What Does La Prensa in Nicaragua Say About Thaksin and the Passport?

La Prensa


El ex-Primer Ministro tailandés, Thaksin Shinawatra, prófugo en su país, viaja con pasaporte diplomático nicaragüense otorgado por el presidente Daniel Ortega, confirmó ayer la coordinadora del Consejo de Comunicación y Ciudadanía, Rosario Murillo, a través de un comunicado.


Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a fugitive in his country, is traveling with diplomatic passports issued by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, which was confirmed yesterday by the coordinator of the Communication and Citizenship Rosario Murillo, through a press release.

El político asiático, quien estuvo de visita en el país el 10 de febrero pasado, fue nombrado por Ortega Embajador en Misión Especial y para facilitar su trabajo de “atraer inversión al país” le fue otorgado el pasaporte diplomático.

The Asian politician, who visited the country last February 10, was appointed by Ortega Ambassador on Special Mission and to facilitate their work "to attract investment to the country" and was given a diplomatic passport.

El documento se limita a decir que, en relación a informaciones que circulan en medios internacionales, el Consejo de Comunicación y Ciudadanía aclara que el presidente Ortega “instruyó al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores acreditarlo como Embajador de Nicaragua en Misión Especial, facilitando sus gestiones para traer inversiones al país y que a fin de cumplir su misión recibió el pasaporte diplomático correspondiente a su alta investidura”.

In relation to information circulating in the international media, the document said that the Council of Communication and Citizenship said that President Ortega "instructed the Foreign Ministry [to accredit Thaksin] as Ambassador on Special Mission to Nicaragua, facilitating their efforts to bring investment into the country and to fulfill its mission received a diplomatic passport for his high office. "

Según las agencias de noticias internacionales, Shinawatra es un multimillonario considerado uno de los hombres más ricos de su país, donde gobernó desde el 2001 hasta el 2006, cuando perdió el poder mediante un golpe de Estado.

According to international news agencies, billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra is considered one of the richest men in his country, which ruled from 2001 until 2006, when he lost power in a coup.

Shinawatra es prófugo de la justicia que lo condenó a dos años de cárcel por delitos de corrupción cometidos durante su mandato.

Shinawatra is a fugitive from justice who was sentenced to two years in prison for crimes of corruption committed during his tenure.

Actualmente es acusado de “instigar desde el exilio las protestas para derrocar al Gobierno” y por esa razón cancelaron su pasaporte y emitieron una nueva orden de captura para él y otros cómplices.

He is currently accused of "instigating protests from exile to overthrow the government "and therefore [the government] canceled his passport and issued a new arrest warrant for him and other accomplices.

En cambio el comunicado del Gobierno nicaragüense sólo recuerda que fue electo democráticamente y luego forzado a abandonar su cargo con un Golpe de Estado y que “actualmente su pueblo lucha pacíficamente para restablecer la institucionalidad y el Estado de Derecho para facilitar su retorno al país”.

The Nicarauan government communique said that he was elected democratically and then forced to leave his office from a coup and that "his people now struggle to peacefully restore the institutions and the rule of law to facilitate their return to the country. "

Para el ex vicecanciller y actual diputado por el Movimiento Renovador Sandinista (MRS), Víctor Hugo Tinoco, sin importar quién es en realidad Shinawatra, el hecho es otra muestra de la “impresionante capacidad” del presidente Ortega y sus funcionarios para cometer “disparates” y acciones “absurdas” que no benefician en nada a la población, y lo “errático de la política exterior de Nicaragua”.

Former minister and current member of the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS), Victor Hugo Tinoco, said it doesn't matter who Shinawatra is, the fact is this is another example of the "amazing ability" of President Ortega and his staff to commit "nonsense" and "preposterous" actions that does nothing for the people, and an "erratic foreign policy in Nicaragua."

Tinoco considera que independientemente de que el político asiático sea o no culpable de lo que se le acusa en Tailandia, ningún país otorga un pasaporte diplomático y un cargo a cualquier ciudadano.

Tinoco doesn't consider whether the Asian politician is guilt or not guilty of what he is charged of in Thailand, but no country gives a diplomatic passport and a fee to any citizen.

Agrega que no se puede afirmar cuál fue la intención del Gobierno al hacer público en este momento dicho nombramiento, pero que si la intención fue reivindicar que es un diplomático nicaragüense y que eso lo hace inmune, están en un error, ya que el pasaporte diplomático nicaragüense no le otorgará protección.

He adds that one can not say what was the intention of the Government to make this appointment public at this time, but if the intention was to claim that he is a Nicaraguan diplomat and that makes him immune to doing wrong, the Nicaraguan diplomatic passport does not give him that protection.

“La inmunidad se aplica al país en que está acreditado, pero nunca a su país. "

"The immunity applies to the country that is accredited, but never to his country. "

Como ciudadano tailandés no podría gozar de inmunidad en su país, a menos que exista un acuerdo bilateral y no creo que exista”, explica Tinoco.

A Thai citizen could not enjoy immunity in their country, unless there is a bilateral agreement and I do not think that, "says Tinoco.

Por su parte el diputado del Partido Liberal Constitucionalista (PLC) y presidente de la Comisión de Justicia de la Asamblea Nacional, José Pallais, explicó que el cargo de “Embajador en Misión Especial” no existe en los convenios internacionales y que es un cargo inventado para evadir el mecanismo legal del nombramiento que contempla la ratificación del Parlamento.

For his part, member of the Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) and president of the Justice Commission of the National Assembly, Jose Pallais, explained that the post of Ambassador on Special Mission "does not exist in international conventions and is a charge invented to evade the legal mechanism that provides for the appointment of the Parliament for ratification.

El Convenio de Viena no contempla ese cargo.

The Vienna Convention does not include this charge.

Pero es una práctica viciada que han usado varios gobiernos de Nicaragua y de otros países para evadir los procedimientos legales.

But it is a flawed practice to use Nicaragua and several other countries to evade legal proceedings.

“El cargo es Jefe de Misión, pero para evadir que el Parlamento lo tenga que ratificar con el 60 por ciento de los votos, como establece el artículo 138 en el numeral 30 de la Constitución, inventa un cargo que no existe”, dijo Pallais.

"The position is Chief of Mission, but to avoid that the Parliament has to ratify with 60 percent of the vote, as stated in Article 138 in paragraph 30 of the Constitution, creates an office that does not exist," said Pallais .

Asegura que en los casos en que se nombra a un Embajador Especial es para misiones transitorias y con períodos cortos determinados y que un nombramiento como el que el Gobierno dice que le otorgó al político asiático, seguramente ni se lo reconocen las autoridades de ningún país.

Ensures that in cases where appointing a Special Ambassador for missions is transitional and short-term, and it certainly will not be recognized by the authorities of any country.

Pallais recuerda que hace un tiempo en Costa Rica ocurrió un caso similar y se convirtió en un escándalo en el que la justicia tuvo que intervenir y aplicar sanciones a los involucrados.

Pallais said that some time ago in Costa Rica there was a similar case and it became a scandal in which justice had to intervene and apply sanctions to those involved.

Considera que lo indicado es que la Asamblea Nacional se interese por investigar qué intereses movieron al Gobierno a otorgar esa concesión inusual, ya que para hacerlo se violaron varios procedimientos legales como la Ley de Pasaportes y la misma Constitución, que establece el mecanismo para el nombramiento de los cargos diplomáticos.

The National Assembly should consider investigating what interested the Government to grant this unusual concession, since it violated several legal procedures such as the Passport Law and the Constitution itself, which provides the mechanism for appointment of diplomatic posts.

El ex director General de Migración y Extranjería, Avil Ramírez, aseguró que Ortega no tiene ninguna facultad para otorgar pasaporte diplomático a cualquier extranjero.

Former Director General of Immigration, Avila Ramírez, Ortega said that it has no power to grant to any foreigner a diplomatic passport.

“La ley no faculta en ningún momento al Presidente, ni a la Coordinadora del Consejo del Poder Ciudadano, al Canciller, al ministro de Gobernación ni al Director de Migración a otorgar un pasaporte diplomático a ningún extranjero, ni a nadie que no sean las personas comprendidas en la legislación que regula la materia”, explicó.

"The law does not empower the President at any time, or the Coordinating Council of Citizen Power, the Foreign Minister or the Interior or the Director of Immigration to issue a diplomatic passport to any alien, or anyone other than those under the legislation governing the matter, "he explained.

Por tanto, según Ramírez, el Gobierno violó “la Constitución y las leyes que regulan la materia (Migratoria). Therefore, according to Ramirez, the government violated the Constitution and the laws governing this area (migration). El Presidente y hasta los que participaron en el otorgamiento del pasaporte diplomático actuaron al margen de la ley, despreciando el Estado de Derecho, violando el principio de legalidad y hasta podría ser considerado como un delito”.

The President and those who participated in the issuance of a diplomatic passport acted outside the law, ignoring the rule of law, violating the principle of legality and could even be considered a crime. "

Ramírez dijo que “pareciera que estamos volviendo a la década de los 80 y nuestro país nuevamente es noticia negativa y de esta forma, en vez de alentar la inversión, lo que se está haciendo es poner a nuestro país como una referencia que ahuyenta la inversión”.

Ramirez said that "it seems that we are returning to the 80's and our country once again we are getting news coverage and thus, instead of encouraging investment, what they are doing is giving our country a reputation that drives away investment .

El también ex Ministro de Defensa explicó que el uso del pasaporte diplomático es un privilegio que conceden los Estados soberanos en función del cargo que ostentan u ostentaron funcionarios públicos de un país.

The former Defense Minister also explained that the use of the diplomatic passport is a privilege granted to sovereign states in terms of office held by public officials or have a country.

Mencionó que en el caso de Nicaragua el Acuerdo Ministerial número 50-2005, aprobado el 3 de Junio del 2005 por la Asamblea Nacional y publicado en La Gaceta número 134 del 12 de julio del 2005, en su artículo uno no se menciona que algún extranjero pueda tener derecho a un pasaporte diplomático.

He mentioned that in the case of Nicaragua Ministerial Agreement number 50-2005, approved on 3 June 2005 by the National Assembly and published in Official Gazette number 134 of July 12, 2005, the article does not mention that foreigners may be entitled to a diplomatic passport.

“Es decir, que en esta normativa está claramente definido quienes pueden o no gozar del privilegio de un pasaporte diplomático”, recalcó.

"This means that in this legislation is clearly defined who may or may not enjoy the privilege of a diplomatic passport," he stressed.

Por tal razón, prosiguió, “el Presidente debería en vez de estar otorgando pasaportes diplomáticos a prófugos de la justicia y presuntos delincuentes, preocuparse por los miles de nicaragüenses que no tienen su cédula, tanto a los que adolecen de ella en el país como a los miles de nicaragüenses en el exterior que por ley tienen derecho a ese documento”.

For that reason, he continued, "the president shouldn't be giving diplomatic passports to fugitives from justice and criminal suspects, but instead worry for the thousands of Nicaraguans who have no identification card, both those who suffer from not having it inside the country, or outside, as there are many thousands of Nicaraguans abroad who by law are entitled to this document. "

All translation mistakes are my own. I am sure I made some. But it was a long article.

I went to the Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry and it had nothing.

Thaksin Guilty: Ratchadapisek Land Case

Fugitive PM Guilty and Sentenced Two Years in Jail


Pravit Rojanaphruk


The Nation

Former premier Thaksin Shinawatra was sentenced to two years in jail yesterday for conflict of interest by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

Thaksin was found guilty of breaching Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act by aiding his wife Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra win a bid for a state-owned land on Ratchadaphisek Road in 2003.

The judges voted 8-1 to rule Thaksin guilty.

The nine judges handling the case said that as Thaksin, who fled to London in August, was then a prime minister and had failed to set an example of good governance and honesty, he will not be given a suspended sentence.

The verdict cannot be appealed under the law governing the court's division.

"The first defendant held the position of prime minister and had been given trust to administer the state for the highest benefit of the state and the people. But the first defendant ended up breaking the law although, as head of government, he should have set a good example, been honest and made it evident and behaved with good political ethics … so he should not be given a suspended sentence," the judges concluded.

Pojaman, meanwhile, was let off as the National Counter Corruption Act does not have any penalty clause against family members of political office holders.

The court ruled, however, that Pojaman's action, with written acknowledgement by her husband, must be considered an action of Thaksin who was then prime minister and could influence the Financial Institutions Development Fund. The court deemed unanimously that the FIDF was under the control of the state.

The judges also stated that Thaksin's influence as prime minister could have deterred two other on-line bidders from offering higher prices for the land, leading to a second bidding of Bt772 million by Pojaman, which was lower than the Bt870 million in the first open and off-line bidding process.

However, the court decided not to confiscate the land or the money used for the bidding.

Legally, this is both an interesting and confusing case.

1. Pojaman is not guilty. How can Pojaman not be guilty and Thaksin be guilty since Thaksin's guilt rests upon Pojaman's actions? Unless, see below:

2. Thailand is a community property state. From my understanding of Thai land and real property law, the spouse has to sign off on the land and deed documents when making a land transfer. Therefore, Thaksin would have been a signatory to the contract and obviously guilty of entering into a private contract with the state.

3. Even if the property wasn't bought as community property and in the form of a different juristic body, like a partnership or corporation, community property laws would still apply. In other words, if Pojaman profited from the ownership, Thaksin would profit also.

4. Why wasn't the deed voided if a political office holder was supposedly abusing his power for illegal enrichment? The court said that the contract is still valid. If the Shinawatras didn't have the legal capacity to enter into a contact with the state in this instance, wouldn't the contract be voidable?

5. Where is the abuse of power evidence? There is a huge distinction between an ethical lapse, imo, by being a signatory to a land transfer and knowingly using state power for illegal enrichment.

Update:

Thanks to Sidh over at New Mandala for referring me to this article at Thai Rath, which only adds to my confusion.

The judgment in Thai actually sounds even more stupid than it does in English.

No evidence of abuse of power. No criminal conspiracy to defraud the state.

Put simply, here is a quick summary of the court's judgment in my own words: Thaksin, you are a bad and evil man, because you were prime minister when your wife made a land deal. We will not hold your wife culpable for what she did, only you, because you are a bad and evil man who should have known better. Therefore, we sentence you to two years in jail.

George Bush's Iran-Contra and Thaksin's Dodgy Export-Import Bank Loan to Burma

US twist to Thaksin court case


By Peter J Brown


Asian Times

---

The Thai Ex-Im Bank loan case, however, is notable for its international dimension, including a US government role in financing Shin Satellite's business activities. During Thaksin's five-year tenure, his family-owned Shin Satellite, now known as Thaicom and majority-owned by Singapore's Temasek Holdings, developed and in 2005 launched a US$350 million satellite known as iPStar, which now beams satellite broadband services throughout Southeast Asia, China and Australia.

Myanmar's government allowed the company to run trials of IPStar's ground stations in 2003, providing the company a live but closed environment to test the technology without heavy market scrutiny. A portion of the 2004 Thai Ex-Im Bank loan to Myanmar was allegedly used to purchase those same Shin Satellite iPStar satellite terminals and other services.

Although the upcoming criminal case is expected to examine the terms of the loan and how it was allegedly devised to provide maximum benefits to Thaksin's family-owned Shin Corp, the US State Department as well as the US Export-Import Bank will be nervously watching the proceedings. That's because American taxpayers effectively helped to finance iPStar's construction by a US company, Space Systems/Loral, through roughly $190 million in US Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees. (The French government, which has also recently been a strong critic of Myanmar's regime, also provided loan guarantees for the launch services for the satellite.)

At the same time the Thai Ex-Im Bank approved its controversial loan to Myanmar in 2004, the actual satellite was still sitting on the ground in the US awaiting delivery by Loral to a launch facility in South America. Because of the Myanmar government's abysmal human rights record, US companies are legally forbidden by US government trade and investment sanctions from doing with the country any business that was not established before 1997.


Here is the Iran-Contra component. I'm not going to recap what happened during the Iran-Contra scandal during the 80's, but there was one component of the scandal where Ronald Reagan and his underlings were selling/giving arms to Iran, which is and was at that time a rogue terrorist state and an enemy of the US, and there were trade and investment sanctions against Iran.

This policy contradicted Reagan's "no negotiations with terrorists" policy and it broke the law regarding trading arms with Iran.


Questionable US role


In this particular case, and for unknown reasons, the US State Department and the US Ex-Im Bank stood by silently as the controversial iPStar transaction with Myanmar unfolded. This is much more than an awkward omission: the iPStar project was a high-profile affair from the start. Among other things the head of the US Ex-Im Bank traveled to London in 2003 to accept an award related to the project, which Shin Satellite executives at the time promised would revolutionize the global satellite business through greater transmission efficiency.


The writer should have been more clear on this. Now I am going to have to look up what happened.


Powerful members of the US Congress had a heated exchange with the US Ex-IM Bank in 2002 over how the satellite project was taking shape, although not over the possibility that its mission would benefit Myanmar's junta.


Why were members upset over this? Probably has to do with money. Though it seems that Loral is a bigger contributor to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.


As the court case against Thaksin unfolds, the US Congress and even the White House, which in recent years has been strongly critical of Myanmar's military regime, including President George W Bush's own reference to the country as an "outpost of tyranny", will be left to answer how this transaction apparently slipped under their radar screens.


He won't answer for his hypocrisy, because the US media won't call him on it.


Days before the Thai Supreme Court announced its decision to hear the case, the US House of Representatives voted to freeze certain junta members' assets and ban the importation of all Myanmar-sourced jade and rubies to the US. American gem dealers had previously avoided trade sanctions by importing Myanmar gems from second countries which processed or in other ways added value to the raw stones.


I have to point out that the Republicans controlled Congress back in 2002 and the Democrats control Congress now. So it isn't surprising that there is a tougher sanctions policy. However, like I said, Loral, the manufacture of Ipstar, supports the Democrats over the Republicans.


The new measures are the latest of a wide range of trade and investment sanctions imposed by the US government against Myanmar. In 2007, Bush extended for another year the trade sanctions that were first signed by president Bill Clinton in 1997. Add to that list the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and another executive order on new investments in Myanmar signed by Bush that same year. The Bush administration's tough message to Myanmar's generals has been clear, while the gap dividing the US's and Thailand's policy towards the regime has grown ever larger.


Bush has been tough against Burma. No wonder that the junta is paranoid. However, it looks like Bush has egg on his face, just like Reagan, for financing a brutal authoritarian regime, despite the rhetoric and policy.


Indeed Shin Satellite and its iPStar satellite continue to make steady inroads into Myanmar. In early 2008, Myanmar Posts and Telecommunications announced that Thaicom had expanded its business ties through the signing of a pair of new capacity contracts. Thailand's new Thaksin-aligned government, led by prime minister Samak Sundaravej, announced earlier this year that the remaining portion of the 2004 Thai Ex-Im Bank loan would be handed over to Myanmar's generals, despite the political controversy surrounding the loan.


This is one area that Thaksin, Samak and the Thai military agree on. Keep supporting the Burmese junta with money, weapons and technology. Of course, the Thai media is weak in holding the government and military accountable for these policies.


The bottom line however is that Thaksin and his family are not the only ones feeling the legal heat. While the US State Department looked on, the US Ex-Im Bank wrote checks that effectively extended badly needed satellite services into Myanmar - and in apparent violation of the sanctions Washington has long imposed against the military regime.


This is a serious crime. This is actually more serious than the CTX and the Bangkok Film Festival scandals.


Now Myanmar's junta is likely using US-funded wireless broadband technology to perpetuate its repressive policies and harassment of pro-democracy groups. Not only does the oversight represent a shameful stain on US government accountability, it also sets back the broader cause of promoting human rights and democracy in military-run Myanmar.


I wonder if the Thai press or the US press corps traveling with Bush will ask him about this.

Of course not.

I found this case to be highly disturbing, considering Bush's strong stance against the Burmese regime. It won't be getting the attention it deserves in the mainstream US press.

Loral, the manufacturer of the Ipstar system, was actually investigated and fined for sharing its technology with China.

---


Concerning the US Export-Import Bank Component from a scathing article in the New York Times:


A Guardian of Jobs or a 'Reverse Robin Hood'?

By LESLIE WAYNE

Published: September 1, 2002

IT is hard to imagine why Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire who is Thailand's prime minister, would need a helping hand from the United States government for his family business, an Asian telecommunications giant called the Shin Corporation.

The Shin business empire, which Mr. Shinawatra founded and is still majority owned by his family, spreads from India to Indochina. It is Thailand's largest telecommunications company. But last May, to the consternation of competitors, Shin Satellite, a subsidiary, won a $160 million loan guarantee from the Export-Import Bank of the United States to buy a new telecommunications satellite and strengthen its grip in Southeast Asia.

For the bank, a Depression-era agency founded to promote exports, the rationale was simple. Loral Space and Communications, an American manufacturer run by Bernard L. Schwartz, a longtime Democratic Party donor, was Shin's supplier, and commercial banks, according to the bank, would not finance the deal without the loan guarantee.

Crying foul, Shin Satellite's competitors tried to block the deal in Congress. ''How is it that billionaires like Shinawatra and Bernie Schwartz can get the U.S. taxpayers to subsidize their deals?'' asked Franklin G. Polk, a lobbyist for New Skies Satellites, a rival based in the Netherlands that, like other companies, was able to get private financing, but not at the rates as low as Shin's government-backed loans.

How indeed?

Basically Thaksin borrowed money from the US government to finance his satellite empire, then used Thai taxpayer money to give to Burma to buy Shin Satellite services.

The Thai Export-Import Bank scam will be one of the cases that will probably put Thaksin in jail.

George Bush must feel comforted knowing that the US government financed Burma's use of American technology to hunt down and kill Burmese dissidents.

Pojaman Case: "Gift Due to Moral Obligation"

Here is a nice summary by The Nation:

The court interpreted the meaning of "gift due to moral obligation", under which the recipient can be exempt from personal income tax payment. Deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's wife Pojaman claimed she did not pay tax on the transfer of shares to her adopted brother Bhanapot Damapong because it was "a gift under a moral obligation".

However, the court said the claim was not valid and found Pojaman guilty of intentionally avoiding tax payment of Bt546 million for the transfer of 4.5 million Shinawatra Computer and Communications shares worth Bt738 million. Found guilty on the same charges were Bhanapot and Pojaman's secretary Kanjanapa Honghern.

The court sentenced Pojaman and Bhanapot to a total of three years in jail each - two years for the charges relating to the conspiracy to evade tax and one year for giving falsified statements. Kanjanapa faces two years in jail.

The court said the three defendants had committed serious crimes and filed false statements with the government agencies in order to avoid paying taxes. They intended not to pay taxes despite the fact that they were wealthy people.

The court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was solid and indisputable. The three suspects were found guilty of fraud or collaboration to evade taxes. In addition, Pojaman and Bhanapot were found guilty of filing false claims and presenting false evidence to the authorities with the intention to avoid paying taxes.

The court also reprimanded Pojaman in particular, saying that with her high economic, social and political status - especially her status as the wife of the country's then leader - she should have acted as a good example to society.

The Criminal Court ruled out every defence argument in the tax evasion case as insubstantial in rebutting the prosecution evidence.

The court said the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants committed a conspiracy to evade tax. The ruling declared that Pojaman and Bhanapot made the share transfer in the stock market in order to avoid tax liabilities even though there was no real transaction.

Bhanapot admitted Pojaman gave shares to him and the court found this was not a family gift. The ruling addressed a key legal issue - whether the three defendants intentionally gave falsified statements to the authorities in order to avoid tax liabilities.

While I think that bringing the court case to trial was politically motivated since many politicos and businessmen escape paying taxes( this was a case of selective enforcement based on destroying political enemies), there is no doubt in my mind that Potjaman and company tried to get away with not paying taxes. Their lame defense was exactly that, lame. The argument that Pojaman had to support her brother as a moral obligation is ludicrous, especially since he was already tremendously wealthy and he just gave her back the cash at a later time.

The definition of "gift offered for moral obligation" in the Revenue Code's section 40 (10) was the theme of this high-profile tax-evasion lawsuit. Defence lawyers tried to argue that Khunying Pojaman in 1997, gave 4.5 million shares of Shinawatra Computer and Communication (later renamed Shin Corp) worth Bt738 million to her brother Bhanapot on the basis of moral obligation. The tax payment and fine in the case was calculated to be Bt546 million.

Under section 40 (10), the recipient of a gift of this nature is not required to pay personal income tax on it.

The Court yesterday ruled that the law does not give a definition of the phrase "gift offered for moral obligation". The court therefore referred to Thai dictionary BE 2542, which explains that the giver wants to help or support the recipient and the giver also has a moral duty to do so.

The court said that interpretation of the Revenue Code has to be very strict and that those who receive such gifts have to deserve them.

The court ruled that the first defendant, Bhanapot, did not deserve such a gift because he already had wealth, being chairman of Shinawatra Computer, earned Bt23.5 million in 1997 and owned 2.3 million shares in the company and 23 million shares in SC Asset, its subsidiary.

Although Bhanapot was not as rich as his relative Pojaman, he was not in need of a gift by moral obligation, said the court.

Thailand is in a quandary because of this case, however. Will laws start being enforced across the board or will they be only enforced to get politicians or enemies of those who control the courts?

I know next to nothing of the law regarding this, but I have to wonder if the Shinawatras can make an argument on appeal about selective enforcement of the law.

Also, another card that Shinawatras might play is blackmail. They were in power for a long time and probably know more than anybody dirt that can be used to get back at those who they feel betrayed them.

I shall call this the nuclear option.

The nuclear option would be if it looks like that Shinawatras will face jail time and/or loss of their fortune, they will have nothing to lose, so they will expose every person who either conspired with them or who they know have committed crimes, in business and politics. They might even expose the Royal Family for any dodgy dealings, if they got the dirt.

The Shinawatras also are still in a position to influence the government. What if they used their influence to pressure the OAG to start digging up crimes from the last ten years on all the political big wigs and businessmen?

I think the nuclear option is a real possibility. Thaksin doesn't seem like the sort who would put all his eggs in one basket and risk his entire life and future on what the court decides.

If the Shinawatras have the entire elite establishment by the balls, they might get off the hook through some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing.

Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Court finds Thaksin wife guilty of tax evasion

Bangkok Post

In a politically-loaded ruling, Criminal Court on Thursday found Pojaman Shinawatra - wife of coup-ousted premier Thaksin - guilty of tax evasion in a 1997 share transaction, court official said.

The heavily-guarded court, surrounded by some 2,000 Thaksin-supporters holding red roses, sentenced Pojaman to three years in jail for avoiding a tax bite amounting to 546 million baht (16.3 million dollars) on a share transfer to her step-brother Bannapot Damapong and her secretary Karnchanapa Honghern in 1997.

Bannapot was also sentenced to three years in jail and Karnchanapa to two years.

Thaksin and the couple's three children sat stony-faced throughout the ruling at the Bangkok court which was guarded by some 500 police. Pojaman had pleaded not guilty to the charge of tax evasion, claiming that the 738 million baht (22 million dollars) share transfer of Shinawatra Computer and Communications stock was a gift, not a business transaction.

The court said it had decided on a heavy sentence because both Pojaman and Bannapot were well-known public figures with responsibility to society.


Well, the Shinawatras are probably thinking that exile wasn't looking so bad. They might still skip town. The court gave them permission to leave for August. Will they lam it?

If it were me, I'd chose exile in cold dreary England over a Thai jail. But the thing is that this time they will really be fugitives from justice and won't be able to enter the UK. The PPP still controls the government, so I guess it doesn't have to pursue extradition and let Thaksin live for eternity on his diplomatic passport-- or until the next coup.

If not exile, jail. It is hard to believe that they will rot in away in jail, but I don't think the court will overrule the verdict(s). One of the charges will stick.

Pastrygate: Thaksin's Lawyers Jailed

Thaksin's legal team hit over Bt2-million 'gift'

The Nation

The Supreme Court yesterday sentenced three attorneys for ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife Pojaman to six months in prison for attempted bribery.

The court ruled that the three had conspired to undermine the judiciary's reputation and integrity by stashing Bt2 million in cash in a snack box handed to a court official on June 10.

According to the presiding judge at yesterday's trial, the bribery attempt was "a serious matter" and "grave" action that insulted the highest court.

It was also likely have a "repercussion" on the on-going trial involving Thaksin and his wife in the Ratchadaphisek land purchase, in which the ex-premier is accused of abusing his power while in office for a sweetheart deal with the government.

Thana Tansiri, the lawyer who delivered the snack box stashed with Bt1,000 notes worth around Bt2 million, was not present at yesterday's sentencing. He had asked for a trial postponement, claiming health reasons, but the judges dismissed the request on grounds that his health problems didn't appear to be serious.

The court then ordered police to issue an arrest warrant for the lawyer.

The two other convicted lawyers were Pichit Chuenban and Suphasri Sriswat.

"I'm certain [of my innocence]," said Pichit, head of the legal team. Pichit said he didn't know why Thana, who is on his team, did not show up.

On June 10, Thana was found guilty of trying to bribe ML Thitipong Chompoonuch, a legal officer at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions, and his colleagues by handing the paper bag containing the snack box stuffed with some Bt2 million in cash.

According to the presiding judge, who read out the verdict, Thana told Thitipong: "These days I have to come [to the court] often and I feel sorry for the officials who have to work hard, so I have something for you people."

Thana had argued in his earlier testimony that it was a mistake, as his driver got the wrong box for him to deliver to the court official.

The "wrong" box contained money intended for a land purchase, while Thana's wife was said to have filled another bag with chocolate candy.

However, the judges ruled the argument unlikely, saying that if Thana really intended to give chocolate he could have done it in the open in the presence of other officials, not privately with Thitipong alone.

According to the judges, Thana didn't mention any other "chocolate bag" while court staff took photographs of the snack box filled with cash.

The court believed Pichit and Suphasri were also "working closely" with Thana as all of them appeared at the court on that day.

"They kept talking to one another prior to Thaksin's and Pojaman's arrival at the court, and thus they must be regarded as one team."

When Pichit learned about the return of the snack box, he only made a phone call to Thitipong to apologise and didn't appear to have reprimanded Thana. "It shows that they collaborated with one another ... were aware [of the matter] and divided their role in this attempted bribery," the court said


Lunch box lawyers jailed


Bangkok Post


The Supreme Court handed down the sentences after investigating the case. The three were convicted for "violating the dignity of the court," Supreme Court Vice President Moonkol Thapthieng announced.


On June 10, a C-7 court official reported that a lawyer had handed him a snack box containing two million baht and told him to spread it around.


After an investigation, Supreme Court officials charged Mr Thaksin's lawyers with an attempt to bribe court officials. They are lawyer Pichit Chuenban, his assistant Suppasri Srisawasdi and lawyer Thana Tansiri. Mr Thana failed to show up for the hearing, claiming he had a headache. The court ruled that his ailment was minor, and that he was avoiding an appearance as ordered. The court issued an arrest warrant on the spot.


On June 10, Mr Pichit and his team, representing Mr Thaksin and his wife Khunying Potjaman, were at the court to report the couple had returned from a business trip overseas.


This is big news. Quite frankly, I think getting six months in prison is a slap on the wrist. They should also be barred from ever practicing law ever again. The lawyers excuses are lame and the court would have been justified in giving them serious jail time.

This is probably the beginning of the end of for Thaksin and Potjaman. It looks like they were better off in exile. Now, the court will probably throw the book at them and jail time for that dynamic duo looks like a real possibility.

I can't believe how stupid they are for pulling this stunt with Thailand falling apart at the seams. It just throws fuel on the fire.

I wish the court could prove a conspiracy to bribe them and throw Thaksin and Potjaman in jail for that crime. I doubt the lawyers acted on their own and without permission. If they did, Thaksin would be suing them.

I wonder who is stupid enough to represent the Shinawatras in court now.

Panel Empowered to Find Thaksin Guilty for "War on Drugs" Comes up Short

'War on Drugs' probe draws a blank

Piyanuch Thammakasetchai

The Nation

An independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders, a Justice Ministry source said yesterday.

After five months of inquiries, the panel, led by former attorney general Khanit na Nakhon, has obtained only statistical details about the number and nature of the murders.

But no conclusion that would implicate police or Thaksin as the instigator of the shoot-to-kill policy has been reached.

The panel's report will be submitted to the Cabinet today. It's main content is facts and government records showing how Thaksin's order was carried out from top to bottom through the bureaucracy.

One of the most potent pieces of evidence is that an anti-narcotics centre under the Interior Ministry was ordered to issue a blacklist naming drug dealers and users nationwide, as well as an appraisal measure to show a "decline" in the number of people blacklisted.

But the report contained no conclusion that may subject an individual to criminal liability.

The outcome is likely to be considered by many as a failure, because the panel's objective was to bring those responsible for the murders to justice - be they police officers or anyone in higher authority who encouraged extrajudicial killings.

Continued


People have been coming to this blog for a year accusing Thaksin of mass murder during the "War on Drugs." The Thai media and other anti-Thaksin activists have accused Thaksin for being like Hitler, capriciously gunning down drug dealers at whim.

Now, the junta-picked panel that was put into effect to get Thaksin for the extra-judicial killings now admits that it has no "smoking gun."

After a year of doing this blog, I think the biggest lesson I have learned so far is the power of propaganda and the affect that the media, in this case, the Thai media, has on shaping people's opinions.

I have been duped before. But that is because I wasn't "mindful" of the information being presented to me.

This is why I am always harping about the evidence. The news media has a responsibility to get it right, especially when lives and the rule of law are at stake.

No Perp Walk for Potjaman

Thaksin wife returns


Bangkok Post


The wife of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra returned to Thailand on Tuesday to face charges that she unlawfully obtained a block of land in central Bangkok while her husband was in charge of the country. Khunying Potjaman was quickly granted bail.

She was escorted from Suvarnabhumi Airport to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions. There, she applied for and was released on bail of five million baht (US$149,000), and ordered not to leave the country without the court's permission, said a Supreme Court statement issued after a hearing that lasted less than an hour.

The court also set Jan 23 as the opening date for her trial on charges of using her husband's political influence to buy prime Bangkok real estate from a government agency at one-third its estimated value.

"She came here today to prove her innocence," her lawyer Noppadon Pattama told reporters after the hearing.

After leaving the court with her three children, Pojaman headed to the Department of Special Investigations to hear additional charges that she made fraudulent filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission over the 2003 listing of a property company.


I knew it. No perp walk. More like VIP treatment.

If she and Thaksin are evil incarnate, why are they being treated with kid gloves?

For months, we heard Soponian rhetoric such as "fugitives from justice." She certainly isn't being treated like fugitive.

Bangkok Post: Case to extradite Thaksin 'weak'

(BangkokPost.com)

Public prosecutors are worried that evidence to convict ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra may be too weak to have him extradited to Thailand.

Sampan Sarathana, chief prosecutor for foreign litigation, said after having met with UK authorities recently that evidence may not be enough for extradition to be proceed.

Mr Sampan led a team of public prosecutors to London to try to convince the British government and courts to extradite Thaksin and his wife Potjaman so they can face court charges in Thailand.

The couple face graft charges in connection with the purchase of land near Ratchadaphisek Road.

Mr Sampan vowed to continue preparing more on the documentation, which he said would take more than two months, before sending them to UK authorities.


Well, any fool could have predicted this.

Let us do a cost benefit analysis:

Thai prosecutors go on a multi-million baht luxury junket to London for eight days.

Result: Nothing.

Further, I find it fascinating that these prosecutors need another 2 months to gather evidence.

I thought they have indicted Thaksin already, which means they should have enough evidence to prosecute Thaksin in a Thai court, so why another 2 months to gather more evidence?

Of course the worthless Thai media doesn't ask the hard questions like: What exactly did you do in England for eight days? Who did you meet with? Why couldn't you have figured out what was missing by conference call or over the internet? What other information is needed to make this case move forward? How much money did you spend on your junket? What hotel did you stay at?

AP: Thai Prosecutors Head to Britain for the Thaksin Extradition

Thailand, Britain to discuss possible extradition of ousted prime minister

BANGKOK, Thailand: Thai prosecutors flew to England on Friday to discuss with their British counterparts the possibility of extraditing ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to face corruption charges back home.

"The purpose of the trip is to consult with British prosecutors to see if the charges (that Thaksin faces) in the Supreme Court are considered offenses that could be subject to penalty in both countries, and whether that could be a basis for his extradition," Thai Attorney-General Chaikasem Nitisiri told reporters.

In general, countries will only extradite a suspect if he is charged with an offense that is a crime in the country where he is taking refuge as well as in the country seeking custody.

Extradition is usually a lengthy and complicated procedure, and most Western countries are also reluctant to agree to it in cases involving political figures.

Chaikasem said four Thai prosecutors are expected to be in England for nine days to discuss legal procedures — based on a 1911 extradition treaty between the two countries — but that they would not ask for extradition during this trip.

Continued

I would wager a lot of money that these so-called prosecutors won't meet anybody from the British government.

I will also predict that nobody from the Thai media establishment will confirm if these prosecutors met anybody from the British government. Certainly, no Thai reporter will make these prosecutors accountable for their nine day junket. Will the public get to see the itinerary?

When the prosecutors come back, we will only hear their opinion and won't get a single quote from a British official, giving a reason why they think extraditing Thaksin won't work.

In the end, this is what will happen: the prosecutors will determine that they can't extradite Thaksin and will blame this on the British being uncooperative.

The Thai media will go into their usual right-wing nationalist frenzy about how a big powerful country has bullied poor little Thailand in their pursuit of justice.

We will get at least a months worth of columns and editorials from The Nation blaming the UK for not sending Thaksin home, including how Thaksin's money bought off every British official.

By the way, I don't know why it will take nine days to find out the answer to their questions. I am sure that the British Embassy could have passed on the "proof' the prosecutors had on Thaksin to the British Home Office and receive an answer to their queries through back channels. There certainly is no pressing need for Thai prosecutors to go on a luxury junket to London to get answers to questions that would probably take no more than a couple of hours in consultation with a state attorney and a government minister.


Here is a link to the 1911 Extradition Treaty between the UK and Thailand(Siam)


Note these articles:
Article 4

The extradition shall not take place if the person claimed on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom, or the person claimed on the part of the Government of Siam, has already been tried and discharged or punished, or is still under trial in the territory of Siam or in the United Kingdom respectively for the crime for which his extradition is demanded.

If the person claimed on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom, or if the person claimed on the part of the Government of Siam, should be under examination for any crime in the territory of Siam or in the United Kingdom respectively, his extradition shall be deferred until the conclusion of the trial and the full execution of any punishment awarded to him.

Article 5

A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is deemed by the Party on whom the demand is made to be one of a political character, or if he prove that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character.

Article 7

The requisition for extradition shall be made through the diplomatic agents of the High Contracting Parties respectively.

The requisition for the extradition of the accused person must be accompanied by a warrant of arrest issued by the competent authority of the State requiring the extradition, and by such evidence as, according to the laws of the place where the accused is found, would justify his arrest if the crime had been committed there.

There is no doubt that this extradition is political in nature, and there is no doubt in my mind that Thai prosecutors don't have the evidence needed to prosecute Thaksin in a British court.

Bangkok Post: Mission to London (Will Thaksin be extradited?)

Officials will travel to Britain next month to try to start extraditing ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife to face charges at home.An Office of the Attorney-General official, Samphan Sarathana, chief prosecutor for foreign litigation, said the mission would be made up of Thai prosecutors and senior foreign ministry officials.

He held a press conference following a meeting on Thursday on the possibility of using the extradition treaty between Thailand and Britain.

That meeting concluded that under British law the exiled couple have done nothing wrong in doing business with government agencies while Mr Thaksin was in power.

Therefore, there is a need for officials of the two countries to discuss otheer avenues to extradite Mr Thaksin and his wife Pojaman, now living in London, to fight charges in Thailand, said Mr Samphan.

The couple face arrest warrants after they failed to appear in the Supreme Court on August 14 to defend charges over the land purchase in Bangkok's prime business area by Mrs Pojaman at a much below-market price while her husband was prime minister.

Noppadol Pattama, legal advisor to Mr Thaksin, has said Mr Thaksin would certainly not return to Thailand, citing safety reasons to defend charges against him over the Ratchadaphisek land purchase scandal.

Mr Thaksin had earlier announced that he would return only after a general election has been held and democracy restored in Thailand.

The Supreme Court's criminal division for holders of political positions ordered the couple to appear before the court for the first hearing set on September 25.

The South Bangkok Criminal Court has also approved warrants for the couple on charges of concealing shareholdings in SC Asset.

link


I said it once and I will say it again, no British court or Home Office will extradite Thaksin back on the orders of an illegal military junta.

Sometimes I have to wonder what goes on in the minds of Thai government officials.

I don't think there is a case that exists where a democratically elected leader has been sent back from a western country into the hands of a military dictatorship.

One would think that the British embassy would send a back channel message to the foreign ministry that this would be a non-starter.

I have a feeling that this may be nothing but a propaganda ploy, so that the government can blame the British for their Thaksin problem, or it could be just an excuse to give a free vacation to Thai government officials. Will General Saprang be leading the delegation?

One Reason for Deposing Thaksin Thrown Out by Prosecutors

LESE MAJESTE CASES

Thaksin clears 1st legal hurdle

The Nation

Prosecutors cite lack of evidence of malicious intent; critic says decision should be reviewed

Public prosecutors decided yesterday to drop charges of lese majeste against deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying they lacked solid evidence to prove malicious intent against His Majesty the King.

The lese majeste charges were one of four general accusations used by the junta to justify the coup on September 19 to topple Thaksin. Corruption, intervention in independent bodies and causing national disunity were the other main accusations against Thaksin.

The prosecutors' decision was controversial and there were calls late yesterday for the police chief to seek a second opinion on whether to take the matters further.

Chief criminal prosecutor Sermkiart Woradit said: "Thaksin, then prime minister, should not have made such inappropriate comments in his public speeches but his words could not be classified as defamation, insulting or threatening against His Majesty." Two of the cases stemmed from speeches by Thaksin. The first was to a rally of taxi drivers on December 25, 2005. The second was a televised address aired by Channel 11 on February 4, 2006. The third case involved supporters from the Caravan of the Poor group waving flags with the royal insignia when they greeted him last March.

Continued


I have to give credit the public prosecutors for having the courage to drop these charges. They must have a lot of pressure to cook up as many crimes against Thaksin as possible.

Now will Thaksin sue the generals for accusing him of a crime he didn't commit?

Maybe the generals and police will accuse him of human rights abuses during his "War on Drugs."

But I doubt it.

So far, the government's case against Thaksin: His wife bought land and she avoided paying taxes ten years ago.

Do these alleged crimes against Thaksin's wife justify an illegal coup and tearing up the constitution? Nope

The Nation: Political Prosecution of the Shinawatras Continue

Wife of ousted prime minister and her brother charged of tax evasion

The Nation

Public prosecutor on Monday filed lawsuits against Khunying Pojaman Shinawatrra, wife of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, her brother, Bhanapot Damapong, and her personal secretary, Kanjanapa Honghern, for major tax evasion.

The three reported themselves to the Criminal Court on Monday morning and posed bail of Bt6 million for each.

They appeared at the Criminal Court at about 9.30am to hear the charge. At the press time, their lawyer are submitting Bt6-million bank accounts for bail for each person.

Court has set May 24 to check proposing evidence of both parties.

If convicted, they would face jail terms of up to 14 years each for tax evasion.

This is apparently the first time that a wife of a Thai prime minister was charged with criminal-linked charge and tax irregularities.

Public prosecutors believed that Pojaman, Bhanapot and Kanjanapa were involving in filing income tax returns in relation to a shock transaction in 2000. They were alleged to unlawfully claim tax exemption.

Prosecutors earlier said they would treat the case as a criminal conspiracy, and the matter could not be settled out of court even if the defendants later decided to meet their tax obligations.

Based on the Assets Examination Commission's report, the defendants were liable for Bt500 million in unpaid tax, he said.

If convicted, they would have to meet their tax liabilities and pay a fine of up to Bt400,000 on top of any time served in jail, he said.

This is disgusting. The current illegally installed government is going after the Shinawatras for a criminal conspiracy that happened before they even came to power, during Chuan II. What exactly will be the government's defense when the officials who were responsible for overseeing the Shinawatras tax returns did nothing?

The Shinawatra defense: How come they weren't audited back then? Why didn't the corruption commission prosecute during the asset concealment case?

Does this justify the coup? Nope.

This is an Al Capone type of prosecution. They have nothing of substance to get the Shins on, so they audit their books from 8 years ago. Why not audit their taxes from when they were in power, so it can be proved that they used their authority to break the law?

This current government is like a Soviet style government. It uses selective prosecution to chase after its enemies.

Anywhere in the civilized world this would be denounced as unjust bordering on the fascistic, but, in Thailand, business as usual.