If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. You may have to register before you can post. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ex-deputy finance minister and three revenue officials given 3-year jailterm for helping Shinawatra siblings evade taxes
Sales of shares traded on the Thai stock exchange are exempt from personal income tax. On what basis did they find tax was illegally avoided on the Shin Corp sale, and specifically that the individuals who advised them tax was not payable were criminally liable?
The Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the transaction. "The investigation concluded that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his daughter Pinthongta are clear from all wrongdoing," said SEC secretary-general Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala on 23 February 2006.[4] However, the SEC did find that Thaksin's son, Panthongtae, violated rules with regard to information disclosure and public tender offers in transactions between 2000 and 2002.[5] He was fined 6 million baht (about US$150,000). "The case is not severe because Panthongtae did inform the SEC but his report was not totally correct" said the SEC's deputy chief Prasong Vinaiphat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_o...masek_Holdings
It is true though- listed share sales in Thai (and more recently Asean) listed companies do not attract tax in Thailand. What legal basis is/was there to treat the Shin family's divestment of it's shares in Shincorp differently? Genuine question. We hardly need debate Thaksin's greed.
It is true though- listed share sales in Thai (and more recently Asean) listed companies do not attract tax in Thailand. What legal basis is/was there to treat the Shin family's divestment of it's shares in Shincorp differently? Genuine question. We hardly need debate Thaksin's greed.
The Appeal Court has upheld a three-year jail sentence, without suspension, on former deputy finance minister Benja Louischareon and three ministry officials in the Shin share sale tax case.
They were ruled guilty of malfeasance in 2016 under Section 157 of the Criminal Code.
The court also upheld a two-year jail term on Pranee Vejjapruekpitak for collaborating. Ms Pranee was close to the secretary of Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra, the ex-wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
They reportedly planned to appeal the ruling and are seeking bail. But since the Appeal Court upheld the ruling and the sentences, the defendants cannot appeal on facts -- whether they are guilty or not guilty -- unless a collaborating judge in the case or the attorney-general endorses their appeal.
The ruling was read at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions in Bangkok on Thursday.
Mrs Benja was formerly a deputy director-general of the Revenue Department before she became a deputy finance minister during the Yingluck Shinawatra government.
The three former Finance Ministry officials are: Ms Chamras Yamsoithong, an ex-director of the Finance Ministry's Legal Office, Ms Moreerat Boonyasiri and Mr Krit Vipulanusart.
In late 2015, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) filed charges against the five, accusing them of helping two of Thaksin's children -- Panthongtae and Pinthongta -- evade taxes and receive benefits they were not entitled to.
The case centred around one of the transactions leading to the sale Shin Corporation Plc by the Shinawatra family to Temasek of Singapore in early 2006.
Mr Panthongtae and Mrs Pinthongta each bought 164.6 million Shin shares in 2006 at one baht each. The market price at the time was 49.25 baht.
The NACC accused them of failing to pay the tax on the price difference totalling 7.9 billion baht, causing damage to state.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions ruled them guilty of malfeasance in July 2016 and handed down a three-year jail term without suspension on Mrs Benja and the three officials. Ms Pranee, as the collaborator, got two-thirds of the penalty, or two years.
The five defendants appealed and were allowed bail for a surety of 300,000 baht each.
The Appeal Court on Thursday rejected all arguments raised by the defendants -- whether the plaintiff had the jurisdiction, whether the damage was realised and whether they deserve a light penalty or suspension.
"The five defendants committed the offence without regards to the damage and credibility of the country's tax collection," the court said.
"In their bid to seek suspension of the punishments, they couldn't claim the damage was not realised because the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions had already ordered the seizure of all related assets. Nor could they argue the central tax court had lifted the tax evaluation in this case."
The case dated back to 2005, when Ms Pranee sent a letter to the Revenue Department, asking whether Mr Panthongtae and Ms Pinthongta would have to pay tax if they bought Shin shares from Ample Rich Investment Limited.
The letter explained Ample Rich, registered in the British Virgin Islands, bought 32.9 million Shin shares at 10-baht par in 1999. Shin Corp later reduced its par price to one baht, resulting in Ample Rich's holding increasing to 329.2 million shares.
Mrs Benja, who was acting director-general of the Revenue Department at the time, replied Ms Pranee in a letter dated Sept 21, 2005.
"If Mr Panthongtae and Ms Pinthongta buy Shin shares at a below-market price, it shall be considered buying a product cheaply, which depends on the consent between the buyer and the seller under Section 453 of the Civil and Commerce Code," the letter said.
"The price difference is therefore not taxable income under Section 39 of the Tax Code," it concluded.
The letter also stated Ample Rich's sale of the shares to the pair, who were its directors, at one baht each was not considered the benefits of employees or directors, who receive free or cheap shares of the companies they work for, under the tax committee's No.28/2558 ruling because "Shin shares are an asset or goods held by Ample Rich. They are not the shares issued by Ample Rich itself".
The Asset Scrutiny Committee, a body set up after the 2010 military coup, later begged to differ. It found the sale of shares was different from that of other assets as they were securities which came under the Securities and Securities Market Act. They were not ordinary products that came under the Civil Code.
It therefore forwarded the case to the attorney-general to take legal action against the five persons but the attorney-general decided not to prosecute them.
The NAAC picked up the case and filed charges against them without going through the attorney-general in late 2015. The the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions found them guilty as charged in 2016.
It's a pity that the NACC are so busy perusing any case connected with the Shinawatra clan that they apparently don't have the time ( or more probably...inclination ) to pursue anyone else. They are great at putting a microscope over the corruption of some people whilst completely ignoring the less than squeaky clean activities of others.
This in itself is just another kind of corruption. In this case , the NACC masquerade as a loyal incorruptible body whilst in reality they are just lackies jumping through the junta hoop for whatever tidbits they can get.
I have no great positive feelings for the Shinawatras and am not obsessed with their fate but to imagine that .....as many put it ...' anything at all is better than the Shinawatras ' is a grave mistake since there are a lot worse things that can befall Thailand than the Thaksin clan.
Comment