossed the party line and did something they thought they would never do and vote Democrat. I am sure most regret that now though as Obama is turning out to be a disaster.

 

Dont think Gordon Brown and Tony Blair could be classed as friends,

 

Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but still had to win an election of sorts within the Labour Party with other Labour candidates standing against him.

 

Agree with you on the fact that the UK would have a different government had Brown been leader of Labour at the last election and probably will have within the next few months after the next election. On this occasion there will probably be some similarity between Brown, and the Bush situation, with people voting against the man and not the party.

 

Heres hoping LOS stays stable.