Prosecutors drop Pojaman contest

Attorney-General Julasing Wasantasing decided yesterday not to seek a cancellation of the appellate verdict in the tax-evasion case involving Pojaman na Pombejra, ex-wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Julasing’s decision was announced by Special Cases Department director and spokesman for the Attorney-General’s Office Thanapith Mulpreuk. He said the attorney-general had also decided not to appeal against the Appeals Court’s decision to suspend a jail term for Bhanapot Damapong, Pojaman’s brother.
On August 24, the Appeals Court overturned the lower court’s ruling involving three defendants in the case. The lower court had found all three defendants guilty, ruling they were involved in a conspiracy to evade Bt500 million in tax liabilities related to a share deal in 2000. The defendants – Pojaman, brother Bhanapot Damapong and her secretary Kanachanapa Honghern – were sentenced to three years in jail each, but granted bail pending a high court review.
In the appellate decision, Pojaman and Kanchanapa were acquitted of all charges. Bhanapot was convicted of tax offences before the high court cited his good standing in society as grounds for leniency to suspend his term. He still had to pay Bt100,000 in fines.
Thanapith said it was a sensible decision, as the criminal penalties identified for tax-related violations were not intended to punish those failing to pay tax or failing to pay tax correctly based on civil cases, but to support State measures to collect taxes only.
The Appeals Court’s decision to drop the charges against Pojaman and her secretary was appropriate. Pojaman wanted to give 4.5 million shares of Shinawatra Computer and Communication to her brother Bhanapot. The shares belonged to Pojaman, but the name under which the shares were held was that of her maid Duangta Wongpakdee. So transfer was conducted as a share sale in the stock market, Thanapith said.
Against the lower court’s judgement that the sale was used to avoid tax, the Appeals Court considered the testimony of Phatra Capital executive Suvit Mapaisansin, that there were many “nominees” in the stock market and such holdings were not prohibited by law. He also advised that the share transfer be conducted as a sale and purchase on the Stock Exchange. Moreover, Duangta’s portfolio had been opened long before the time and the account had movements all the time, Thanapith said.
The defendants also said they had transferred shares in the form of share sales many times before and believed all along it was legal. So, there was no convincing evidence that Pojaman and Kanchanapa did it to evade tax, he said.
A former member of the Assets Examination Committee in charge of the case, Kaewsan Atibodhi, said the prosecutors were wrong to have used their agreement with the Appeals Court to drop the case. He also questioned why, when the Appeals Court and the lower court had conflicting judgements, prosecutors did not oppose the lower court’s verdict in the first place.
Klanarong Chantik, a member of and spokesman for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, who took the case after the AEC, said the NACC would meet today to consider what to do, as the law allowed the case to be referred to the Supreme Court.
Thanapith said public prosecutors did not have to appeal in all cases. If public prosecutors agreed with court rulings and felt they were reasonable, they could opt not to appeal.
The spokesman said no one had lobbied the Attorney-General to avoid a cancellation of the Appeals Court ruling. The Attorney-General based his decision on facts in the court documents, he said.
Bhanapot’s lawyer Metha Thamviharn said he had to wait for Bhanapot to decide whether he wants to appeal to the Supreme Court.