Published on July 16, 2007
Auditor-General Jaruvan Maintaka will today push for an eighth freeze order worth Bt500 million on three cashier's cheques belonging to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's son Panthongtae, a source said yesterday.
Jaruvan will seek a ruling from the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) to freeze the Bt500 million, which was part of Bt800 million that AEC chairman Nam Yimyaem issued an order to freeze on July 9.
She needed another order to freeze more money because on July 9 only Bt300 million was found and the remaining Bt500 was transferred out of the bank accounts of private companies which had obtained money from Panthongtae's accounts.
The money was from the Shin Corp share sale worth Bt72 billion in January last year.
The freeze orders were related to alleged irregularities in the Shin Corp deal involving the former premier. The first one issued on June 11 involved more than Bt52 billion.
Thaksin will on Wednesday ask the Civil Court in Bangkok to revoke the freezing of his assets.
Lawyer Noppadon Pattama said everyone knew Thaksin had more than Bt60 billion in assets 13 years before he entered politics. It was earned legally and he wanted it back, he said.
Former Roi Et senator and lawyer for Thaksin Prakiat Nasimma said the freezes violated the law.
Lawyer and former government whip Vichit Plangsrikul said the AEC had used powers afforded it by the coup to freeze Thaksin's assets. If the order was intended to "destroy Thaksin", then it had to be declared illegal.
He said the legal team would complain to the AEC about its offering of a 25-per-cent commission to those providing it with information leading to the discovery of Thaksin's assets because it encouraged corrupt actions.
AEC regulations state those providing information may remain anonymous.
Vichit said this provision could lead to corruption among committee members because they could nominate anyone to receive the commission.
"Twenty-five per cent of Bt60 billion is a substantial amount of money.
"In addition, the AEC has a one-year term only and has no legitimacy to issue such regulations," Vichit added.