Graft fighter outlines ‘watchgate’ scenarios

Rosana said netizens, including those on the anti-corruption CSI LA Facebook page, had documented Prawit wearing 22 luxury watches with an estimated value of Bt34.7 million, based on market prices.

She said Prawit could claim that about 20 watches worn by him have not yet been reported to the National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC), because they only appear in recent photos.
But at least two watches – the 16th and 20th as reported by the CSI LA – should have already been reported to the agency as they were apparently his assets before he took office during the Abhisit government in 2010.
Rosana said that possession of these two watches could be enough to prove that Prawit failed to report assets worth more than Bt200,000 to the NACC, as required by law.
Rosana said Prawit’s income during the past three years should not have exceeded Bt10 million, but the watches he had allegedly acquired were worth more that Bt30 million. This raised an interesting question as to how the NACC’s probe into the case should proceed.
Rosana urged concerned officials to look into taxation regulations to help in the case.
If Prawit obtained the watches as inheritances, he must have some proof, such as the wills of the deceased. But if he was given the watches by family members, he must identify the persons or show other proof, then apply for a tax waiver of no more than Bt20 million and pay tax on the rest.
If Prawit was given the watches by people other than family members, he must again have proof or be able to identify those persons, and ask for a tax waiver of no more than Bt10 milion and pay tax on the rest.
However, if he showed such proof or identified persons for this purpose, Prawit might risk violating the NACC’s regulation to not take gifts worth more than Bt3,000, Rosana said.
In addition, the persons who gave the watches to Prawit would have to prove where they earned the money to buy them, and declare whether they had paid tax on their income.
Rosana said if Prawit claimed that he borrowed the watches from friends, he must identify those friends so the Customs Department could trace whether they had paid customs duties for the import of those watches. If they had not paid customs duties, then Prawit might risk violating the Customs law for taking tax-unpaid items. The gift-givers’ income would also have to be checked, and it would have to be determined whether they had paid tax.
The extreme case, Rosana said, was if Prawit said he had bought the watches himself – because his income is apparently far lower than the price of the watches. If that were the case, he would face an allegation of having unusual wealth, Rosana said.

Rosana said the handling of Prawit’s case would show whether the junta government really took corruption seriously, and whether the new charter – which is claimed to be a corruption-suppression tool – would be as effective as it is supposed to be, or just another tool to suppress the government’s opponents.