Bangkok: After the Supreme Court’s decision mandating Thaksin Shinawatra to pay taxes amounting to 17.6 billion baht from the sale of Shin Corp shares, Professor Charan Pakdeethanakul provided an analysis of the legal situation that has captured societal interest.
According to Thai News Agency, Professor Charan noted that the leaders of the United States, Donald Trump, and Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, are experiencing a challenging period, as unfavorable events tend to occur simultaneously.
The Shin Corp share tax case was initially thought to be resolved in Thaksin’s favor, as previous rulings by the lower court and the Court of Appeals sided with him. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturned these judgments. The lower court had ruled in favor of the Revenue Department due to a technicality, where the tax assessment notice was sent to the wrong individuals-shareholders Panthongtae and Pinthongtha, instead of Thaksin himself. Although sending a new notice might breach the 10-year statute of limitations, the Supreme Court held that the original notice was legally valid, thereby allowing the court to assess the case’s substance and determine that incorrect taxes had been paid.
Professor Charan explained that despite the judgment, the enforcement process would take a significant amount of time. The Revenue Department possesses special powers to seize and freeze assets before a lawsuit is filed, preventing asset transfer. In uncertain cases, the department may wait for a final judgment as a precaution.
Regarding asset seizure challenges, Professor Charan highlighted issues such as assets potentially being in digital currencies or abroad, complicating the process. If assets are under someone else’s name within Thailand, the Revenue Department must prove ownership to the court for asset auction to settle the debt.
In a related case concerning an appeal under Section 112, Professor Charan stated the Attorney General decided to appeal a case dismissed overseas by a lower court. The Attorney General’s screening committee had voted against filing the appeal. However, since the offense occurred outside Thailand, the Attorney General possessed the authority to indict or appeal, despite the committee’s recommendation.
Professor Charan noted that the ongoing Section 112 case appeal suggests Thaksin believes the matter is unresolved, affecting his chances for a second royal pardon and decreasing the likelihood of a sentence suspension.
Additionally, Professor Charan discussed obstacles in the Thai justice system, particularly concerning influential individuals. He cited lobbying and case manipulation as prevalent issues, where connections or financial incentives might prevent witnesses from testifying.
Merit and decision-making also play a significant role in Thai legal judgments, posing a conflict between national responsibility and personal merit. Despite these challenges, Professor Charan emphasized that justice and fairness ultimately prevail, though patience is necessary for outcomes to materialize.