Thaksin's Original and Conventional Tricks Found by NCCC and Confirmed by Judge Prasert Nasakul 
( Last edit 2009-05-30 )
This following article is an adaptation from the original article in Thai by Plew See-Ngoen in Thai Post Newspaper on July 10, 2009 plus an excerpt from the individual verdict by Judge Prasert Nasakul who presided the hearing and judging the case of Thaksin's asset concealment in 2001. Later after winning narrowly in this case, Thaksin still often repeated this kind of tricks, using proxies to earn corrupt benefits and probably tax frauds such as in the second episode of his asset concealment --the selling of over 70 billion bahts Shin corp shares to Temasek--, and his family's tax frauds which was found guilty by the criminal court of first instance.
FIRST STATEMENT (Nov 7, 97) share price on Nov 3,97
The most obvious and undeniable proof of this criminal profile is the hidden money abroad over 7 billion bahts (200 million USD) for Thaksin to conveniently buy Manchester city football club when he was in self-made exile in 2007. The presence and the sources of the money had never been declared to NCCC as Thaksin when in the PM seat for six years were supposed to, as required by the constitution. Some comments by ronayos are in italics
Today (July 10, 2009 ), I would like to pay a commemorative tribute to "Prasert Nasakul", an ex-judge in the Constitutional Court who passed away at the age of 78 on July 9, 2009. The funeral service was at Thatthong temple. He is a pure gold leaf which forever seals and brightens the Constitutional Court. His individual verdict in the case of "Thaksin's asset concealment" on August 3, 2001 was on the minority side who found Thaksin guilty (at 7 to 8) whereas the majority found Thaksin not guilty.
However, his individual verdict, despite being on the minority side, is free from bribery and any influence. It is just and represents the public view to Thaksin stealthy misbehaviours. He passed away along the course of nature but his individual verdict which serves the public interests will never pass away. It will forever stand by ethics, morality and Thai justice.
I would like to prostrate myself in respect to the soul of Judge Prasert Nasakul who was the essence among judges, who was unshakened by bribery and who was truely as good as his name "Prasert". I would like to reiterate "an extract" of his individual but historal verdict of pureness and cleanness by republish it here once again.
(The following is however a lengthier translation by ronayos of the individual verdict to help understanding this crook Thaksin's criminal profile. As opposed to what Thaksin always claims invisible hands or extra-constitutional superior force trying to oust him, by that time in mid 2001, there was no presence of any political enemy against Thaksin to prejudice the judges, apart from Thaksin himself who bribed some of the on-sale judges through the connection of ex-judge Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin's brother-in-law, to win the case.)
August 3, 2001
Subject: Deliberate falsification of the statements of assets and liabilities OR Concealment of the information as supposed to be declared as stipulated by Article 295 of the Constitution.
Defendant pol. lieut. col. Thaksin Shinawatra ex-deputy Prime Minister
The Chairman of the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC) submitted a complaint dated January 16, 2001 to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court that the NCCC, as the plaintiff, had investigated and verified the actual presence of the assets and liabilities of pol. lieut. col. Thaksin Shinawatra, as the defendant who had previously submitted the statements of assets and liabilities when taking on the position of deputy Prime Minister in the government of PM General Chawalit Yongjaiyud, immediately when he had left the position, and when he had left the position for one year.
Following the deliberation of the investigation in the meeting of 98/2000 on December 26, 2000, by 8 to 1 vote which was over two-third of the committee members, the NCCC found the defendant guilty of either deliberate falsification of the statements of assets and liabilities as well as the supporting documents OR deliberate concealment of the information as supposed to be declared. NCCC, therefore, filed a case to the Constitutional Court to further return the verdict as stipulated by Article 295 of the Constitution.
The facts in the deliberation
1.The facts are the same as stated in the joint verdict of the Constitutional Court.
2.The subcommittee for verification and summarizing of the actual presence of the assets and liabilities of pol. lieut. col. Thaksin Shinawatra issued a letter of October 26, 2000 to the defendant asking whether there were any other assets and liabilities which belonged to the defendant, or in the possesory rights of the defendant, including of the spouse, or of the children who were nof of age, or in other persons' names, or in other persons' occupation apart from which had been declared in the three statements.
It was because the investigation showed that the assets and liabilities in terrm of capital investment (shares) in various companies as found during the time were in seventeen companies. The defendant and the spouse directly and indirectly had transferred the shares to others i.e., Mr.Wichai Changlek, Mr.Bannapot Damapong (Potjaman's brother), Miss Boonchu Rianpradap, Miss Sukanya Sae-Eng, Miss Duanta Wongpakdee, Mr.Chairat Chiangpruk, Mr.Wanchai Chiangpruk, Mr.Pornthip Chiangpruk, Mrs.Danee Burakasikorn, Mr.Manas Jaiya. The request was to find out which type of legal transactions they were, either finish-off trading, gifts, possessory proxies, or else. Also, the reasons , details and steps of the procedures and relevant evidences were to be submitted within fifteen days from the date of letter acceptance.
Moreover, on November 17, 2000 another letter was sent to the defendant requesting the fact and relevant documents regarding the possessions and transfers of the shares, to be answered to the subcommittee within November 30, 2000. Otherwise, the deliberation of evidences would proceed as the subcomittee would see fit.
3. The defendant replied in writing to the subcommittee three times i.e., confidential letters dated November 14, 28 and 30, 2000 which answered to the letter of the subcommittee dated November 26, 2000.
4. The defendant explained to the subcommittee in a confidential letter date November 14, 2000, which can be summarized as follows.
4.1 SCK Estate Co., Ltd. initially had registered capital of 5 million bahts and raised capital to 5, 10 and 30 million bahts all of which the defendant's spouse bought and distributed to members in the family. On August 30, 1998, the capital was raised from 30 million bahts to 200 million bahts all of which the defendant's spouse bought and distributed to members in the family. On August 1, 2000, the defendant's spouse sold and transferred 2 million shares while the defendant sold and transferred 3,549,980 shares, to make a total of 5,549,980 shares worth of 55,499,800 bahts at 10 bahts per share to Win Mark Limited which hold British Virgin Island nationality. The defendant explained that it was a usual sale transaction, not a money laundering (page 12).
4.2 System Network Co., Ltd. initially had registered capital of 5 million baht. On September 4, 1997 it was registered terminated. The defendant therefore did not notify the shareholding. If the plaintiff considers that it is required, then the defendant would provide additional explaination that it was without deliberate falsification of the statements.
4.3 NTU (Thailand) Co., Ltd. was registered to have a capital of 32 million bahts and did not intend to earn profit. The Civil and Commercial Code stipulates that the defendant as the founder of the company has to sign and buy at least one share in which the defendant paid only a half of the share value, i.e. 50 bahts. Since the capital was not paid up in full, the company has not issued the share certificate.Therefore, the secretary did not know and the defendant did not deliberately submit falsified statements. This letter is requested to be an addendum to the statements.
5. The defendant explained to the subcommittee in a confidential letter date November 24, 2000, which can be summarized as follows.
5.1 Major shareholders of Alpine Golf and Sport Club Co., Ltd. (Sanoh Thientong and his relatives) wanted to sale the shares and the golf course business at the price of 500 million baht. There was a purchase agreement between SC Assets Co., Ltd. and Alpine Real Estate Co., Ltd. according to the record of agreement of intention to buy and sell the shares and the assets dated September 9, 1998.
The managers advised the defendant's spouse that no juristic person in (defendant's) conglomerate or any names in Damapong(Potjaman's original surname) or Shinawatra should be holding Alpine Golf and Sport Club Co., Ltd. until the final stage of the sale by auction. The defendant's spouse then bought the shares and the businesses through Mr.Chairat, Miss Boonchu, and Mr.Wichai as proxies. The defendant never saw the share certificates and understood all along that the shareholder was a juristic person because the defendant himself did not carry out the activity while the secretary of the defendant's spouse misunderstood, and therefore did not include this information in the statements.
5.2 In 1990, the defendant and the spouse bought the shares of SC Assets Co., Ltd. and became major shareholders. On April 24, 1992, the company sold the assets and was planned to cease to do business, the defendant thus, without paying further attention, signed blank transfer forms for his spouse to proceed as she would see fit. Until later, the defendant learned that his spouse and Mr.Bannapot continued to join the investment by proxy shareholders. The secretary of the defendant's spouse did not include the assets in the three statements, i.e. Miss Boonchu holding 4 million shares, Miss Duangta holding 2,999,970 shares, Miss Danee holding 3 million shares, worth of 99,999,700 bahts.
5.3 Regarding Teleinfo Media Co., Ltd., the defendant did not operate the company while the secretary of the defendant's spouse had misunderstanding leading to the failure to include the information about the proxy shareholders group in the three statements during the three political post, adding up to less than 600 bahts for each incidence.
5.4 Shin Corporation (public) Co., Ltd. was listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand on August 30, 1990. From the interrogation of the defendant's spouse regarding the use of proxy shareholders, it is found that the shares were supposed to be declared in the statements. All of the names of the proxy shareholders were the same as what the defendant and his spouse had used before, according to what the defendant claims that, he had signed blank transfer forms to his spouse (summarized in the following table).
names of the proxies for defendant's spouse
Verification with the registrar of SET and financial institutions does not reveal any shareholding in this period
* Verification with SET does not show the shareholding in such period.
** The information from the SET has not been received.
SECOND PART CLICK HERE
FIRST STATEMENT (Nov 7, 97)
share price on Nov 3,97