Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413

    Thailand : Shinawatras produce documents to prove claims

    Shinawatras produce documents to prove claims
    27-03-2010

    Appeals to Supreme Court call for overturning verdict in assets-seizure case

    In their appeal to the Supreme Court against its ruling in the assets-seizure case against ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, lawyers for the Shinawatra family on Friday submitted documents involving the transactions of Shin Corp to show that Panthongtae and Pinthongta were the beneficiary owners.

    The fresh documents about Shin Corp's transactions with UBS and Temasek Holdings of Singapore also involve Aspen Holdings and Cedar Holdings, the two firms set up by Temasek to acquire Shin Corp stocks.

    The documents claim to show that Panthongtae and Pinthongta were the authorisers of the Shin Corp deal with Temasek during the whole process.

    Yesterday, the Shinawatras' three lawyers - Chatthip Tanthaprasat, Somporn Pongsuwan and Kittiporn Arunrat - worked frantically to beat the one-month deadline by filing separate appeals to the Supreme Court.

    The appeals seek to overturn the February 26 ruling, which ordered the seizure of Bt46 billion from the proceeds of the Shin Corp sale.

    The Supreme Court will form a five-member panel to deliberate the appeals before submitting a recommendation to the 142-member body of Supreme Court judges to determine whether to accept them.

    The lawyers also produced documents involving the transactions of Ample Rich Investment, an offshore company, which held 10 per cent of Shin Corp stocks between 1999 and 2005. These documents were not used during the trial.

    The Shinawatra family is appealing to the Supreme Court judges to accept the joint plea, override the charges of the public prosecutors and revoke the ruling of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division of the Political Office Holders, which ordered the seizure of Bt46 |billion.

    They are also requesting that the order to freeze the bank accounts of the Shinawatra family be lifted.

    Most important, the joint appeal requests that the legal execution process to transfer Bt46 billion from the bank accounts of the Shinawatras to the state coffers be delayed until the appeal process is completed.

    The appeal has been lodged in accordance with Article 278 of the Constitution.

    The appeal documents of Thaksin cover 246 pages, against 60 pages for his former wife Pojaman na Pombejra, 35 pages each for Panthongtae and Pinthongta, 49 pages for Yingluck Shinawatra and 29 pages for Bhanapot Damapong.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Panthongtae, Pinthongta, Yingluck and Bhanaphot had acted as |nominees for Thaksin and Pojaman, who were the real beneficiary owners of Shin Corp while Thaksin served as premier between 2001 and 2006.

    Chatthip said he expected the Supreme Court would take the appeal into consideration because fresh documents had been submitted in accordance with the law.

    He said there was a possibility that Worachet Pakeerut, a Thammasat law lecturer, would be willing to testify in the case.

    The appeal, the lawyers said, would also assert the testimonies of other key witnesses from the securities registrar, officials of the Stock Exchange of Thailand, permanent secretaries, and directors-general of government agencies.

    These testimonies were not taken into account by the Supreme Court during the trial, so they can be resubmitted as fresh evidence, the lawyers argue.

    Moreover, they argue that the Supreme Court's rulings were not accurate, such as regarding the transfer of the Shin Corp shares to Panthongtae and Pinthongta for Bt1 apiece.

    The transfer of the shares of the children did not need to involve money transactions, but the Supreme Court deemed that it was an effort to use the children as nominees.

    asianewsnet.net

  2. #2
    Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    18-11-2018 @ 04:23 AM
    Posts
    73
    I really doubt they will ever see any of the bt 76 bil.The coup appointed court siezed Bt 46 bil and froze the other Bt 30 bil.I don't think they have any intention of returning the Bt 30 bil,but they thought it would make it look like they were trying to be fair so they wouldn't upset the red shirts IMHO

  3. #3
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    FM Kasit: Thaksin would have shown new evidence earlier 'if he really has it'



    HUA HIN, March 27 (TNA) -- Fugitive, ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra would have submitted new evidence to the courts earlier if indeed he really possesses such, to contest the February 26 ruling to seize Bt46.37 billion of his frozen assets, Thai Foreign Affairs Minister Kasit Piromya said Saturday.

    Mr Kasit told journalists that lawyers of Mr Thaksin, ousted in a bloodless coup in September 2006, would have received new evidence relating to frozen assets since last year and appealed the Supreme Courtís Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positionsí ruling which had ordered the seizure of Bt46.37 billion of his frozen assets.

    His remarks were made after legal advisers of Mr Thaksinís family on Friday submitted appeals against the ruling by the court in a bid to seek an injunction to delay the assets seizure.

    The Supreme Court will later select a five-judge panel to consider whether to accept the submitted appeals.

    Mr Kasit said it is the duty of Thai ambassadors and consulates to monitor movements of Mr Thaksin and inform the ministry while it is up to a cooperation from the country which grants a temporary asylum to the ousted premier in extraditing him to Thailand.

    Mr Thaksin avoided his two-year prison sentence after being found guilty for a conflict of interest and malfeasance when he was prime minister to help his then wife purchase prime land near Ratchadapisek Road.

    On reports that the Saudi Arabian government has denied entry to Deputy Commerce Minister Alongkorn Ponlaboot, Mr Kasit said they were untrue but that the Saudi government remains quitel unhappy with three of four pending cases, which have dragged on for several decades.

    The cases were part of the 1980s gems scandal and the murders of four Saudi diplomats and the disappearance of a Saudi businessman in Bangkok who is preseumed dead.

    The case dates to the late 1980s when Kriangkrai Techamong, a Thai worker employed in the palace of the Saudi crown prince, stole jewellery and other valuables from the Saudi royal family's palace and escaped with a cache of treasure to his Lampang home.

    Thai police retrieved some of the stolen items, but a number of valuable gems and pieces of jewelry pieces were not recovered.

    Moreover, when the recovered treasures were returned to Saudi Arabia, the main jewel, the Blue Diamond, proved to be artificial, having have been replaced with an artificial stone along with other pieces of paste.

    Relations between the two countries have not progressed and it is the duty of Thai judicial agencies to more quickly solve the cases, said Mr Kasit.

    mcot.net

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    08-01-2016 @ 12:16 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by greg47 View Post
    I really doubt they will ever see any of the bt 76 bil.The coup appointed court siezed Bt 46 bil and froze the other Bt 30 bil.I don't think they have any intention of returning the Bt 30 bil,but they thought it would make it look like they were trying to be fair so they wouldn't upset the red shirts IMHO
    I think this is a widely held view.
    However, it might not actually be possible. I say this for a number of reasons:

    • The law used to freeze all the accounts
    • The fact that only individual's accounts were seized
    The law used to freeze the accounts was not an actual law, but annoucement 31 of the CDRM, which the court ruled was valid. This announcement was very specific in that the freezing of assets could only be used for cases involving unusual wealth. It also specified that once a judgement had been given, money which was not seized should be returned.

    Because the vast majority of the money not seized belongs to companies, lawyers and charities, these entities cannot have those assets re-frozen for cases which involve individuals, i.e tax bills or future cases of corruption involving Thaksin.

    At least 15 billion baht could easily and legally have been taken from companies alone, leaving this money in the accounts of the two Shinawatra children, which could then be re-frozen with ease for taxes due. The fact that this didn't happen makes me suspect that the court did this on purpose.

  5. #5
    Boxed Member
    Nawty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    20-04-2015 @ 07:37 PM
    Location
    in a state of mind
    Posts
    9,711
    I heard he found an ATM receipt...

  6. #6
    Pedantic bastard
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Mid View Post
    The fresh documents about Shin Corp's transactions with UBS and Temasek Holdings of Singapore also involve Aspen Holdings and Cedar Holdings, the two firms set up by Temasek to acquire Shin Corp stocks.
    LOL. Very fresh. drafted and printed last month I would guess..

  7. #7
    Boxed Member
    Nawty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    20-04-2015 @ 07:37 PM
    Location
    in a state of mind
    Posts
    9,711
    The Shins left a considerable amount of cash in Thailand for it to be seized.

    My question is...what kind of term deposit rates do the shins get from these banks ?

    i was in Kaskorn the other day and contemplated investing some money.

    Their lend rate was 5.85% and their term deposit rate was 0.50%
    I like poisoning my neighbours dogs till they die cos I'm a cnut

  8. #8
    Pedantic bastard
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Nawty View Post
    The Shins left a considerable amount of cash in Thailand for it to be seized.
    I always wondered how much else there is/was. The 76 billion was basically from Shin, which was his star I am sure - but bet it was not the only source of his investments.

    Wonder how much else there is?

  9. #9
    Thailand Expat
    BobR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    25-05-2019 @ 12:56 PM
    Posts
    7,760
    In a legal proceeding in any Western Country, you could never introduce a new document on appeal, and if they had such a document why would they have not introduced it in the original proceedings? The purpose of an appeal is to consider whether or not the Court had sufficient evidence, law or reason to render the decision it did, not to re-try the case and certainly not to receive new evidence. From a lawyers perspective, just that aspect alone makes this claim sound silly.

  10. #10
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    08-01-2016 @ 12:16 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    38
    The Supreme court (Criminal Division) for holders of political office was created under the 1997 Constitution. Because of its very nature, the rules which apply to every other court (Western or Thai) are relaxed.

    • There is no lower court verdict.
    • The defendants actually have the right to challenge who the nine justices are.
    • No appeal is permitted to challenge the actual sentence.
    • The justices are permitted to question witnesses directly.
    • The Justices are permitted to call new witnesses.
    • The Justices are permitted to demand new evidence is presented.
    For the asset seizure case, the defence actually presented their evidence and witnesses first. Whilst they had access to all the prosecutions evidence, and had a list of witnesses that the prosecution would call to testify, they could not summons any new witnesses to refute prosecution testimony.




    There are generally two different types of appeals.
    • Appeal of Sentence
    • Appeal of Fact
    The first is the most common, as it doesn't actually challenge the verdict, just the severity of the punishment imposed. Under the laws of the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for holders of political office, such an appeal is not permitted.

    The second is to actually challenge the verdict. Normally, the Supreme Court only looks at the evidence presented in earlier trials. The Constitution (Section 278), allows for an appeal of fact in the Supreme Court, but, only in cases which have been tried in the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for holders of political office. There is a stipulation that any such appeal must be lodged within 30 days, and must include "Fresh evidence" which would possibly result in a change of the verdict.

    If the evidence produced in the appeal is considered to meet this criteria, a screening commitee will allow the evidence to be considered by a full hearing of the Supreme Court (minus the original 9 Justices). To date, no appeal has ever got past the screening committee.
    Last edited by slimdog; 02-04-2010 at 01:20 AM.

  11. #11
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    appreciate the effort slimdog , keep it coming .

  12. #12
    Member Isee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    21-09-2010 @ 07:59 PM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by BobR View Post
    In a legal proceeding in any Western Country, you could never introduce a new document on appeal
    Generally that would be correct as the argument is that a document "exists" by its very nature and is thus discoverable. However if you could show that the document was withheld from being discovered, than you have an argument to bring this to the courts attention and let them make a determination.

    ...and certainly not to receive new evidence.
    Once again, the law as it applies to appeal evidence is never so absolute as the purpose of the courts is to ensure justice prevails. Looking at an easy example, someone who was convicted 30 years ago for a violent crime and modern DNA evidence today can prove that person was not the offender. There court would accept hearing the matter to the extent of determining whether the new evidence would likely cause a different outcome.

    From a lawyers perspective, just that aspect alone makes this claim sound silly
    If they are trying to have a "second go" I would agree. Its hard to know what is really happening from a news report (as I've been reminded recently). An appeal was a given though and if but for the only reason is to delay any movement of the frozen money until the political wind changes - any "argument" to get them past the filing stage ain't that silly. Legal proceedings aren't always motivated by the legal merits of the case (even in the West).

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    08-01-2016 @ 12:16 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    38
    One of the aspects of the asset seizure case which has always been at the back of my mind, is a certain section in the Organic law on Counter Corruption.

    Section 30. In conducting a fact inquiry in the case of the allegation that a State official has become unusually wealthy or in the inspection of the change of assets and liabilities of a person holding a political position,if any person gives the N.C.C. Commission a trace or clue, information or facts in connection with assets or liabilities of the alleged culprit or the person under inquiry, including the principal, instigator or the aider and abetter and the giving of such trace or clue, information or facts results in the assets which constitute the unusual wealthiness or the unusually increased assets devolving on the State by a final order of the Court, such person shall be entitled to the reward in accordance with the regulation prescribed by the N.C.C. Commission.

    On the 27th December 2006, the AEC set the reward at 25%

  14. #14
    Pedantic bastard
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,778
    ^ Hmm. 12 billion or so. Nice deal for some one...

  15. #15
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    60,017
    Indeed, I do not think we get half of what's going on via the press, for sure there is politics within politics within all of this.

  16. #16
    Member Friedclams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    27-10-2010 @ 09:08 AM
    Location
    The land of misfits
    Posts
    186
    Anything is possible in Thailand when money is involved.

  17. #17
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    Ruling on Thaksin assets seizure appeal Wednesday
    10/08/2010

    The Supreme Court will rule on Wednesday, Aug 11, whether to accept an appeal by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family against the seizure of their assets worth 46.37 billion baht.

    The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions ruled on Feb 26 that Thaksin and his former wife, Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra, concealed their Shin Corp shares and that Thaksin abused his position as prime minister to enrich the company.

    The court ordered the seizure of 46.37 billion baht, part of the 76.6 billion baht which the Shinawatra family gained from selling their stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings, and the share dividends.

    The court found the sum had been accumulated through corrupt means while Thaksin was prime minister from 2001 to 2006. The law requires the family to provide the court with new evidence and witnesses for a second trial to be convened.

    Thaksin and his family members submitted their appeal to the court, which set up a five-member panel, led by Supreme Court vice president Pirapol Pichayawat, to vet the defence arguments.

    The vetting process has been completed and a report submitted to Supreme Court president Sobchok Sukharom.

    The Supreme Court has scheduled a plenary meeting of 142 judges for 9.30am on Aug 11. The judges will decide at the meeting by majority vote whether to accept the appeal.

    If the meeting resolves to reject the appeal, the assets seizure case will be finalised.

    bangkokpost.com

  18. #18
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    Thaksin assets appeal rejected
    11/08/2010

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday resolved not to accept for consideration an appeal filed by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family against the seizure of their assets worth 46.37 billion baht, reasoning that evidence presented by them is not new, a court official said.

    As a result, the assets seizure case has been finalised.

    The Supreme Court held a plenary meeting to consider the appeal, attended by 119 judges. The meeting resolved not to accept the appeal for further consideration with a vote of 103-4 with 12 abstentions.

    Before the court's ruling, Chatthip Tanthaprapas, Thaksin's lawyer, admitted that if the appeal was rejected the case would be closed and the 46.37 billion baht in assets would be confiscated.

    "According to the law, we have arrived at the end of the road. The decision by the plenary meeting of the Supreme Court is final. Our teams of lawyers will concentrate on other cases," said the lawyer.

    The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Feb 26 ruled that Thaksin, his ex-wife Khunying Potjaman na Pombejr, their son Panthongtae and daughter Pinthongta, and Bannapot Damapong concealed their Shin Corp shares and that Thaksin abused his position as prime minister to enrich the company.

    The court ordered the seizure of 46.37 billion baht, part of the 76.6 billion baht which the Shinawatra family gained from selling their stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings, and the share dividends.

    The court found the sum had been accumulated through corrupt means while Thaksin was prime minister from 2001 to 2006. The law requires the family to provide the court with new evidence and witnesses for a second trial to be convened.

    Thaksin and his family members submitted their appeal to the court, which set up a five-member panel, led by Supreme Court vice president Pirapol Pichayawat, to vet the defence arguments.

    On completion of the vetting process, the panel submitted its report to Supreme Court president Sobchok Sukharom, who subsequently scheduled Aug 11 for a plenary meeting of the court's judges to make a final ruling.

    The plenary meeting gave its decision today.

    bangkokpost.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •