• 
• 

Published on September 20, 2007

Progress in the case

Thirachai: People could be confused about why the SEC found nothing wrong. We've been under a lot of pressure following comments by the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) that hurt the reputation of the SEC and myself. On behalf of the organisation, I feel awkward, and my subordinates are not comfortable. Investigating the case now are two parties: the AEC and the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). We at the SEC on February 21, 2006, raised the possibility of nominees being involved in the case, and we sought information from all related parties, such as exchange authorities in many countries, foreign-registered units and brokers, until we found money trails. On November 30, 2006, we asked exchange authorities abroad to investigate the money trails. The answer we received on February 9, 2007, linked Thaksin with Win Mark. We had two problems when receiving the information.

What were the problems?

Thirachai: First, we had to investigate further, because the information we received was like a snapshot in time. Second and more important was that a breach of the Securities and Exchange Act may have linked to share concealment, because Win Mark belonged to Thaksin while Win Mark was a shareholder in SC Asset. We weren't sure whether Thaksin reported all of the assets completely; we thought about how we could send the information to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC). We also had problems in releasing the information due to a confidentiality agreement with the other exchange authorities that I mentioned. The information could be revealed only when the alleged violation of securities law was concluded, and we did not know when this would be. We did not know what we could do. Then, we told the other authorities it was essential for us to forward this information to relevant agencies, but they would not give us permission to do so. If we broke the agreement, we would no longer have the right to ask for information from other securities commissions worldwide. In March, Prasong and I met Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and told him we had information linking Thaksin with Win Mark, but we could not send this information to the NCCC.

We informed him the only way we could do anything was by forwarding the information to the DSI, and we still supported the information. Sending the information to the DSI can be compared with giving information to the police - it is an acceptable process by securities commissions in other countries.

It is the responsibility of the DSI to send information to the AEC. The DSI has a mandate to launch an in-depth investigation - something we cannot do. It can make the information much clearer.

The prime minister agreed with us, so we then officially turned the information over to the DSI on March 19, 2007, and the DSI's board resolved to accept the case on March 23. The information was forwarded to the DSI. You should understand we were not so lenient that we could find nothing; it came from us.

Why was the information not forwarded to the AEC?

Thirachai: It's normal practice for the SEC to file a complaint with the DSI. After the case goes to the DSI, we still support it with information. I'd like to tell you it does not mean we did nothing. For the AEC, there are two cases: insider trading and share concealment. I am going talk about the insider-trading case first. I took a clue from Matichon and Prachachart Turakij newspapers and concluded that the AEC surmised that Thaksin was the owner of Win Mark, which was the owner of UBS account No 121751.

This is correct information. In addition, the AEC concluded that between January 5 and 20, 2006, UBS bought 50 million shares in Shin Corp. We also found evidence that UBS was involved in buying 53 million Shin shares.

Is it true to conclude that such transactions were ordered by Win Mark? We once had the same question. After Shin's tender offer, the Stock Exchange of Thailand sent us information about the big transactions made by seven foreign investors. UBS was one of the seven. We then asked for information from the securities commissions in several countries and found nothing. There were 15 transactions made through UBS, and there were four individuals, one each from Singapore and Indonesia and the other two from Malaysia. Therefore, we concluded that Win Mark was not involved in the transactions.

Do you inform to the AEC?

Thirachai: Not yet. By chance, it released the news, and I was punched in mid-air. It said my investigation had been selective. It was not, but I didn't have information. I then issued a letter to asking for information, but they refused to give it to me. That's why I must go public now and defend my reputation.

Is it possible that those who bought the Shin shares were Win Mark nominees?

Thirachai: We already checked into that.

Waratchya: We found there was nothing linking to Win Mark. We considered even names and addresses. One of the individuals is a big businessman, and he's the one who bought the highest number of shares. We believe that businessman has nothing to do with Win Mark.

Thirachai: We did not know whether the individuals bought the shares by chance or had obtained information from related parties.

What about share concealment?

Thirachai: That is not our responsibility. The DSI handles that.

Did Win Mark or Thaksin admit they were connected?

Waratchya: They did not admit it. Everyone we asked said they had nothing to do with each other.

Prasong: I'm not sure about Win Mark's answer, because since it is a foreign company, we cannot pursue them, but all of the Thais, including Thaksin and SC Asset, responded that they were not related to Win Mark.