Thaksin's Original and Conventional Tricks Found by NCCC and Confirmed by Judge Prasert Nasakul 
( Last edit 2009-09-21 )
This is the final chapter 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.
Third issue: Did the defendant actually not understand the explanation of the form of the assets declaration statements?
This issue is a fact which is to be considered next. It turns out that:
3.1 The defendant opposed that: (1) The Constitution does not define the word "oneself's assets"; (2) The description of the form of the assets declaration statements is not clear; (3) The case in which the defendant does not declare the assets under proxies' names is not illegal, because the plaintiff has never specified one to declare; (4) The defendant lacks of the intention to conceal the assets under proxies' names: (5) The defendant did not have obligations to submit statements before the promulgation of the 1999 Counter Corruption Act in association with the Constitution, which was promulgated just on November 18, 1999; and (6) In confidential letters dated November 14, 24, and 30, 2000 to the President of the Examination Subcommittee, as addenda of the three previously submitted statements, the defendant have submitted additional assets and liablities statements as well as the explaination why they were not declared earlier in the statements.
3.2 The plaintif explained that (1) Although the Constitution does not define the word "oneself's assets", it is readily understandable; (2) Regarding the description of the form of the assets declaration statements, despite of minor changes, its matters are the same. Minor changes are to clarify the matters; (3) There have been no other Ministers or other submitters claiming the lack of understanding of the description of the form of the statements, and failed to declare the assets held in other proxies' names, like how the defendant claims of lack of understanding of the description; (4) Although the 1999 Counter Corruption Act was promulgated on November 18, 1999; the defendant already had the obligation to submit the statement as required by the Constitution since the promulgation of the Constitution on October 11, 1997.
This issue has the following obtainable facts:
(1) Though the Constitution does not define the word "oneself's assets"; the Code of Civil and Commercial Laws, article 137 states, "A property (Sap) means an object with a shape". Article 138 states, "An asset (Sapsin) means either property and non-shape object which may be valuable and possessed". The first clause of article 1461, states, "A husband and a wife have to stay together as a husband and a wife". The first clause of article 1465, states, "If a husband and a wife, before the wedding, had not specially contracted a deal about their assets, the married couple's relationship in terms of assets is to be stipulated under this section". The first clause of article 1474, states, "Marriage property is the assets (1) in which the married couple has acquired during the marriage. (2)...". Therefore, this defendant's dispute is only a defendant's excuse.
(2) Regarding the defendant's opposition that the description of the form of statements is difficult to understand, the consideration is that it is an excuse of the defendant. If the Deputy Prime Minister (the defendant) in the government of General Chawalit Yongjaiyud, which submit the draft Constitution to the House of Parliament does not understand, whoelse would? Why did the defendant not try to find out to understand or ask the plaintiff? This opposition may not be accepted.
Regarding what Mr.Prasit, the minority of the NCCC, raised that if the description had been clear, why some adjustments were needed, this is contradictory to Mrs.Kanjanapa who testified to the examination subcommittee on December 15, 2000, by saying, "I having read the description, understood that it was required to declare also the assets under other proxies. However, in the spaces to be filled, there were only spaces for the spouse and the children who did not reach the sui juris. Consequently, I filled up only as the spaces stated and read the description only during the first filling. I did not read the description in the latter filling because I thought they were the same" (page 5 or 7309). She completed it without addendum.
Moreover, on May 25, 2001, Mr.Prasit, the minority of the NCCC, in reply to a cross examination by Mr.Klanarong, the plaintiff, said, "As she (Mrs.Kanjanapa, the secretary) was told not to fill them up, all those (under proxies) by the Lady (Potjaman Shinawatra) who told her not to fill, as the assets were under other names, how would she (Mrs.Kanjanapa, the secretary) be able to fill them." (page 22)
(3) There have been no other Ministers or other respondents, except the defendant, claiming the lack of understanding of the description of the form of the statements to validate the failure to declare the assets held in other proxies' names.
(4) If the defendant asks himself that whether or not, the assets (shares) of his which were blank transferred to his spouse and were later transferred to other nominees to hold as proxies, remain assets under his possession, the defendant can righteously and openly reply that the assets remain his, both during the marriage and up to before the divorce. Moreover, the defendant has never submitted the evidences of blank transfer.
Even fourty years ago, a government officer of New Zealand explained with examples that he could use a computer to tell that at any point in time, how much the Finance Ministry had paid for the expenses of any offices and departments as far back as fifty years before. Therefore, what the defendant is claiming at present time, that he did not know the details of the assets (shares) which his spouse owned in her name and in the confidants' names, is unreasonable according to corporations and companies administration, finance and management aspects. Since the defendant was a chief executive officer (CEO) of Shinawatra Corporation which consisted more than sixty clustered companies (Resignation from the director posts have been submitted.), it is unreasonable to claim that because if the defendant had used a computer with a proper software and database, he would be able to know the number of shareholders and how many each one was holding the shares in each company of each cluster companies, the highest and the lowest of each share in each day, including production costs, profit per shares etc. at any time of a particular day, at a tip of finger. With such tools, the top executive of a corporation would be able to access to the "inside information" of each company.
(5) The defendant's request to count the addenda statements of the previously undeclared assets to be a part of the previously submitted three statements, may not be permitted because the defendant did not voluntarily declare the assets to the examination subcommittee. Instead, the defendant was obliged to submit the statements of assets with explainations to the examination subcommittee who made the enquiry, and only after the media reported that the defendant had transferred a lot of assets to close confidants, and only after there were accusers submitting this accusation to the plaintiff to examine the matter.
(6) The defendant's closing statement on June 18, 2001, states that the defendant does not intend to violate the laws or conceal (facts), as he was serving as a police officer for 14 years, doing business for 8 years, being a politician for 6-7 years and then transferred the businesses to his spouse to manage. In fact, examination of the shareholder lists submitted to the Ministry of Commerce revealed that the defendant/his spouse used close confidants as proxies to hold the shares both before and after the time when the defendant claims he blank transferred the shares to his spouse. Moreover, the confidants are the same group of people who hold Shinawatra companies' shares.
(7) Although there is no law prohibiting the defendant's spouse to hold the shares, not in her name but in proxy confidants' names; such deeds point to the intentions according to the six intentions of the spouse and the seven intentions of the defendant in the addenda of statements of assets which had not been declared in the initial three statements, in the confidential letter dated November 14, 24, and 30, 2000. It was because both the defendant and his spouse put an effort to declare to the public to believe that those shares apparently belong to the nominees. In fact, the spouse asked them to use their names. As a result, the failure to declare the assets in the statements is not a due mistake, but a deliberate concealment of the information which was supposed to be declared.
Following the above reasons, the excuses of the defendant who was a Deputy Prime Minister, may not be justifiable, because the second clause of article 291 stipulates, "The statements as in the first clause are to be submitted with accompanying documents which are copies of evidences of the actual presence of such assets and liabilities, together with copies of the past year's personal income tax declaration forms which have been signed for approval by the submitters on every page." The first clause of article 292 stipulates, "The statements of assets and liabilities in article 291 are to exhibit actual presence of assets and liabilities on that day and must be submitted..." The defendant who was an important political post holder in the administration with high responsibility, should not avoid Constitutional obligations and put the blame on his private secretary which is a junior employee.
Fourth issue: Did the defendant deliberately submit falsified statements or conceal of the information which was supposed to be declared?
In order to judge any person "deliberately conceal" anything, that person must initially be aware of the information or the matters to be concealed. Although, the defendant claims the Criminal Code and the Civil and Commercial Code which indicate accompanying particular intention; "conceal" has its own meaning only that the defendant knew or was aware of the assets and did not declare according to article 295 of the Constitution. Suffice it to say that there is a cause to conceal. Particularly, the defendant confirms the six reasons why the defendant's spouse used nominees to hold the shares, plus other seven defendant's reasons in the three explaination letters of the defendant submitted to the examination subcomittee. Mrs.Kanjanapa, the private secretary of the defendant's spouse knew (about the assets under nominees) as well as the defendant's spouse who the defendant confirms that they certainly knew about the assets under nominees.
The Constitution Court used to rule "deliberate" in the ruling number 31/2000 dated August 10, 2000 ,"The Constitution Court has the authority only to judge that the defendant deliberately carried out... and does not have to judge the motive too...(page 47)"
Moreover, general legal principles saying "Actions indicate the wills", can be applied to this submission of the statements. Since the defendant accepts that having blank transferred the shares to his spouse, his spouse would be able to transfer them to anybody, and when the defendant accepts the fact that he knew who held how many shares in which companies as proxies for his spouse and the shareholders transferred the shares back to his spouse (facts in (11) and (12) of the fourth issue below) but the defendant did not declare in the three statements, therefore, it is to be ruled that the defendant submitted falsified statements or concealed the information which was supposed to be declared. The defendant and/or the spouse deliberately conceal their shares by using close confidants' names as nominees because: (1) They did not want anyone to know who were the actual shareholders; (2) They did not want anyone to know how many shares and what percentage of the shares they own; (3) In order that they would easily trade the shares; (4) Should there were any collateral damages from holding the shares of such companies, they would not affect the reputaion of the defendant and his spouse or their conglomerate companies. It turns out that
4.1 The defendant opposes that: (1) The plaintiff did not state which assets were falsified or concealed; therefore, the defendant did not understand; (2) Being a husband and a wife does not mean that the husband would be aware of all of the wife's businesses and vice versa; (3) Using nominees as proxy shareholders is not illegal. It is a common practice in business. (4) As for the shares of Shinawatra Corp. in 1998 which there were proxy shareholders next after the defendant, it was because the defendant's spouse filled nominees' names in the blank share transfer forms while the defendant did not carry out the transfer to the proxies, therefore, no information was declared. (5) As for the shares of Info Link, it was a transfer in 1999 which was well after the defendant's obligation to submit the statement. (6) As for Alpine Company, the defendant did not conceal the deal, which the defendant spouse was the purchaser. The defendant did not know that it was the asset to be declared. (7) The Constitution does not stipulate that the defendant's spouse has to submit the statements. (8) In accusing the defendant deliberately submitted falsified statements or conceal the information which is supposed to be declared, the plaintiff has to prove what are the motives of the intention to conceal.
4.2 The plaintiff explains: (1) The defendant declared the assets which had not been declared in the three statements, accompanied by detail reasons in the confidential letters of November 14, 24, and 30, 2000, which were submitted to the examination subcommittee. Therefore, it can be regarded as the defendant accepts the fact that the defendant deliberately submitted falsfified statements or conceal the information which was supposed to be declared. There is no need (for the plaintiff) to clarify further. (2) The defendant has been aware of his spouse using nominees to hold the shares as proxies as appeared in the confidential letters of November 24, 2000 page 18-21 and (3) Only the defendant's awareness of the assets which were supposed to be declared but refraining from declaration of the assets suffice to say that it was a deliberate concealment of the assets.
This issue has the following obtainable facts:
(1) The defendant states about the assets which had not been declared in the three statements, accompanied by detail reasons in the confidential letters of November 14, 24, and 30, 2000, together with what the defendant explained to the examination subcommittee on December 8, 2000, "I have seen those three letters of explainations (the confidential letters of November 14, 24, and 30, 2000) and wish to confirm all the matters as appeared in the letters.(page 2 or 7392)" Therefore, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to states about the assets again.
(2) As for the defendant's claim that the plaintiff did not give an opportunity for the defendant to explain and oppose the allegations, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to explain in writing which the defendant explained to the examination subcommittee with three confidential letters of November 14, 24, and 30, 2000 and permitted the defendant, his spouse and close confidants explain to the examination subcommittee on December 8 and 15, 2000. Therefore, those suffice.
(3) Regarding testimonies in writing by witnesses (Lady Potjaman Shinawatra, Mr.Banapot Damapong, Mr.Sakrin Ruamrangsee, Mr.Wiroj Nuankae, and Mr.Suwit Mapaisalsin) dated May 17, 2001, the plaintiff requested cross examinations but the witnesses did not attend the court, claiming that the testimonies were readily clarified in all aspects. As for the testimony in writing by Mr.Surasak Wajasit which referred to a video tape record of a program "Country's Debts", titled "Stock Exchange: Thai Investors Assembly or Foreign's Speculator's Assembly", broadcasted on channel 7 UBC news on March 30, 2001 and was requested to be a part of defendant's testimony, the plaintiff opposes that the defendant named the additional witness after Mr.Surasak had appeared in the program for two days and the host of the program was Mr.Noppadol Inna who was a Thai Rak Thai party's party listed MP candidate. The witness was therefore not actually neutral as the defendant claims. The program was made as an evidence in this case for the purpose to help out the defendant. Mr.Wiroj Nuankae is a former President director of Patra Company which was the broker company for the defendant, his spouse as well as the close confidants.
(4) The defendant claims that the use of nominees to hold the shares as proxies, is not illegal and it is a common practice among business people. The question is whether or not the six reasons why the defendant's spouse used nominees to hold the shares, plus other seven defendant's reasons conform with ethics and cultures in Thai society. Upon examination of the lists of the shareholders of companies which the defendant and the spouse initially submitted, it appears that the defendant and the spouse have used close confidants to be proxy shareholders since 1987, such as Miss Duangta, Miss Boonchu, Mr.Chairat, Mr.Bannapot, Miss Busaba (later married to Mr.Bannapot), Mr.Pornthip, Miss Sukanya, Mr.Wichai, Mr.Manas.
(5) As for the trade of Shin Corp. shares which the defendant reported on June 11, 1999 according to the article 246 of the Security Act, it is another example (although it was after the time when the Constitution stipulated that the defendant has to submit the statements) that the defendant sold 32,920,000 shares in the Stock Exchange of Thailand to another body which is Ample Rich Investments Limited, 185 A Goldhill Centre 51, Thomson Road, Singapore 307269 (Correspondent Office) which pol. lieut. col. Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra holds 100% shares (Total 32,920,000 shares). What is the purpose of it, if not to conceal the facts from others to know that this company is actually the defendant?
(6) As for the case of Info Link Company shares, the plaintiff used a copy of shareholders list which the company submittted to the Department of Commercial Registration to charge against the defendant. When the company explained about the errors of the defendant shares to the plaintiff, and corrected them, as well as the plaintiff no longer doubts, the charge can be dropped.
(7) The defendant and/or the spouse has held the SC Asset Company shares since 1987 and transferred the shares to Mr.Bannapot and Miss Busaba in the same year. The defendant claims that while he blanked transferred the shares to the defendant's spouse, the defendant's spouse still used the same group of people which the defendant accepts these facts as appeared in (12) below of this issue.
(8) As for the case of Alpine Company, it appears that the defendant's spouse bought the company's shares on September 9, 1998 with nominees as proxy shareholders. The defendant had to submit the statement on December 4, 1998 but failed to include this asset. The defendant gave an interview to Mr.Jermsak Pinthong on April 22, 1999, "This golf course, I have paid 500,000,000 baht for the area of nearly 500 rai (1 rai = 1600 sq.meter) together with a huge clubhouse worth of over a hundred million baht. Is it worth? It was a course for Asian Games. Therefore, it was not a help out. It was a business deal between acquaintances who see that it is worth to trade. That is why I bought it and should not be considered a favour. I did not do a favour for Mr.Sanoh. Because Mr.Sanoh offered to sell it at a reasonable price, I then bought it. It was just a coincidental that we are acquaintances. The defendant explained in wirting on March 1, 2001 to the Constitution Court that according to what the defendant had given an interview to Mr.Jermsak that "I" was the purchaser of the shares, the word "I" means "SC Asset Company Limited" which the defendant's spouse and her brother own. The defendant's explaination is an unacceptable excuse because the defendant accept the facts as appeared in (12) below of this issue.
(9) Why the Constitution does not require the defendant's spouse to submit the statements is because the article 291 stipulates that only the defendant alone is obliged to submit the statements since the article 209 stipulates that the ministers must transfer shares to juristic persons which manage the assets on behalf of others, in order to keep the ministers out of the conflict of interests of the family's business. Additionally the Management of Ministerial Partnership and Shares Act 2000 was promulgated on the day after pronounced in the Royal gazette on July 12, 2000. Articles 1470 to 1474 of the Civil and Commercial Code state about the assets of a husband and a wife while the third clause of article 57 of the Revenue Code states about the taxation of a husband and a wife in a taxable year.
According to the intention of the Constitution to reform the politics, anyone entering political posts, must transfer all the management of shares in the companies under possession. Saying or advertising to make the public know only the transfer to the spouse or the children does not suffice. In fact, the defendant remains the mastermind behind the business of the spouse and the children. Therefore, the defendant was obliged to submit the statements of assets of himself, his spouse and the children who did not become sui juris. The defendant may not claim that after blank transfer of his assets (shares) to his spouse, he did not know if his spouse which by then had the authority to transfer the assets to others, would whether or not carry out the transfer to others. He may not claim the private secretary's faults because article 291 of the Constitution stipulates that the defendant has to sign on every page of the statements to certify the facts provided, in order to prevent denials of the responsibility. Moreover, there are matters in (11) - (13) of this issue, therefore, the defendant's claims are not acceptable.
(10) Another matter is the case where the defendant did not have to submit the statements when the defendant and the spouse sold SCK Estate Co.,Ltd. 3,549,980 shares and 2,000,000 shares at 10 baht per share, amonting 55,499,800 baht to British-Virgin-Island-Nationality, Win Mark Limited, on August 1, 2000. The defendant confirms that the transfer of the shares was a normal trading and without money laundering because the transfer of the shares was accompanied by notification of the shareholding company to the Bureau of Partnership And Company Registration. This raises further question of what was the source and currency of the money which the purchaser company used and whether or not it was legal. It is a pity that the defendant did not explain. (Defendant's confidential letter dated November 14, 2000 page 12)
(11) The defendant's spouse answered to the examination subcommittee's question on December 8, 2000,
Question: "When you used nominees to hold the shares as proxies for Pol. Lieut. Col. Thaksin and you, therefore, all of the shares are still yours and Pol. Lieut. Col. Thaksin. Do you, or do you not know the amount of the shares in those companies which various nominees hold the shares as proxies?
Potjaman: "Yes, I do because there were collected proofs but all the proofs were kept by Mrs.Kanjanapa Honghern. All nominees would transfer the shares to me whereas none to Pol. Lieut. Col. Thaksin." (page 4 or 7394)
The answer shows that the defendant's spouse was "aware" of the what and how much assets which she owned and with whom the assets were but deliberately did not declare those assets.
(12) The defendant answered to the examination subcommittee's question on December 8, 2000, "... I wish to confirm the explaination and the documents submitted to the examination subcommittee dated November 14, 24, and 30, 2000 and completely explain all of the matters and the reasons..." and "...However, the shares or assets of mine or Lady Potjaman's which were in proxy names, were recorded in detail and traceable for those assets of mine and Lady Potjaman's in terms of amount and under which nominees..." and "...I wish to explain further that whether or not I declared the shares of me or Lady Potjaman's which were under nominees, in the three statements of assets and liabilities submitted to the NCCC, I did neither gain nor loose any benefits.(page 2-4 or 7399 - 7401). Likewise, this answer means that the defendant was "aware" of the what and how much assets which he owned and with whom the assets were but deliberately did not declare those assets.
(13) Examination of the shareholders lists of the companies back to 1983 reveals both the defendant and/or the spouse jointly carry out businesses by using close confidants such as Miss Boonchu, Miss Duangta, Mr.Chairat, Mrs.Danee, Mr.Wichai, Mr.Manas, Mr.Sawas, Mr.Pornthip, Mr.Wanchai, Miss Boosba, and Miss Sukanya. (Later Miss Duangta and Miss Boosba got married. Miss Sukanya resigned and Mr.Wanchai died.)
As for Shin Corporation, the defendant held 4,200,000 shares (24/7/1990). Then the defendant equally transferred 346,500 shares to each one of the following: Miss Duangta, Miss Sukanya, Miss Boonchu, Mr.Manas and Mr.Pornthip. Mr.Wichai received 345,000 shares and Mr.Chairat received 346,300 shares. (24/7/1990) (page 1335)
How the defendant or the spouse used close confidants to hold the shares as proxies to make the company constitute of at least seven people as stipulated by the laws are as such as:
Pager Sales Co., Ltd. had nine shareholders in all. The defendant held 4,993 shares out of 10,000 shares (page 4210). Later, Miss Duangta held 4,993 shares. Mr.Chairat held 2 shares. Mr.Wanchai held 2 shares. Mr.Sawas held 1 share. Miss.Boonchu held 1 share and Mr.Pornthip held 1 share (22/6/1994). These people make a quorum of seven shareholders.(page 2210)
AT&T Directories Co., Ltd. 206,600 shares were owned by the defendant. The spouse held 309,900 shares (1/4/1991). Then Miss Boonchu held 1,840,408 shares and Miss Duangta held 2,046,004 shares (3/7/1991) to make a quorum of seven shareholders (page 434).
Union Real Estate Co., Ltd. 24,000 shares were owned by the defendant. The spouse held 24,000 shares. Miss Busaba held 4,000 shares (18/11/1987). This company changed the name to SC Asset Co., Ltd. (February 26, 1993) in which Mr.Bannapot held 1,000,000 shares, Miss Boonchu held 400,000 shares, Miss Sukanya held 300,000 and Miss Duangta held 299,997 shares. Three other people held 1 share each. These people made a quorum of seven shareholders for 2,000,000 shares of a registered capital of 200 million bahts. The capital was increased 100 million bahts for Mr.Bannapot to hold the increased portion of 1 million shares and make a total of 2 million shares of his. Later, the company splitted the shares from par value of 100 bahts per share to par value of 10 bahts per share with unchanged shareholding proportion, except Miss Sukanya who resigned and replaced by Mrs.Danee. Therefore, it was a quorum of seven shareholders between December 6, 1994 to April 27, 1999.
The defendant claims that, he had signed blank transfer forms for his shares to his spouse and did not know if his spouse would transfer to other nominees to hold as proxies. However, the defendant's spouse remained useing Miss Boonchu, Miss Duangta, Mr.Chairat, Mrs.Danee, Mr.Wichai, Mr.Manas, Mr.Sawas, Mr.Pornthip, Mr.Wanchai, Mr.Banapot, and Mrs.Sukanya who are the same group of people which the defendant or his spouse used as nominees to hold the shares as proxy shareholders. Moreover, there are matters in Mrs.Kanjanapa's testimony which are supported by Mr.Prasit according to (2) of the third issue and which the defendant and his spouse accept the facts in (11) and (12) of this issue.
(14) What the defendant said, "I did neither gain nor loose any benefits... whether or not I submitted the statements." is a very mistaken accuse because if the defendant did not submit the statement, the defendant would be prohibited from holding any political post for five years from the day he left his previous post, without any chance to oppose. Why the defendant raised such excuses, despite knowing of his shares held by nominees as proxies but failed to declare, means he deliberately submitted falsified statements or concealed the information which was to be declared. It corresponds with a general legal principle which says "Deeds point to the intentions".
(15) Since the Constitution Court will on the same day, rule the plaintiff's complaint accusing Mr.Prayuth Mahakitsiri, senator and Pol.Lieut.Maj.Thaksin Shinawatra with deliberate submission of falsified statements or conceal the information which was supposed to be declared.
There should be a comparison between the business practices of Mr.Prayuth and Mrs. Suwimol Mahakitsiri in the Constitution Court's ruling number 19/2001 and ones of the defendant and his spouse where a sharp contrast can be seen because Mr.Prayuth and Mrs.Suwimol have assets either jointly earns together or separated. Mrs.Suwimol's private assets came from her mother and her private businesses. Mrs.Suwimol is a wife who has admirable ethics because she dares to reveal facts in the family by answering Mr.Prayuth's lawyer, unafraid of Mr.Prayuth, the husband, in order that the Constitution Court and the public know that she did not want to give the detail of the assets to Mr.Prayuth, no matter what would happen.(page 38-45)
Contrarily, the defendant and the spouse carry out businesses with joint assets and liabilities from the beginning in which there have been assets (shares) in the names of the defendant, the spouse and the close confidant proxies. The defendant claims that when entered into political activities, he blank transferred all the shares to his spouse for her to manage which his spouse similarly did what she had used to, that was assigning the private secretary to look after the transfer and nomination of proxies as shareholders including filing of the detail of the shareholding (Court's ruling page 103). However, all the nominated proxies are the same group of people both before and after the blank transfer. The defendant, as a political post holder, a former Deputy Prime Minister denies such awareness and awareness of (potential) conflicts of interests between the nation and the family businesses e.g. state's concessions grant, monopolized agreements with the state, shareownership or being partners in partnerships or companies contracting in such characters (Article 110(2)). Moreover, the defendant unjustifiably puts the blame and Constitutional responsibility (Article 291 second clause) on a private employee who is a small lady while defendant's spouse submitted a testimony in writing and did not attend the court for the plaintiff to cross examine and the defendant came to the court only in the last hearing when he pronounced the closing statement.
16) [Thailand has suffered from] the development of politics, economics and society by copying legal knowledges of capitalist countries to apply alone without the wisdom and consciences to select good practices and approprateness together with prevention of exploitation and loopholes etc.
In addition, with ignorance to careful deliberation of individual, people just go along with persuasions without consideration whether or not the system conforms with ethics and cultures of Thai society. The importers, being inexperience, brought in only the format of the regulations and the laws, under expectation of the economic wealth, and without foreseeing collateral problems in politics, economics and society. No preventive measure was set up e.g. family businesses become partnerships and private companies, public companies, and conglomerates in which the stock exchange becomes the investment pool. Next, there will be future markets of agricultural products.
However, there are people looking for legal loopholes such as in the free trade where the competittion is ruthless with exploitation of their advantage in economic status, positioning, and education. Unfair measures are: using close confidants to form a quorum enough to set up a company and blank transfer shares; using nominees as proxy shareholders, loaning only to people with connections, profit drainage between companies, using insider information from companies and conglomerates to expand business or unfair trading of the shares (falsified statements, release of rumours, information concealment, using insider information - as appeared in Úthe Business Prachachart Newspaper dated January 29 -31, 2001, the report of SET committee on the list of people fined and the fines.)
Whether or not the defendant knew such facts, having proudly and clearly said why he has been successful having a lot of companies in the group and a lot of assets, he sees blank transferring of shares and using nominees to be proxy shareholders as usual business practices which are common for anybody, despite that the business practices in foreign capitalism are for profit-taking which is a greed after overindulging luxury without ethics and not conforming with Thai culture.
The defendant claims that he had given up businesses and turned to political works since 1994 and had transferred the administration of the business conglomerate to his spouse (in which case if the defendant becomes a concessionaire, it could be against article 110(2)), the children and relatives (instead of transferring of the shares to a juristic body which manage assets on behalf of owners, following article 209 of the Constitution for example, a trust to manage assets of political post holders in the United States of America, an advance idea for Thailand).
The defendant is confused that the number of people voted for him in the general election was enormous because they were satisfied with his projects. Actually, the number of those people is not as important as the number of the people who know how much the defendant and his spouse, on the day of statement submission following the second clause of article 291 of the Constitution, truly posssessed assets and liabilities. Those people of more than eleven million did not know the actual assets and liabilities of the defendant and his spouse as equally as the two private secretaries of the defendant and his spouse. The matters are different issues altogether.
(17) The above description of the defendant's deeds demonstrate that the defendant which remains a result of the past, still thinks and acts as in the past, just like other business people in Thai capitalism. He still misunderstands that his administrative ideas for the country are new ways of thoughts and practices. He does not understand the actual causes of the political, economic, and social problems which may not be solved with "money" alone.
The defendant advertises to the people to let them know only: The defendant has been successful in business, has enormous wealth, uncorrupt, legal and without concealment; Then, the defendant turns to devote himself to political works after transferring businesses to his spouse, his children and relatives; The defendant realizes the country's problems, hence, he volunteeres to solve them. However, the defendant does not reveal how he has become successful in business in a very short time and how he would solve the conflict of interests between his family's and the public's or the country's.
Some problems of the country may be solved without using money. Only the country's leader behaves himself as a role model by thinking, speaking and doing everything straight and leads the people to realize the way to unite to solve the problems by decreasing, leaving and abandoning "selfishness" first. The higher and faster he can, the sooner he would be able to lead the country out of crises back to normal. If not solving selfishness first, it is hopeless because there is no other ways to solve the present problems of the nation.
In addition, it is noticeable that when the plaintiff prosecuted the defendant for deliberate submission of falsified statements of assets and liabilities or concealment of the information which was supposed to be declared, there appears to be waves of news which gradually shifting the accusations e.g. The defendant carried out business by the sweat of his brow, without corruption or illegality; The defendant was the first to submit the statements of assets and liabilities to the public awareness while there was no legal enforcement; The defendant voluntarily submitted addenda to the statements of assets and liabilities; Therefore if the Court sees that the defendant is guilty, he is guilty by innocence; Political principles should be applied (instead of legal principles) to delay the ruling or to acquit the defendant; the defendant should not be punished as he was elected by more than ten million people in order that the defendant would be given a chance to govern the country for a while because there is no other better than him and Thailand cannot do without the him. However, there is no such law to allow the Court to comply with.
The closer to the judgment day, the more rumours about the defendant's supporters would rally to pressure on the Court, or commit arson to the Court, as well as assault some judges. Some police officers were accordingly sent for protection which pitifully is a waste of national budget. How could such news arise if not because of expression of someone's "selfishness"?
SINCE the defendant accepts that he has the assets but failed to declare in the statements because of using nominees as proxy shareholders and pronounces to the public that he duly earned the assets and transferred the assets to his spouse who may in turn transfer to anyone in which he did not know, and SINCE the investigation of the witnesses and evidences reveals the facts that the transferees or owners were actually nominated proxies who immediately transferred the assets back to the spouse of the defendant as soon as they got them, and SINCE those people were close confidants whom the defendant or his spouse used to nominate as proxy owners before the defendant volunteered to work in politics in 1994, therefore, the ruling is that the defendant and/or the spouse knew of the assets in possession of nominated proxies or using proxies to hold the assets with the reasons and matters as the defendant describes in the three addenda above and that the defendant deliberately submitted falsifying statements or concealed the information which was supposed to be declared as stipulated by article 295 of the Constitution.
As for the start of prohibition to hold a political post for five years, article 295 of the Constitution stipulates, "...the person is to be dismissed from the political post from the last day allowed to submit the statements in article 292". The day is October 11, 1997 (on entering the post) or November 7, 1998 (on one year after leaving the post) or from the day found to be guilty of such charge. Those days are when the plaintiff made the resolution on December 26, 2000 that the defendant deliberately submitted the falsifying statements or concealed the information which was supposed to be declared and when the Constitution Court would finalize the ruling on August 3, 2001. Since the defendant left the post in article 215(1) on November 1997, therefore the day is to be held the commencement. If holding other days, such as when the plaintiff found him guilty on December 26, 2000 or when the Constitution Court would finalize the ruling on August 3, 2001, it would not comply with the Constitution because it would be more than five years (of prohibition) which is unfair to the defendant. Moreover, the second clause of article 295 of the Constitution accompanied by the second clause of article 216 stipulate the enforcement of article 97 that as the defendant has been appointed to the Prime Minister post on February 9, 2001 (in the five-year period of prohibition from political posts), any of his duties carried out as the Prime Minister as well as any remuneration from February 9, 2001 to the judement day by the Constitution Court, remain fully valid.
According to the causes and effects described above, therefore, the ruling is that pol. lieut. col. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Deputy Prime Minister, deliberately submitted falsifying statements or concealed the information which was supposed to be declared as stipulated by article 295 of the Constitution and to be prohibited from holding any political posts for five years from the day which he left the political post on November 7, 1997 onward.
The President of the Constitution Court