www.antithaksin.com

Ultimate objectives of PAD

       a. PAD wants to get rid of corruptions. Thaksin, the billionaire civilian dictator, has left Thailand with extensive high level of corruptions and proxy politicians. Having cheated the country while in power, Thaksin hid his corrupt billion of dollars worth of assets overseas. When ousted, Thaksin is subjected to numerous convictions but cowardly fled jail overseas and pull strings on politicians to sabotage his homeland.

       b. PAD protects the Monarchy. Thaksin wants to launder himself through amending the laws with his proxy politicians, while trying to abolish the Monoarchy and make himself a President, that is to cause turmoils and change Thailand from being a "Kingdom" to a "Republic" in stead.

       c. As a permanent cure for Thailand, PAD wants to get real democracy for Thailand. At present it is a fake democracy with bad on-sale politicians.

       d. To achieve all above a, b, c we have to get rid of Thaksin and his proxy politicians and punish them according to the laws.


    Thaksin

    Profiles

    Thaksin's Original and Conventional Tricks Found by NCCC and Confirmed by Judge Prasert Nasakul [2]

    ( Last edit 2009-05-30 )

    This is the second part of 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 when Thaksin was just about to start his PM post.


    Later after winning narrowly in this case, PM Thaksin then, 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 in August 2008.

    The most obvious and undeniable proof of Thaksin crimes 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 accountable by or notified to NCCC as Thaksin when in the PM seat for six years were supposed to, as required by the constitution.

    The individual verdict helps understanding this crook Thaksin's criminal profile. Moreover, as opposed to what Thaksin always claims invisible hands or extra-constitutional superior force trying to ousted 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.) Comments by ronayos are in italics

    6. In the confidential document dated November 30, 1999, the defendant's explaination to the subcommittee, can be summarized as follows.

    6.1 United Communication Industry (public) Co., Ltd.(UCOM) is not a company in the Shinawatra's conglomerate. Between 1994-1995, the spouse used to buy some shares of this company under others' names as proxies. They were all sold out.

    6.2 Udomwan Co., Ltd. is now completely ceased its operation.

    6.3 As for Pager Sales Co., Ltd., the defendant held 5,993 shares at 100 bahts per share. The company's purpose is to support Advance Paging Co., Ltd. (previously Shinawatra Paging Co., Ltd.) which is a joint investment with a Singapore group "Singapore Telecom Ltd." at 60 to 40 per cent. In 1994, when the defendant decided to enter politics, he signed blank transfer forms to his spouse for her management at will. The defendant had no time to follow how the shares were transferred. Later, the company lost and needed to increase the capital. Therefore, some other investors joined to add up the new capital investment to 200 million bahts in order to pay for the accumulated lost. The defendant's spouse bought 60 per cent of the newly issued shares. After the capital was increased and the debt was paid for, the company's resolute was to decrease the capital to clear up the recorded accumulated lost of 200 million bahts to 50 million baht, 13 million baht, 4 million baht, and 1 million bahts on February 27, 1999. On examination, there are assets of the spouse which have not been listed in the statements of assets as summarized in the table as follows.

    The figures in the original table shown in the internet are blurry. Therefore, the figures in this one particular table below are rough estimation. CLICK to see the original

    names of the proxies for defendant's spouse

    FIRST STATEMENT (Nov 7, 97)

    SECOND STATEMENT (Dec 4, 97)
    THIRD STATEMENT (Dec 4, 98)
    share amount

    share price on Nov 3,97

    total value
    share price on Nov 21, 97
    share amount
    share price on Nov 21, 98
    total value
    Mr.Chairat
    7
    10
    70
    Same as in the First Statement
    1
    10
    10
    Mr.Wanchai
    2
    10
    20
    Miss Boonchu
    2
    10
    20
    775,525
    10
    7,755,250
    Mr.Porthip
    2
    10
    20
    2
    10
    20
    Miss Duangta
    2,999,995
    10
    29,999,950
    1
    10
    10


    6.4 As for NCC Management & Development Co., Ltd., on November 26, 1996, SC Asset Co., Ltd. bought the shares and sold to SC Office Park Co., Ltd., Mrs.Boosaba Damapong and the defendant's spouse. Some of the defendant's spouse's shares were given to Miss Boonchu who acted as a proxy in order to make the Shinawatra party be 6 votes out of the total 12 votes. On November 10, 1998, the company increased the capital from 100 million to 200 million baht. 50,000 more shares of the increased capital, were added to the shares in the name of Miss Boonchu. The reason why the statement of assets of the spouse did not include them is because they were under other person's name. The first and second lot was Miss Boonchu's 50,000 shares at 10 bahts per share, which make a total of 5,000,000 baht. The third lot was Miss Boonchu's 100,000 shares at 100 bahts per share, which make a total of 10,000,000 baht.

    6.5 OAI Property Co., Ltd. was previously FFP Co., Ltd.. The statement of assets is correct with this company. There is no proxy shareholder.

    6.6 PT Corporation Co., Ltd. was previously PT Film Co., Ltd.. The statement of assets is correct with this company. There is no proxy shareholder.

    6.7 Infocell Telecom (public) Co., Ltd. in 1995, increased the capital from 2 billion bahts to 3 billion baht. In 1997 the company lost. Two shareholders, MFC Thai Capital Fund, which affiliated to Bangkok Bank (public) Co., Ltd. and held 960,000 shares and P Assets Co., Ltd. which held 750,000 shares, sold the shares back to the defendant spouse. Since the company lost and potentially had to cease its operation while the spouse did not want other shareholders to be alarmed and followed in the same course of action, she used Miss Boonchu as a proxy to hold 1,710,000 shares on May 27, and June 18, 1997. On examination, there are the assets, 1,710,000 shares at 10 bahts per share, worth total of 17,100,000 baht, under a proxy by the name of Miss Boonchu which the defendant's spouse did not report in the first, second and third lot.

    6.8 Advance Info Service (public) Co., Ltd. was examined and found to have the assets of which the defendant's spouse used proxy shareholders as in the following table.

    names of the proxies for defendant's spouse

    FIRST STATEMENT (Nov 7, 97)

    SECOND STATEMENT (Dec 4, 97)
    THIRD STATEMENT (Dec 4, 98)
    share amount

    share price on Nov 3,97

    total value
    source
    share price on Nov 21, 97
    share amount
    share price on Nov 21, 98
    total value
    source
    Mr.Chairat
    278,200
    250
    69,550,000
    Patra Securities SET
    Same as in the First Statement
    .
    2,500,000
    250
    625,000,000
    Mr.Pornthip
    3800
    250
    950,000
    .
    100
    210
    21,000
    SET


    6.9 Shin Satellite (public) Co., Ltd. was examined and found to have the unreported assets of which the defendant's spouse used proxy shareholders as follows. The first lot Miss Boonchu held 40,200 shares at 14.25 bahts per share, worth of 572,850 bahts (as of November 3, 1997). The second lot Miss Boonchu held 40,200 shares at 10 bahts per share, worth of 402,000 bahts (as of November 21, 1997).The third lot Miss Boonchu held 40,200 shares at 18 bahts per share, worth of 723,600 bahts (as of November 12, 1998).

    6.10 Singtel Yellow Pages Co.,Ltd.: The defendant, the spouse and the children who have not become sui juris, never hold any shares nor use any proxy to hold any shares for, in this company.

    6.11 United Broadcasting Corporation (public) Co.,Ltd. was examined and found the assets which the defendant's spouse did not declare as she used a proxy to hold the shares as follows. During the first statement, Mr.Chairat held 1,084,200 shares at 12 bahts per share, worth of 13,010,400 bahts (November 3, 1997 's price). During the second statement, Mr.Chairat held 1,084,200 shares at 11.50 bahts per share, worth of 12,468,300 bahts (November 21, 1997 's price).

    6.12 Bangkok Telecom Engineering Co.,Ltd., was examined and found the assets which the defendant's spouse did not declare as she used a proxy to hold the shares thrice. Mr.Wichai held 999,994 shares at 10 bahts per share and Mrs.Danee held 1 share at 10 bahts per share.

    6.13 Data Processing Zone Developer Co.,Ltd., was examined. There were assets which the defendant's spouse did not declare as she used a proxy to hold the shares thrice to make a total of 7,000 shares at 100 bahts per share, worth of 700,000 bahts: Miss Duangta held 3,000 shares; Mr.Chairat held 450 shares; Mr.Wanchai held 50 shares; Miss Boonchu held 50 shares and Mr.Pornthip held 3,000 shares.

    In addition, there were small amout of shares in the names of the defendant and the spouse which the secretary of the defendant and of the spouse, were unaware of, i.e. Five Star Property Co.,Ltd., Electicity Generating (public) Co.,Ltd., Siam City Credit Finance and Securities (public) Co.,Ltd., United Motor Works (Siam) (public) Co.,Ltd., and Video Link Co.,Ltd. which in 1995, the company was sued in the Civil court and appeared existing. Therefore, to complete the list, the defendant would like to declare a list of defendant's assets of 162 shares at 1,000 bahts per share, worth of 162,000 bahts and the defendant's spouse's 6,642 shares at 1,000 bahts per share, worth of 6,642,000 bahts.

    The reasons [explained by the defendant] why the defendant's spouse used proxy shareholders are several e.g.

    (1) Some companies after acquisition still: had remaining debts with financial institutions; or had liabilities of being guarantors of other companies; or were in the processes of selling assets to liquidate under the FRA (Financial Sector Restructuring Authority). Using proxy shareholdes was to protect the defendant's and the spouse's names from being involved in debts negotiation.

    (2) The previous shareholders of some companies were receiving financial assistance and did not want the public to know that the defendant's spouse was helping them out.

    (3) Some companies had investment from outsiders. The spouse then increased the numbers of the shareholders to hold the majority votes in the shareholders' meeting.

    [Ronayos: It is simply cheating here. It is obviously illegal and unfair business practices to conceal or falsify the information of the shareholders. The worst cheating when they lied to their alliance partner shareholders who joined the investment in those companies. Moreover, to win a vote in a company's shareholder meeting does not need the number of shareholders because only the number of shares count. However, for any public companies, the law protects minor shareholders against the major shareholders which make this practice of Thaksin's family a violation of criminal laws.]

    (4) Some companies were newly set up in order to undertake subcontracts from the companies which the spouse had purchased the shares to help out the old shareholders. Such companies, however, were not the mainstream businesses of the spouse.

    [Ronayos: It is obviously unfair business practices to conceal or falsify the information of the parties involves in business deals such as those of the subcontractors and contractors, from the project owners since the conflict of interests and corruptions may exist because of insider's information, lack of check and balance and lack of fair competition, such as in bidding processes or price negotiation. Eventually, benefits would be unfairly drained to particular parties.]

    (5) Some companies were closing down.

    (6) Some companies needed seven shareholders as required by the law. The use of other names as proxy shareholders for the defendant's spouse was done after the businesses had extensively expanded which is a normal practice in businesses and not for political advantages.

    [Ronayos: It is obviously illegal here. How ignoble Thaksin is to claim illegal practice as a norm for business practice when he was the Prime Minister of Thailand.!!! No doubt, he buys votes and electoral frauds as he may claim a usual practice of Thai politicians.]

    The defendant explained further that:

    (1) The assets belonged to the defendant's spouse which were acquired through normal business practices. The assets were held in other people's names because of business reasons in regular and usual business practices. If the defendant or the secretary of the defendant had knew such facts and the law, that they had to be reported no matter the assets under other people's names, then they would report them because the assets actually existed and honesly acquired. Most existed before the defendant entered political posts. Although they appears a lot, but in comparison with the whole assets which the defendant and the spouse had reported they are much less. There is no reason to cover up.

    [Ronayos: Definitely, the use of proxies are for tax frauds. Some listed public companies if own by proxies are illegal because of possible stock market manipulation or insider trading. Moreover, proxies can be used for reservoirs of corrupt money and benefits. If they go on undetected, they will become laundering machines for huge dirty money ready for vicious circles of vote buying and more corruptions. Perhaps what were caught in this case are only a minute tip of icebergs of hidden shares. How about cash, estates, and other assets elsewhere under Shinawatras' proxies, either domestic or abroad and on offshore islands? In 2009, unsurprisingly, more and more are revealed.]


    (2) Because the defendant owned businesses of more than sixty companies, it was difficult to know how many shares in any companies were in possesion. When the spouse or the secretary told him how many shares, the defendant just reported so without any doubts. The defendant was not bother to verify in detail because of the mutual trust.

    (3) The defendant's spouse and the secretary were not used to the bureaucratic system. They understood that only reporting of the assets in the name of the spouse was enough. The intent of the constitution is to prevent political position holders to abuse their authority, therefore, it should not be considerred a deliberate falsification of the statements. The defendant himself was not aware of the facts during the submission of the statements.

    (4) During the time of submission of the first statement and the second statement, it was the beginning of the enforcement of the current constitution (1997) which lay people including the defendant did not fully understand. The year 2000's regulations upon the functions of the NCCC had not yet been enacted. Whilst submission of the third statement, the regulations had been enforced for five months but the Counter Courruption Act 1999 in Association with the Constitution (1997) were enforced on November 18, 1999. The submission of the statement at the end of one year after leaving the post was a new process. Therefore, with existing supposition particularly of the defendant's secretary and the spouse, they believed that the third statement was simply some incremental or decremental adjustments of the first two statements according to the facts at that moment.

    (5) The assets in the form of shares which the defendant spouse bought and were held in others' names, were duly traded and paid for from the current account number 111-302-0301 Siam Commercial Bank (public) Co., Ltd., Rajayothin Office, in which the money was automatically transferried from the saving account number 111-8000056164 Siam Commercial Bank (public) Co., Ltd., Rajayothin Office.

    [Ronayos: Thaksin's statement above was still to become a tight rope around Potjaman's neck for the later case of tax frauds which the criminal court of the first instance passed the sentence accordingly in August 2008 that she was guilty and to be imprisoned for two years.]


    (6) The shares under the proxies belong to legitimate companies which carry out legitimate businesses, and do not cause any harm to any other people or the state.

    (7) The Constitution, the Counter Corruption Act in association with the Consitution, and the regulations stipulate that the political office holders must submit the statements of assets of theirs, of their spouses and of their children who have not become sui juris. However, the defendant's misreporting of the assets of his, of his spouse and of his children who did not become sui juris, was because of unawareness of some assets which were left out from the statements, because the defendant's spouse did not inform the defendant. Therefore, it was not possible for the defendant to deliberately submit falsified statements or conceal facts which were supposed to be declared. The defendant wishs to hold the three documents of explaination to be addenda to the statements of the defendant and the spouse.

    7. The securities of the companies which the defendant and/or the spouse used proxies to hold, are summarized as follows.

    Securities under proxies (listed by person) (table 1)

    Names of Shareholder 1st Statement (Nov 7, 1997) took on FM post 2nd Statement (Dec 4, 1997) left FM post 3rd Statement (Dec 4, 1998) 1 year after leaving
    1.Miss Boonchu
    a.Shin Corporation
    446,146,900
    431,079,300
    -
    b.Shin Satellite
    572,850
    402,000
    723,600
    c.Infocell Telecom
    17,100,000
    17,100,000
    17,100,000
    Total Shares in SET
    463,819,750
    448,581,300
    17,823,600
    a.SC Asset
    40,000,000
    40,000,000
    40,000,000
    b.TeleInfo Media
    100
    100
    70
    c.Pager Sales
    20
    20
    7,799,950
    d.NCCManagement & Development
    5,000,000
    5,000,000
    10,000,000
    e.Dataprocessing Zone Developer
    -
    -
    166,666,580
    Total Shares outside SET
    45,005,120
    45,005,120
    224,471,600
    TOTAL
    508,824,870
    493,586,420
    242,295,200
    2 Mr.Chairat
    a.Shin Corporation
    260,243,200
    213,830,400
    -
    b.Shin Satellite
    694,550,000
    694,550,000
    -
    c.United Broadcasting
    13,010,400
    12,468,300
    -
    Total Shares in SET
    967,803,600
    920,848,700
    -
    a.SC Asset
    100
    100
    70
    b.TeleInfo Media
    1,000
    1,000
    1,000
    c.Pager Sales
    50
    50
    50
    d.Alpine Golf & Sport Club
    -
    -
    166,666,580
    e.Dataprocessing Zone Developer
    45,000
    45,000
    45,000
    Total Shares outside SET
    46,150
    46,150
    166,712,660
    TOTAL
    967,849,750
    920,894,850
    166,712,660
    3.Miss Duangta
    a.Shin Corporation
    785,000,000
    -
    -
    Total Shares in SET
    785,000,000
    -
    -
    a.SC Asset
    29,999,700
    29,999,700
    29,999,700
    b.TeleInfo Media
    100
    100
    70
    c.Pager Sales
    29,999,840

    29,999,840

    10
    d.Dataprocessing Zone Developer
    300,000
    300,000
    300,000
    Total Shares outside SET
    60,299,640
    60,299,640
    30,299,780
    TOTAL
    845,299,640
    60,299,640
    30,299,780
    4. Mr.Wichai
    a.Shin Corporation
    7,812,791
    6,419,427
    -
    Total Shares in SET
    7,812,791
    6,419,427
    -
    a.TeleInfo Media
    100
    100
    70
    b.Bangkok Telecom Engineering
    9,999,840
    9,999,840
    9,999,840
    c.Alpine Golf & Sport Club
    -
    -
    166,666,573
    Total Shares outside SET
    9,999,940
    9,999,940
    176,666,583
    5.Mr.Pornthip
    a.Advance Info Service
    950,000
    950,000
    21,000
    Total Shares in SET
    950,000
    950,000
    21,000
    a.Udomwan
    638,000
    638,000
    638,000
    b.Pager Sales
    20
    20
    10
    c.Dataprocessing Zone Developer
    300,000
    300,000
    300,000
    Total Shares outside SET
    938,020
    938,020
    938,010
    TOTAL
    1,888,020
    1,888,020
    959,010
    6.Mrs.Danee
    a.SC Asset
    30,000,000
    30,000,000
    30,000,000
    b.TeleInfo Media
    100
    100
    70
    c.Bangkok Telecom Engineering
    10
    10
    10
    Total Shares outside SET
    30,000,110
    30,000,110
    30,000,080

    Source:NCCC's Closing Statement on June 21, 2001

    Summary of the values of securities under proxies (listed by company) (table 2)

    7.Mr.Manas
    a.TeleInfo Media
    100
    100
    70
    Total Shares outside SET
    100
    100
    70
    8.Mr.Sawat
    a.Udomwan
    1,000
    1,000
    1,000
    b.Dataprocessing Zone Developer
    45,000
    45,000
    45,000
    Total Shares outside SET
    46,000
    46,000
    46,000
    9.Mr.Wanchai
    a.Pager Sales
    50
    50
    -
    b.Dataprocessing Zone Developer
    5,000
    5,000
    5,000
    Total Shares outside SET
    5,050
    5,050
    5,050
    GRAND TOTAL
    2,371,726,271
    1,523,139,557
    646,984,283

    The witnesses and the evidences submitted hereby to the Constitutional Court are suffice for deliberation of the plaint without necessity to acquire any other witnesses and evidences.

    The relevant laws are:

    1.The Constitution (1997), articles number 97, 209, 215, 216, 258, 265, 266, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 301, 317 and 321

    2.The Civil and Commercial Code, articles number 137, 138, 168, 575, 826, 827, 1151, 1157,1167, 1457, 1461, 1465, 1470 to 1474 and 1476 to 1493

    3.Revenue Code, articles number 9 second clause, 38 and 57 third clause

    4.The Stocks and Stock Exchange Act 1992, articles number 241, 242, 243, 244 and 246

    5.The Counter Corruption Act (1999) in association with the Consitution, articles number 4, 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 34, 100, 101, 119, 120 and 130

    6.The Administrative Procedures Act (1996), articles number 4 and 19

    7.The regulations on the Function of the National Counter Corruption Committee (1998) Item 20, 21 and 22
    Also, there are the rulings of the Constitutional Court of 10/2000, 11/2000, 12/2000, 23/2000, 27/2000, 28/2000, 31/2000, 4/2001, 5/2001, 18/2001 and 19/2001.

    The issues to be judged:

    1. Whether or not, the Constitutional Court has the authority to judge this plaint.

    2. Whether or not, the defendant deliberately submitted falsified statements of assets and liabilities or concealed information which was supposed to be declared, as required by the Constitution article 295.


    First issue

    Whether or not, the Constitutional Court has the authority to judge this plaint. If the plaintiff has followed article 295 of the Constitution, then the Constitutional Court has to accept this plaint to rule. The fact is:

    1.1 The plaintiff informed that a meeting was held and a resolution of 8 to 1 votes was reached that the defendant deliberately submitted falsified statements or concealed the information which was supposed to be declared. Then, the plaint was submitted to the Constitutional Court.

    1.2 The minority of NCCC opposed the resolution on the ground that the resolution was undue because:

    (1) The NCCC examined the only sixty-page summarized report of the investigating subcommittee without examining the addendum of over 7,000 pages;

    (2) The meeting to deliberate, to vote and to approve the meeting's report was carried out at unusually fast speed;

    (3) The defendant did not "deliberately" submit falsified statements or conceal information which was supposed to be declared;

    (4) A tape cassette recording the meeting of the plaintiff on December 26, 2000 is referred to as an evidence.

    1.3 The defendant opposed the resolution on the ground that the plaintiff's resolution was undue because:

    (1) A member of the NCCC was unqualified, forbidden, and carrying out forbidden actions from the beginning;

    (2) The Chairman of the NCCC rushed the examination of the case of the defendant;

    (3) A member of the NCCC has conflicts with the defendant;

    (4) The plaintiff did not follow the regulations on the Function of the National Counter Corruption Committee (1998).

    (5) The Administrative Procedures Act (1996), article number 19 is not applicable to the plaintiff.

    (6) The plaintiff was not impartial, unjust and discriminating.


    1.4 Lady Preeya Kasemsan-Na-Ayudhaya, an NCCC member opposed the defendant that:

    (1) She had resigned from being a director of the company;

    (2) The Constitution Court had ruled in 4/2001 case that a resignation from a board of a company is inaccordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, i.e. a valid resignation may be done through expression in writing or in verbal to the authorized director;

    (3) She was not an employee of the Kasemwanarom Co., Ltd;

    (4) Her signature appeared as the company's bookkeeper was in accordance with the advice of the bookkeeper.

    3.5 The plaintiff explained that:

    (1) The member of NCCC as in item 1.4, was fully qualified and resigned on December 27, 2000 which was after the plaintiff voted in the case of the defedant.

    (2) Why the plaintiff could quickly finish examination of the case of the defendant was because the defendant admitted that the three statements submitted by the defendant, missed out the assets (shares) which were held by proxies, and more specifically with the submission of the additional statements of undeclared assets (shares) in detail to the examination subcommittee.

    (3) The defendant has no authority to request the Constitution Court to rule over the qualification, forbidden features, or forbidden actions of NCCC.

    (4) The regulations which the defendant claims in 1.3 had been cancelled by the Constitution article 321 second clause.

    (5) The plaintiff needs only to demonstrate that the defendant submitted falsified statements and concealed the information which was supposed to be declared while being "aware" of such information. The fact that the defendant's spouse used proxies to hold the shares either following of legal causes or business causes is enough.


    This issue has following collectable facts

    (1) An NCCC member who is accused of being a director of a company and a book keeper employee of Kasemwanarom Co.,Ltd. submitted an explanation in writing that the resignation of the company's director complied with the Constitution Court 's ruling in the case number 4/2001 because she had followed the Civil and Commercial Code articles 168, 826, 827, 1157,1167 and she was not a book keeper employee of such company according to the facts and various laws, i.e. the Civil and Commercial Code article 575, the Labour Relationship Act 1975 article 5, Reimbursement Act 1994 article 5, Occupational Training Promotion Act 1994 article 4. Therefore, she was not unqualified and did not carry out any unforbidden acts as an NCCC member as governed by the Constitution article 258 second clause.

    (2) The examination of the plaint in the case of this defendant, was not carried out in all by the whole committee, but was done by any one of the NCC committees who was authorized by the plaintiff with the help of officers in the NCCC office, according to the article 19 (12) of the Counter Corruption Act (1999) in association with the Constitution. Consequently, on examination of the documents of over 7,000 pages, one would see that the documents are information about those companies in which the defendant, the spouse and their associates own the shares such as companies' prospectuses, regulations, shareholders' meetings reports, directors' meetings reports, reports on shareholding etc. More important are the testimonies of the defendant, the spouse and their associates to the subcommittee. As a result, the plaintiff does not need to read all of the documents, since some of the statements relevant to the issues to be ruled, can be sufficiently retrieved.

    (3) The accusations that the President of NCCC rushed the deliberation of the defendant's case and some members of NCCC have personal conflicts with the defendant are not true. Why the plaintiff did not need a lot of time to search for the evidences was because the defendant submitted additional detailed statements of assets (the spouse's shares under proxies) which the defendant had left out in all three statements of November 14, 24, and 30, 2000. That is why it did not take time. The defendant misunderstands some members of NCCC but such dispute still does not answer the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant had, whether or not, submitted falsified statements and concealed the information which were supposed to be declared. Additionally, no matter what was the speed of the investigation, the plaintiff would be accused by the opponent that the plaintiff's resolution was undue and unfair.

    (4) The defendant raised a dispute that the lady Preeya, a member of NCCC was unqualified, and forbidden, or carried out forbidden acts from the beginning which would make the lady Preeya be presumed unelected as a member of the NCCC, and against the Constitution article 297 and the resultant resolution passed by the NCCC in which the lady Preeya was present, should have been considered illicit. This dispute is a request to the Constitution Court to consider issues concerning authorities and functions of the organizations in association with the Constitution in which article 266 stipulates that the authority exclusively belongs to such organizations themselves or the House speaker.

    THIRD PART CLICK HERE

CLICK for the dictator Thaksin