Focus shifts to Juthamas

[ThaiHome]

Focus shifts to Juthamas

US court finds TAT officials took bribes

Writer: KING-OUA LAOHONG AND AP

Published: 16/09/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

Link

The National Anti-Corruption Commission is expected to rule on Wednesday on whether there are grounds to charge former TAT governor Juthamas Siriwan over a bribery scam involving the Bangkok International Film Festival.

 

The Greens could both face life in prison after a federal jury convicted them of conspiracy and money laundering. They are scheduled to be sentenced on Dec 17.

 

NACC commissioner Medhi Krongkaew yesterday said the agency would consider information it collected from the trial against the US couple in making its ruling.

 

The chairman of a subcommittee investigating the alleged bribery involving Bangkok Film Festival Co said it would take about a week for the commission to inform Mrs Juthamas if there were enough grounds to charge her so she could defend herself before the anti-graft agency.

 

The former Tourism Authority of Thailand governor has denied all allegations. She resigned as a deputy leader of the Puea Pandin Party in December 2007 when the controversy surfaced.

 

Mrs Juthamas could not be reached for comment yesterday.

 

See today's editorial: US verdict puts onus on NACC

Pol Col Piyawat Kingkate, a senior investigator with the Department of Special Investigation, yesterday said he was summoned by the NACC to give information about the alleged bribery.

 

The DSI was asked by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation to launch an investigation. But the department did not question TAT executives because it was not authorised to investigate the matter, he said.

 

Its investigators did examine documents involving the film projects and found evidence of misconduct, the DSI said. It forwarded the case to the NACC in early 2008.

 

Weerasak Kohsurat, chairman of the TAT, said the agency had set up a committee to investigate the case. It has already submitted its findings to the DSI so there was no need for the agency to establish another committee to re-examine the case.

 

US prosecutors said the Greens created shell companies to pay off Mrs Juthamas and the couple then transferred money into bank accounts of Mrs Juthamas's daughter and a friend so they would be awarded business contracts.

 

Prosecutors believe the Greens paid Mrs Juthamas about $1.8 million (61 million baht) to help secure the Bangkok film festival and tourism-related deals between 2002 and 2007. The payments, some of which were allegedly made in cash to Mrs Juthamas directly, were often disguised as sales commissions, ranging between 10% and 20%.

 

The Greens inflated their budgets so Mrs Juthamas could be paid off, US prosecutors said.

 

Defence lawyers for the couple denied the payments were bribes and said they would appeal the verdict.

 

 

[Faustian]

It should be an open and shut case....should be....

[ThaiHome]

I think they will get her eventualy, but it might take some time for the case to wind its way through the system.

 

I find it rather ironic that in this case (and several others as well) the briber has been convicted in their own country but no action as been taken (as of now) by Thai authorities, but in the BMA fire equipment case, the alleged bribe receivers have been indicted in Thailand, but no action, or even an investigation, is being done in the alleged bribers home country.

 

TH

[Pom Michael]

Because the fundamental difference is in the source of the excesses.

 

The Green's paid it directly.

 

Styre and also the CTX scandal, the money was locally paid.

 

At least that is my perception!

 

Cheers

[Gadfly]

The Green's paid it directly.

 

Styre and also the CTX scandal, the money was locally paid.

 

In answer to TH and Pom Michael, I think it really depends upon where the briber and recipient are located. The U.S. has strict laws, and they are enforced. This not true yet in other countries, but that seems to be where things are headed. IMHO, good thing - particularly for countries such as Thailand that have serious corruption problems.

 

In the CTX case, GE learned about likely FCPA violations at InVision when it did a due diligence on InVision because it intended to acquire InVision. As part of the deal, GE required to InVision to disclose the likely FCPA violations to the Department of Justice. InVision still got whacked with a hefty find and GE had to hire a FCPA monitor, but no one went to jail. But if you do a little google research, its pretty easy to connect the dots and determine who was behind the payments and who received them (that can't be good when looking for a new job }

 

In the CTX, or InVision case, the scanners were sold to a distributor, that later resold them to the Thai government. The middleman was not an agent, and theoretically bore some risk in the transaction. This was a first, although now I think its pretty clear it doesn't matter what you call the parties when an intermediary is handling the bribe. It's illegal - full stop. But that wasn't entirely clear when the settlement was reached in the CTX case.

 

By contrast, the Greens did not come forward and disclose anything. They were arrested when they arrived at LAX. They transferred money to an account controlled by the daughter of the Gov of the TAT. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

What I don't understand is why the Thai government has not acted faster. A serious prosecution here on what appear to be some pretty compelling facts would do a world of good for Thailand. It'll send a message that needs to be sent to other government officials.

 

 

[CTO]

<>

 

Standard operating procedure

 

To the point for a long time the rules regs of Thailand almost made it impossible to sell directly.

 

Companies had to be of specific size accept certain conditions etc that many international companies didn't want to - hence they'd use a agent.