B
Bukeo
Gast
Buddha sollte uns lieber davor bewahren, das Thaksin nicht wieder an die Macht kommt. :-)waanjai_2" said:
Aber das macht er schon ganz gut...
Der "ungewoehnliche Reichtum" vor Gericht
Diskutiere Der "ungewoehnliche Reichtum" vor Gericht im Politik und Wirtschaft Forum im Bereich Thailand Forum; Buddha sollte uns lieber davor bewahren, das Thaksin nicht wieder an die Macht kommt. :-)
Aber das macht er schon ganz gut...
Aber das macht er schon ganz gut...
Samuianer
Senior Member
waanjai_2" said:
Ja, von einem Vergleich um endlich Ruhe zu schaffen!
Wenn auch in deinem Fall die Formel, Gleiches gesellt sich zu Gleichen zutrifft, dann hast du 'n 1.Preis gewonnen!
Waani murmelt noch im Grab: "Er war ein Held, ein guter Mensch, er wurde nur missverstaden, mein Thaksin, oh mein Thaksin, du Held, Retter der Armen, der Robin Hood, den niemand lassen wollte...!"
waanjai_2" said:Der Finanzminister Korn würde noch ganz was anderes tun, um die Löcher im Haushalt zu stopfen. Er will versuchen, auch noch Steuern auf das illegal erworbene Geld zu erheben, welches deshalb bereits vom Staate ganz konfisziert wurde.Dieter1" said:
Gegen den eigentlichen Schaden den der Mann angerichtet hat und was noch kommt,sind die "paar Satang" nun wirklich nicht's!
Korn hat Recht, Steuern muessen halt alle zahlen!
B
Bukeo
Gast
und die restlichen 30 Milliarden werden vorerst auch nicht freigegeben, da wird ev. ja noch die Steuer von 14 Mill. abgezogen - warum eigentlich? War doch ein steuerfreier Deal, oder nicht?waanjai_2" said:Der Finanzminister Korn würde noch ganz was anderes tun, um die Löcher im Haushalt zu stopfen. Er will versuchen, auch noch Steuern auf das illegal erworbene Geld zu erheben, welches deshalb bereits vom Staate ganz konfisziert wurde.Dieter1" said:
Aber kein Problem - macht es eben Abhisit gleich wie Thaksin. Das Gesetz für steuerfreien Verkauf wird geändert, danach werden dann Steuern doch fällig und auch eingezogen.
:-)
Auch beim restlichen Geld wird man noch die Korruptionsverhandlungen (ich glaube an die 10) abwarten müssen, könnten ja auch noch Strafgelder anfallen, die man dann bequem einziehen kann.
Übrigens scheinen wohl Herr und Frau Thaksin bei der Angabe ihres Vermögens einige Milliarden vergessen zu haben.
Samuianer
Senior Member
Bukeo" said:
Die Verteidgung sagt "vergessen"... er sagte "ehrliche Fehler"..
Die Anklage sagt: "unterschlagen, verheimlicht, verschleiert!"
Im Nachhinein, ausserordentlich Stuemperhaft, das zeigt allerdings was er fuer ein "cleverer" Gechaeftsmann war - Vorteilsnahme ohne Ruecksicht auf Verluste!
25% Abgaben waren ihm zuviel, also wurden die Lizenzgebuehren auf 20% gesenkt... und, und, und, und... Gesetze zum "Wohle Thailands" geaendert und dann seine und die Anteile seiner Familie steuerfrei ins Ausland verscherbelt... von den steuerfreien Deals innerhalb seiner Familie ganz zu schweigen....!
Von der steilen Karriere, vom erfolglosen Filmvorfuehrer, zum Polizisten bis zum reichsten Mann Thailands
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Hetzblätter wie The Nation blasen jetzt zur nächsten Hatz. Und sind auch noch Stolz darauf.
Jetzt sollen auch alle ehemaligen Minister und höhere Beamten des Staates in die Haftung genommen werden. Man sieht, es geht um mehr als nur um Thaksin. Es geht um die politische Zerschlagung derjenigen neuen Eliten, die sich erdreistet hatten, den alten Eliten den gewohnten Weg zu den Fleischtöpfen der Nation zu versperren.
Und da verwundert es doch wahrhaftig einige, warum die Rothemden - die neue, kleine radikale Minderheit - das Amataya-System ganz ablösen wollen. 
Jetzt sollen auch alle ehemaligen Minister und höhere Beamten des Staates in die Haftung genommen werden. Man sieht, es geht um mehr als nur um Thaksin. Es geht um die politische Zerschlagung derjenigen neuen Eliten, die sich erdreistet hatten, den alten Eliten den gewohnten Weg zu den Fleischtöpfen der Nation zu versperren.
Und da verwundert es doch wahrhaftig einige, warum die Rothemden - die neue, kleine radikale Minderheit
- das Amataya-System ganz ablösen wollen.
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Damit hatten sie angefangen - s.u. Bis ihnen wohl ihre eigene Rechtsabteilung klargemacht hat, dass dies - natürlich nur ein wenig! - problematisch sei.
Obwohl, was ist eigentlich noch "nicht erlaubt", wenn die Akteure in den Medien sich wie Nero fühlen
Obwohl, was ist eigentlich noch "nicht erlaubt", wenn die Akteure in den Medien sich wie Nero fühlen
Samuianer
Senior Member
Von der Verteidigung Thaksins nicht wiederlegbare Zeugenaussagen ueber die Machenschaften des Herrn Shinawatra, waehrend seiner Amtszeit:
Star witnesses
By The Nation
BANGKOK: -- Some pointed to the obvious, while others revealed some previously unknown secrets.
But the star witnesses in Thaksin Shinawatra's assets-seizure case played equally important roles leading to the cascade of 'guilty' verdicts that rained down on him on Friday regarding major incidences of abuse of power.
They are an integral part of the historic ruling, thanks either to their names and status that lent credence to the court's judgement or to damning
testimonies that the defence found difficult to rebut. Without the following people, the case may not have ended as it did:
SURAKIART SATHIRATHAI, FORMER FOREIGN MINISTER
HERO OR BACKSTABBER, Surakiart's testimony on the Export-Import Bank loan to the Burmese junta showed not only had Thaksin been warned that the loan could subject him to criticism for a conflict of interest, but also that Thaksin defied such warnings by virtually demanding a sizeable increase in the credit line.
Through Surakiart's statements, the Supreme Court learned that Thaksin had been warned about the loan, not once, but a few times. Surakiart also conveyed a similar message to the Burmese Foreign Ministry during a bilateral meeting in Phuket in February 2004. At that meeting, he told the Burmese to keep the loan request at Bt3 billion, but later it was Thaksin who gave a verbal order for a Bt1 billion increase. A sizeable portion of the Bt4 billion headed directly toward Thaicom, although the original purpose of the loan did not seem to involve telecom development.
Apichart Shinnowan, director-general of the ministry's East Asia Department, backed up Surakiart's testimony by adding key pieces to the Exim Bank loan jigsaw puzzle, leading the Supreme Court to declare the loan one of the two "clearest" cases of Thaksin's misuse of power to help his own businesses.
Two Thaicom employees, Natta-pong Temsiripong and Padej Wongpa-yaban, gave the court more information on Thaicom's attempts to make inroads into Burma. They told the court Thaicom had been involved in telecom development schemes in Bur-ma since 1998. The court also learned that Thaicom established cordial relations with the Burmese top authorities when Thaksin was in power.
SITTHICHAI POOKAIYAUDOM, FORMER INFORMATION |AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY MINISTER
SITTHICHAI told the court that the excise tax policy for telecom services implemented by the Thaksin administration in 2003 prevented fair competition and benefited his family's telecom empire. He testified before the Supreme Court on January 12. He said state-owned TOT and CAT Telecom suffered financially from the policy, which had allowed private telecom operators to deduct the excise tax from concession fees they paid to TOT or CAT.
Sitthichai, who reversed the policy after taking over ICT oversight for the Surayud Chulanont regime, said the excise tax measure effectively discouraged companies, especially foreign giants, from entering the telecom market.
SOMKIAT TANGKITVANIT, VICE PRESIDENT OF THAILAND DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SOMKIAT told the court that collecting excise tax from telecom services was inconsistent with the master plan for development of the telecom industry.
Telecom services have brought great benefit to society, but instead of imposing the excise tax on telecom services, the government should have focused on promoting wider accessibility of telecom services to benefit society more, he said. The telecom-excise policy helped existing private telecom firms boost their profits, because new competition was curbed, he added.
If the government imposed the telecom excise in order to seek more revenue for state coffers, it should not have issued the Cabinet resolution to allow private telecom-concession holders to deduct excise taxes from concession fees they paid to state telecom enterprises.
Somkiat testified before the Supreme Court on January 12.
BORWORNSAK UWANNO, DIRECTOR OF THE KING PRAJADHIPOK INSTITUTE
ALTHOUGH Borwornsak did not testify directly to the Supreme Court, his testimony to the Assets Examination Committee was crucial. It showed that Thaksin held a conflict of interest in the satellite deal.
Borwornsak served as Cabinet secretary-general under Thaksin, succeeding Wissanu Kreu-ngarm. Borwornsak told the AEC that he withdrew the satellite proposal from the Cabinet agenda.
In this deal, Shin Corp requested that Thaicom reduce its stake in Shin Corp. The transport minister at that time approved this deal even before the Cabinet could give its nod.
"I thought that this matter was not right because in this concession, the accused was the prime minister, who had a concession with the state. I therefore withdrew the proposal from the Cabinet," Borwornsak said.
The Supreme Court used his statement as part of its deliberation to rule that Thaksin had attempted to abuse his power.
WALACHAYA SRIMACHAN, ASST SECRETARY-GENERAL |OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
ANOTHER STAR witness was Walachaya. Her testimony on November 19, 2009 before the Supreme Court broke the back of both Thaksin and his ex-wife Pojaman Damapong.
She gave a detailed account of the ownership structure of Win Mark, an offshore company that Thaksin and Pojaman used to hide their assets. This followed a tedious joint investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Special Investigation, which had to work closely with financial regulators from other countries.
As a result of the investigation following Walachaya's testimony, it was found that the shares of six companies related to SC Assets were sold to Win Mark for a combined Bt1.5 billion.
The money was transferred from several accounts at three banks in Singapore. Bt300 million of this Bt1.5 billion came from a bank account of Thaksin and Pojaman, while Bt1.2 billion came from Win Mark's bank account in Singapore.
Win Mark and Ample Rich Investments are both offshore companies of Thaksin.
Walachaya's testimony provided important evidence for the Supreme Court to conclude that Thaksin and Pojaman concealed their assets.
NAM YIMYAEM, CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSETS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
NAM APPEARED on the witness stand on December 3, 2009 to testify against Thaksin. His agency was responsible for coming up with the charge of Thaksin being unusually rich. Thaksin's lawyers tried to question the legitimacy of the AEC. But the Supreme Court asserted the legitimacy of the AEC, whose work was passed on to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Nam testified that the AEC's investigation found that Thaksin had become unusually rich as a result of his abuse of power while serving as prime minister. Without the AEC, the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case would not have come into being.
SUNAI MANOMAI-UDOM,
FORMER CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATION (DSI)
IN KEY TESTIMONY to the Supreme Court, Sunai said Thaksin and his ex-wife set up layers of "paper" companies to hide the true ownership of their assets. Sunai was one of the prosecution witnesses.
After SC Assets was founded in 1994, Thaksin and his wife Pojaman set up several "shell" companies such as Win Mark, Blue Diamond and Sinatra to conceal their holdings in SC Assets, the real estate development arm of the family.
Sunai said there were certified documents from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia to support the conclusion these firms were nominees of Thaksin and Pojaman while he held public office from 2001-2006.
KAEWSAN ATIBHODI, MEMBER OF THE ASSETS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
AS A KEY prosecution witness, Kaewsan in November 2009 said the whole Bt76-billion fortune should be taken by the state.
"First of all, Thaksin hid his vast shareholdings even after being elected as prime minister, so he intentionally violated Article 100(3) of the NCCC law. Secondly, as prime minister, he introduced measures and policies that benefited Shin Corp so he violated Article 100(1) of the NCCC law.
"Therefore, Thaksin abused his office to gain his wealth, resulting in a loss to the state of more than Bt100 billion. Since he and his former wife controlled as much as 46.87 per cent of Shin Corp, the benefits from such a large shareholding were therefore ill-gotten and should be forfeited," he said.
The prosecution would have to convince the court that Thaksin and Pojaman did really conceal their wealth while the former was in office - a key point consistently countered and dismissed by the defence lawyers.
Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.
"This argument was not convincing because the documentation, such as notices of share transfers, promissory notes, annual reports of Ample Rich (one of the offshore nominees), could have been tampered with or backdated to alter the whole story," Kaewsan said.
"However, we were not given any hard evidence that couldn't be meddled with, such as share depositories or transaction records that Thaksin could have sought from UBS Bank (Singapore branch) to prove that his son, Panthongtae, was the authorised owner of those shares, not just his father's nominee."
Kaewsan's role was pivotal in the seizure of Thaksin's wealth.
-- The Nation 2010-03-01
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/03/01/politics/The-star-witnesses-30123698.html
Der Mann ging halt mit dem Geld des Staates um als waere es seins, was es dann letztendlich auch wurde!
Das war wohl was er mit seinem Spruch "Ich werde diese Land wie der CEO einer (meiner?) Firma leiten!"
Dabei hat er dann deins/euer und meins ein wenig verwechselt!
Heute ist seine este Verteidigung das Alle gegen ihn sind, eine Verschwoerung die ihm "seine Lebensersparniss" nich goennt!
Billiger geht es wohl nicht!
Nicht mal die Courage einzupacken und den Mund zu halten, der wohl nicht all zu spaerliche Rst seiner "Lebensersparniss" duerfte noch bis in die naechste Inkarnation und darueber hinaus reichen!
Aus dem Gerichtsurteil vom Feitag werden sich neue Anklagen erheben lassen, diesewaeren:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/hom...awyers-to-review-key-Shin-deals-30123701.html
Ja, ja diese boese, boese Militaerjunta....
Oder die unbaendige Gier eines Mannes der Alles wollte und immer noch nicht begreifen will das "Game over" ist!?
Warum gibt er nicht einfach auf?
Kann Machthunger und Ego ein Wesen soweit treiben?
Star witnesses
By The Nation
BANGKOK: -- Some pointed to the obvious, while others revealed some previously unknown secrets.
But the star witnesses in Thaksin Shinawatra's assets-seizure case played equally important roles leading to the cascade of 'guilty' verdicts that rained down on him on Friday regarding major incidences of abuse of power.
They are an integral part of the historic ruling, thanks either to their names and status that lent credence to the court's judgement or to damning
testimonies that the defence found difficult to rebut. Without the following people, the case may not have ended as it did:
SURAKIART SATHIRATHAI, FORMER FOREIGN MINISTER
HERO OR BACKSTABBER, Surakiart's testimony on the Export-Import Bank loan to the Burmese junta showed not only had Thaksin been warned that the loan could subject him to criticism for a conflict of interest, but also that Thaksin defied such warnings by virtually demanding a sizeable increase in the credit line.
Through Surakiart's statements, the Supreme Court learned that Thaksin had been warned about the loan, not once, but a few times. Surakiart also conveyed a similar message to the Burmese Foreign Ministry during a bilateral meeting in Phuket in February 2004. At that meeting, he told the Burmese to keep the loan request at Bt3 billion, but later it was Thaksin who gave a verbal order for a Bt1 billion increase. A sizeable portion of the Bt4 billion headed directly toward Thaicom, although the original purpose of the loan did not seem to involve telecom development.
Apichart Shinnowan, director-general of the ministry's East Asia Department, backed up Surakiart's testimony by adding key pieces to the Exim Bank loan jigsaw puzzle, leading the Supreme Court to declare the loan one of the two "clearest" cases of Thaksin's misuse of power to help his own businesses.
Two Thaicom employees, Natta-pong Temsiripong and Padej Wongpa-yaban, gave the court more information on Thaicom's attempts to make inroads into Burma. They told the court Thaicom had been involved in telecom development schemes in Bur-ma since 1998. The court also learned that Thaicom established cordial relations with the Burmese top authorities when Thaksin was in power.
SITTHICHAI POOKAIYAUDOM, FORMER INFORMATION |AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY MINISTER
SITTHICHAI told the court that the excise tax policy for telecom services implemented by the Thaksin administration in 2003 prevented fair competition and benefited his family's telecom empire. He testified before the Supreme Court on January 12. He said state-owned TOT and CAT Telecom suffered financially from the policy, which had allowed private telecom operators to deduct the excise tax from concession fees they paid to TOT or CAT.
Sitthichai, who reversed the policy after taking over ICT oversight for the Surayud Chulanont regime, said the excise tax measure effectively discouraged companies, especially foreign giants, from entering the telecom market.
SOMKIAT TANGKITVANIT, VICE PRESIDENT OF THAILAND DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SOMKIAT told the court that collecting excise tax from telecom services was inconsistent with the master plan for development of the telecom industry.
Telecom services have brought great benefit to society, but instead of imposing the excise tax on telecom services, the government should have focused on promoting wider accessibility of telecom services to benefit society more, he said. The telecom-excise policy helped existing private telecom firms boost their profits, because new competition was curbed, he added.
If the government imposed the telecom excise in order to seek more revenue for state coffers, it should not have issued the Cabinet resolution to allow private telecom-concession holders to deduct excise taxes from concession fees they paid to state telecom enterprises.
Somkiat testified before the Supreme Court on January 12.
BORWORNSAK UWANNO, DIRECTOR OF THE KING PRAJADHIPOK INSTITUTE
ALTHOUGH Borwornsak did not testify directly to the Supreme Court, his testimony to the Assets Examination Committee was crucial. It showed that Thaksin held a conflict of interest in the satellite deal.
Borwornsak served as Cabinet secretary-general under Thaksin, succeeding Wissanu Kreu-ngarm. Borwornsak told the AEC that he withdrew the satellite proposal from the Cabinet agenda.
In this deal, Shin Corp requested that Thaicom reduce its stake in Shin Corp. The transport minister at that time approved this deal even before the Cabinet could give its nod.
"I thought that this matter was not right because in this concession, the accused was the prime minister, who had a concession with the state. I therefore withdrew the proposal from the Cabinet," Borwornsak said.
The Supreme Court used his statement as part of its deliberation to rule that Thaksin had attempted to abuse his power.
WALACHAYA SRIMACHAN, ASST SECRETARY-GENERAL |OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
ANOTHER STAR witness was Walachaya. Her testimony on November 19, 2009 before the Supreme Court broke the back of both Thaksin and his ex-wife Pojaman Damapong.
She gave a detailed account of the ownership structure of Win Mark, an offshore company that Thaksin and Pojaman used to hide their assets. This followed a tedious joint investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Special Investigation, which had to work closely with financial regulators from other countries.
As a result of the investigation following Walachaya's testimony, it was found that the shares of six companies related to SC Assets were sold to Win Mark for a combined Bt1.5 billion.
The money was transferred from several accounts at three banks in Singapore. Bt300 million of this Bt1.5 billion came from a bank account of Thaksin and Pojaman, while Bt1.2 billion came from Win Mark's bank account in Singapore.
Win Mark and Ample Rich Investments are both offshore companies of Thaksin.
Walachaya's testimony provided important evidence for the Supreme Court to conclude that Thaksin and Pojaman concealed their assets.
NAM YIMYAEM, CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSETS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
NAM APPEARED on the witness stand on December 3, 2009 to testify against Thaksin. His agency was responsible for coming up with the charge of Thaksin being unusually rich. Thaksin's lawyers tried to question the legitimacy of the AEC. But the Supreme Court asserted the legitimacy of the AEC, whose work was passed on to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Nam testified that the AEC's investigation found that Thaksin had become unusually rich as a result of his abuse of power while serving as prime minister. Without the AEC, the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case would not have come into being.
SUNAI MANOMAI-UDOM,
FORMER CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATION (DSI)
IN KEY TESTIMONY to the Supreme Court, Sunai said Thaksin and his ex-wife set up layers of "paper" companies to hide the true ownership of their assets. Sunai was one of the prosecution witnesses.
After SC Assets was founded in 1994, Thaksin and his wife Pojaman set up several "shell" companies such as Win Mark, Blue Diamond and Sinatra to conceal their holdings in SC Assets, the real estate development arm of the family.
Sunai said there were certified documents from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia to support the conclusion these firms were nominees of Thaksin and Pojaman while he held public office from 2001-2006.
KAEWSAN ATIBHODI, MEMBER OF THE ASSETS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
AS A KEY prosecution witness, Kaewsan in November 2009 said the whole Bt76-billion fortune should be taken by the state.
"First of all, Thaksin hid his vast shareholdings even after being elected as prime minister, so he intentionally violated Article 100(3) of the NCCC law. Secondly, as prime minister, he introduced measures and policies that benefited Shin Corp so he violated Article 100(1) of the NCCC law.
"Therefore, Thaksin abused his office to gain his wealth, resulting in a loss to the state of more than Bt100 billion. Since he and his former wife controlled as much as 46.87 per cent of Shin Corp, the benefits from such a large shareholding were therefore ill-gotten and should be forfeited," he said.
The prosecution would have to convince the court that Thaksin and Pojaman did really conceal their wealth while the former was in office - a key point consistently countered and dismissed by the defence lawyers.
Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.
"This argument was not convincing because the documentation, such as notices of share transfers, promissory notes, annual reports of Ample Rich (one of the offshore nominees), could have been tampered with or backdated to alter the whole story," Kaewsan said.
"However, we were not given any hard evidence that couldn't be meddled with, such as share depositories or transaction records that Thaksin could have sought from UBS Bank (Singapore branch) to prove that his son, Panthongtae, was the authorised owner of those shares, not just his father's nominee."
Kaewsan's role was pivotal in the seizure of Thaksin's wealth.
-- The Nation 2010-03-01
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/03/01/politics/The-star-witnesses-30123698.html
Der Mann ging halt mit dem Geld des Staates um als waere es seins, was es dann letztendlich auch wurde!
Das war wohl was er mit seinem Spruch "Ich werde diese Land wie der CEO einer (meiner?) Firma leiten!"
Dabei hat er dann deins/euer und meins ein wenig verwechselt!
Heute ist seine este Verteidigung das Alle gegen ihn sind, eine Verschwoerung die ihm "seine Lebensersparniss" nich goennt!
Billiger geht es wohl nicht!
Nicht mal die Courage einzupacken und den Mund zu halten, der wohl nicht all zu spaerliche Rst seiner "Lebensersparniss" duerfte noch bis in die naechste Inkarnation und darueber hinaus reichen!
Aus dem Gerichtsurteil vom Feitag werden sich neue Anklagen erheben lassen, diesewaeren:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/hom...awyers-to-review-key-Shin-deals-30123701.html
Ja, ja diese boese, boese Militaerjunta....
Oder die unbaendige Gier eines Mannes der Alles wollte und immer noch nicht begreifen will das "Game over" ist!?
Warum gibt er nicht einfach auf?
Kann Machthunger und Ego ein Wesen soweit treiben?
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Danke für diesen Hinweis. Wußte garnicht, dass man die Beweislast umgekehrt hat.Samuianer" said:
Also nicht jeder ist unschuldig, solange man ihm nicht die Schuld nachweist, so wie das halt in rechtsstaatlichen Prozessen halt üblich ist.
Die Junta brauchte also nur ein paar ausgewiesenen Gegnern von Thaksin einen vorübergehenden Job der Art geben, dass sie behaupten sollten, der Thaksin wäre korrupt. Das reicht, den Rest erledigen die, die gleicher Meinung sind. :-)
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
30 Tage, sonst kann das Geld wie gewünscht zur Stopfung der Haushaltslöcher verwendet werden.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/170077/thaksin-must-appeal-verdict-in-30-days
Bei all den bizarren Kommentaren, die wir hier zur Rechtfertigungen eines noch nicht rechtskräftigen Gerichsurteils einer von der Junta eingesetzten Kammer lesen können, gehört wohl auch die Position eines Republikaners hinzu:
Seize it all!! The palaces, the shares, the diamonds, all the ill-gotten gains!
Giles Ji Ungpakorn
http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/2010/02/2...he-diamonds-all-the-ill-gotten-gains-8088704/
Sehr lesenswerte Außenseiter-Position!
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/170077/thaksin-must-appeal-verdict-in-30-days
Bei all den bizarren Kommentaren, die wir hier zur Rechtfertigungen eines noch nicht rechtskräftigen Gerichsurteils einer von der Junta eingesetzten Kammer lesen können, gehört wohl auch die Position eines Republikaners hinzu:
Seize it all!! The palaces, the shares, the diamonds, all the ill-gotten gains!
Giles Ji Ungpakorn
http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/2010/02/2...he-diamonds-all-the-ill-gotten-gains-8088704/
Sehr lesenswerte Außenseiter-Position!
B
Bukeo
Gast
ist aber nachvollziehbar.waanjai_2" said:
Niemand lässt sich gerne was wegnehmen, vor allem dann nicht - wenn derjenige seine Position als PM dazu benutzt.
Ich wäre auch sauer...
welche Rothemden? Die Red Siam :-)Und da verwundert es doch wahrhaftig einige, warum die Rothemden - die neue, kleine radikale Minderheit
B
Bukeo
Gast
waanjai_2" said:
B
Bukeo
Gast
waanjai_2" said:
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Mehr fällt Dir also nicht dazu ein, dass hier Grundsätze des Rechtsstaates auf den Kopf gestellt werden?Bukeo" said:
Aber es wird jetzt weiter gehen müssen:
http://thegreglowe.com/archives/303
B
Bukeo
Gast
Fakt ist aber auch, das Thaksin und seine Ex-Frau bei der Angabe ihres Vermögens, wohl einige Milliarden nicht angegeben haben.waanjai_2" said:Mehr fällt Dir also nicht dazu ein, dass hier Grundsätze des Rechtsstaates auf den Kopf gestellt werden?
Aber es wird jetzt weiter gehen müssen:
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Waren die Aktienanteile tatsächlich rechtswirksam an die Kinder übereignet worden oder nicht?Bukeo" said:
Das ist doch die Grundfrage bei dem noch nicht rechtskräftigen Urteil des Junta-Gerichts. Also Streitgegenstand.
Wie kann es dann schon ein Fakt sein?
B
Bukeo
Gast
ja, auch das ist die Frage - ähnlich einer Scheinehe.waanjai_2" said:
Wenn du dieses Gericht "Junta-Gericht" nennst, wie bezeichnest du dann die Gerichte unter Thaksin - die ja alle sehr wohlwollend im Namen Thaksins geurteilt haben, da er ja sonst nie PM geworden wäre. Siehe sein Tränen-Auftritt.
Hier mal was zur Auffrischung:
Thaksin Shinawatra, ehemaliger Telekommunikationsunternehmer und mit einem geschätzten Privatvermögen von 1,4 Milliarden Dollar einer der reichsten Männer des Landes, ist der Gegenspieler des Königs. Zwar wurde Thaksin 2001 in freien und fairen Wahlen zum Premierminister gewählt. Doch im so genannten Krieg gegen Drogen im Sommer 2003, als Hunderte von Drogenkurieren außergerichtlich hingerichtet wurden, oder im harten Vorgehen gegen die Separatisten im Süden des Landes gingen auch erhebliche Verstöße gegen die Menschenrechte auf sein Konto. [highlight=yellow:f07dd8f203]Darüber hinaus beschnitt er die Pressefreiheit des Landes. Sämtliche demokratischen Institutionen, wie die Korruptionsbekämpfungsbehörde oder das Verfassungsgericht hatte er mit seinen Leuten besetzt.[/highlight:f07dd8f203] Erst der Militärputsch 2006 und die Auflösung der demokratischen Institutionen sowie der Thaksin-Partei TRT änderte die Machtverhältnisse. Seitdem überwiegen in den meisten
http://www.internationalepolitik.de/ip/archiv/jahrgang-2009/januar/kampf-der-giganten.html
Also, wie nennen wir dann die Gerichte unter Thaksin.
Thaksin-Gerichte, oder?
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Die Gerichtsbarkeit der Verfassung von 1997. Sie wurde weit vor Thaksin eingerichtet.Bukeo" said:
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Ansonsten ist es vielleicht auch hilfreich, selbst die Nation gezielt dann zu lesen, wenn zufällig einmal ein Journalist dort was Wahres schreiben darf:
Mögliche Einspruchs-Grundlagen:
"Appealing to the general assembly of the Supreme Court: The defence team has 30 days to appeal and cite the fact that the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) had been appointed and given court-like powers by the 2006 coup-makers.
The argument is similar to the one successfully used by late ex-PM Chatichai Choonhavan and his Cabinet members whose assets were seized by a panel set up by the generals who staged the 1991 coup. The Supreme Court later ordered that the assets be returned on grounds that the panel was not a court and thus had no authority to order the seizure.
Similarly, Thaksin's defence team can also question the National Anti-Corruption Commission's authority in following up the case after the AEC's term expired.
Another argument could be that the five measures cited by the court as inappropriately benefiting Shin Corp were in fact part of the legitimate process of running the country and that the money obtained from the sale of Shin Corp shares came from Singapore's Temasek Holdings, not the taxpayers."
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/hom...-the-right-weapons-to-oust-Govt-30123821.html
Mögliche Einspruchs-Grundlagen:
"Appealing to the general assembly of the Supreme Court: The defence team has 30 days to appeal and cite the fact that the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) had been appointed and given court-like powers by the 2006 coup-makers.
The argument is similar to the one successfully used by late ex-PM Chatichai Choonhavan and his Cabinet members whose assets were seized by a panel set up by the generals who staged the 1991 coup. The Supreme Court later ordered that the assets be returned on grounds that the panel was not a court and thus had no authority to order the seizure.
Similarly, Thaksin's defence team can also question the National Anti-Corruption Commission's authority in following up the case after the AEC's term expired.
Another argument could be that the five measures cited by the court as inappropriately benefiting Shin Corp were in fact part of the legitimate process of running the country and that the money obtained from the sale of Shin Corp shares came from Singapore's Temasek Holdings, not the taxpayers."
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/hom...-the-right-weapons-to-oust-Govt-30123821.html
B
Bukeo
Gast
was hat die Verfassung damit zu tun?waanjai_2" said:
Wenn ich die Gerichte mit meinen Leuten besetze, dann urteilen diese nach meiner Order, sowie eben bei Thaksin - der ja eigentlich lt. Verfassung gar nicht PM hätte werden dürfen. Aber die Tränen haben halt doch die Richter überzeugt :-)
waanjai_2
Senior Member
Themenstarter
Jau, so haben sich die Putschisten die ganze Chose auch gedacht. Ist doch bislang ganz gut gelaufen, gelle?Bukeo" said:
Thema:
