Lawyers finalise Thaksin case

ឺ
Published by readbangkokpost,February 10, 2010
Potjaman rejects state claims point by poin
The prosecution has presented its closing statement in the case of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's 76 billion baht in frozen assets.

Wirote Sridussadee, a member of the prosecution team in charge of the case, yesterday submitted the 121-page closing statement to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions. The prosecution is seeking the seizure of the assets.

The prosecutors said in their closing argument that Thaksin acquired his assets through abuse of authority. They also outlined alleged conflicts of interest.

They recommended the assets be confiscated and transferred to the state.

Somporn Pongsuwan, a lawyer representing Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra, Thaksin's former wife, presented a closing statement rebutting the prosecution case by focusing on 16 key areas.

Kittiporn Adulrat, a lawyer representing two of Thaksin's three children, Panthongtae and Pinthongta, said the two would submit their closing arguments today.

Thaksin's lawyers presented their closing statement to the Supreme Court on Jan 21. The court will deliver its verdict on whether the assets were acquired illegally on Feb 26.

If found guilty, Thaksin would lose the 76 billion baht he allegedly accumulated during his two terms in office from 2001 to 2006.

The Office of the Attorney-General, representing the 2006 coup-appointed and now disbanded Assets Scrutiny Committee, sought a court order to confiscate the 76.6 billion baht in assets which it alleged had been acquired illegally by the Shinawatra family.

The prosecutors have accused Thaksin of concealing his ownership of Shin Corp shares while devising government policies that benefited the Shinawatra family business.

Thaksin and Khunying Potjaman, declared to the National Anti-Corruption Commission that they had sold most of their 48% stake in Shin Corp to their two children to comply with the law which prohibited them from holding a stake of 5% or more.

However, the prosecutors said inquiries by the Department of Special Investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission found the couple still held the shares through shell companies Ample Rich Co and Win Mark Co.

The prosecutors said Thaksin's claims that he sold his shares in Ample Rich to his son Panthongtae were unfounded.

The prosecutors said there was evidence the money spent on buying the Ample Rich shares was paid through an account held by Khunying Potjaman.

As such, the 48% stake in Shin Corp was still held by Thaksin during his two terms in office as prime minister, the prosecutors said.

Charges in the case also centre on telecom policies implemented by the Thaksin government from 2001 to 2006.

Prosecutors said the policies, including the introduction of excise tax collection for telecom businesses, unfairly benefited Shin Corp.

Speaking after a meeting of Puea Thai Party MPs yesterday, Chaiyaphum MP Praset Chaiwirattana said the assets seizure case was discussed at the meeting and most MPs believed all the assets would be confiscated.

Manit Chitchankloab, a Puea Thai list-MP and a former Supreme Court judge, said Thaksin loyalists must look ahead to try to bring the seized assets back by a "public mandate".

Mr Manit said Puea Thai would return to power after the next election and find ways to retrieve all the seized assets.

Thaksin is the de facto leader of the Puea Thai Party.
Word study:
ousted – forced out of a position of power េចញពីតំណែង
submit – to formally give something to someone so that can make a decision about it
argument – a reason or reasons why you support or oppose an idea or suggestion
abuse of authority – the use of power in a bad, dishonest or unlawful way
alleged – claimed to be true although not yet proven
conflict of interest – a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the results
recommend – to advise someone that they should do something
confiscate – to official remove someone’s possessions for legal reasons or as a punishment
state – government
rebut – to show or say that something is not true
verdict – a decision by a court of law
find guilty – to prove in a court of law that someone has committed a crime
accumulate – to get more and more of something over a period of time
coup (d’etat) – the seizure of power in a country by a group of people, usually members of the armed forces
disbanded – (of a group) ended; stopped working together
scrutiny – careful and thorough examination
conceal – to hide something
devise – to invent a method of doing something
shell company – a company that has no assets or operations of its own, but is used by its owners to conduct specific business dealings or maintain control of other companies
unfounded – not supported with facts or evidence
evidence – facts statements or objects that help to prove whether or not someone has committed a crime
implement – to make something such as an idea, plan, system or law start to work and be used
excise tax – a tax made by a government on some types of goods produced and used within their own country
mandate – an official order to do something
retrieve – to get something back, especially something that is not easy to find
de facto – in reality; in fact