Jump to content
BANGKOK
rooster59

Court to deliver ’Thanathorn’ ruling on Nov 20

Recommended Posts

Court to deliver ’Thanathorn’ ruling on Nov 20

Praphorn Praphornkul

 

a82c71e07c5fd3134ce83f084388642c.jpg

 

BANGKOK (NNT) - The Constitutional Court will read the ruling in the media shareholding case of the Future Forward Party leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, on November 20, 2019.

 

On Friday (Oct 18), Constitutional Court judges spent six hours questioning 10 defense witnesses, after the Election Commission (EC) asked the court to deliberate whether Mr. Thanathorn’s status as a member of parliament (MP) since he was holding shares in V-Luck Media Company when he applied to become an MP, a prohibition under the charter.

 

After the hearing, the court will deliver its ruling at 2 p.m. on November 20. If both sides do not submit their closing statements within 15 days, the court will consider that it already has sufficient information to make a ruling.

 

The Future Forward Party leader and all the defense witnesses insisted on their innocence and said they do not have any agenda. They expressed their confidence that there will be no further problems after this witness testimony.

 

The 10 witnesses included Mr. Thanathorn, his mother, his wife, his mother’s grandson, his lawyer, his driver and V-Luck Media employees.

 

nnd.jpg

-- © Copyright NNT 2019-10-20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

Seems that all the allegations against the fathead were cleared super really fast and for Thanthorn they just drag it out and on so he cannot sit in government. My guess is they will say guilty on some trumped up notion.

I think you are right unfortunately. This guy is really scaring them as he is not dirty and attracts a lot of young people. He is a force to be reckoned with in the future. 

 

But on the other hand i read in the BKK post that he has no real proof that he had transferred the shares and could not remember many details. So it could well be that he technically is guilty. 

 

I really hope he wont be found guilty, this guy is the future of Thailand. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think you are right unfortunately. This guy is really scaring them as he is not dirty and attracts a lot of young people. He is a force to be reckoned with in the future. 

 

But on the other hand i read in the BKK post that he has no real proof that he had transferred the shares and could not remember many details. So it could well be that he technically is guilty. 

 

I really hope he wont be found guilty, this guy is the future of Thailand. 

Technically guilty? Meaning what? If he did own shares, he should lose his status? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think you are right unfortunately. This guy is really scaring them as he is not dirty and attracts a lot of young people. He is a force to be reckoned with in the future. 

 

But on the other hand i read in the BKK post that he has no real proof that he had transferred the shares and could not remember many details. So it could well be that he technically is guilty. 

 

I really hope he wont be found guilty, this guy is the future of Thailand. 

Yeah there will be some holes they will say and prove Thanathorn cannot patch and then he will be ostracized and exiled. Not sure if they could put him in jail for something like this or give probation telling him to shut up or you go in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Technically guilty? Meaning what? If he did own shares, he should lose his status? 

Yes and why i call it technically guilt as its just a farce. What i read he has not proven that he moved / sold his shares for the deadline. I find a farce.. but technically it could be that he broke the law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rkidlad said:

Right. You’re saying he should lose his status if he broke this law.
 

Now, would this same law apply to Prayut had he owned media shares? 

I am saying he could lose it for breaking the law and that I think the law is a farce. I disagree with it.

 

The same law would apply on Prayut but he would not be convicted. Double standards and all. That makes it more farcical. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, robblok said:

I am saying he could lose it for breaking the law and that I think the law is a farce. I disagree with it.

 

The same law would apply on Prayut but he would not be convicted. Double standards and all. That makes it more farcical. 

I asked you a simple question. Do you think Thanatorn should lose his status if he really did break this law? Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rkidlad said:

I asked you a simple question. Do you think Thanatorn should lose his status if he really did break this law? Yes or no?

You should read better, i already answered your probably so intent on looking for things that are not there that you can't see the answer. 

 

If i say that i think its a farce and i disagree with it. Is it not clear then that I don't think he should lose his status for this. The company was not active at all, he tried to get rid of the shares. He did not benefit unfairly from it. I am not sure if you read all the news but others did not lose their status for similar things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, robblok said:

You should read better, i already answered your probably so intent on looking for things that are not there that you can't see the answer. 

 

If i say that i think its a farce and i disagree with it. Is it not clear then that I don't think he should lose his status for this. The company was not active at all, he tried to get rid of the shares. He did not benefit unfairly from it. I am not sure if you read all the news but others did not lose their status for similar things. 

Just answer yes or no. Stop being disingenuous. 
 

Should Thanatorn lose his status if he broke this law? Yes or no? I think ‘no’. And u? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rkidlad said:

Just answer yes or no. Stop being disingenuous. 
 

Should Thanatorn lose his status if he broke this law? Yes or no? I think ‘no’. And u? 

You should learn to read its right there in the post you quote.

 don't think he should lose his status for this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, robblok said:

You should learn to read its right there in the post you quote.

 don't think he should lose his status for this.

 

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes and why i call it technically guilt as its just a farce. What i read he has not proven that he moved / sold his shares for the deadline. I find a farce.. but technically it could be that he broke the law. 

You just said ‘yes’ when I asked you. Now you’re saying no? 
 

I need a very simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. No caveats. Should Thanatorn lose his status if he broke this law?

Edited by rkidlad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robblok said:

But on the other hand i read in the BKK post that he has no real proof that he had transferred the shares and could not remember many details. So it could well be that he technically is guilty. 

 

That's a pretty bad looking article in the BKK Post that you reference above... It makes the guy look like a dufus who didn't have a clue of what was going on with his own business affairs, doesn't remember, doesn't have any records, didn't think the court really needed document(s) it requested, etc etc...

 

Maybe the article is politically slanted/biased, and I have no independent way of knowing what exactly transpired in court. But it's more than a bit perplexing how one can transfer corporate shares ownership to another person, and not have a document(s) that reflect that and the timing of it.

 

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure there was prior news reporting on this claiming that the company involved wasn't really a media company and/or that it wasn't really operating at the time. And yet, no mention of any of those issues/questions in the Post article.

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

 

You just said ‘yes’ when I asked you. Now you’re saying no? 
 

I need a very simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. No caveats. Should Thanatorn lose his status if he broke this law?

Again, I dont think he should lose his status. I disagree with this law in this case.

What i said is that they might have enough to convict him (technically guilty) but if you look at the intent of the law i doubt there is enough. (intent of the law is to make sure that nobody has an extra advantage by having their own media company to promote them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...