Who is the Client? Temasek or Thaksin

[taksinloong]

Who is the Client? Temasek or Thaksin
Posted by korbsak , Reader : 8776 , 13:05:26
Print

Who is the Client ? Temasek or Thaksin

Surin Upatkoon, the main shareholder in the controversial Kularb Kaew Co, was yesterday charged with a criminal offence for alleged illegal representation of a foreign company under the Foreign Business Act 1999.

Acting police chief Seripisut Temiyavej said that Fairmont Investments Group, based in the British Virgin Islands, would also face criminal charges under the act.

In his testimony given last September, Surin claimed that he had financed his investment in the company with his own money.

He also insisted he was not a nominee of the Singaporean government's investment arm, Temasek Holdings.

The above was published by The Nation on 25 August, 2007.

Not much. The police was not willing to provide anymore details of what went behind the scene.

Let us look at the fact:

On 10 March 2006 Datok Surin wrote a check worth 2,720 million baht to Kularb Kaew Co, for payment of his shares, from his very own account at Siam Commercial Bank. The cash was withdrawn in the afternoon; however, the very same amount was deposited into this account from an offshore company called Fairmont Investment Group, based in BVI. in the morning, same day.

Furthermore, the investigation conducted by the Ministry of Commerce revealed that this offshore account was with the Credit Suisse Bank in Singapore , under the name of Fairmont Investment Group. Things get more complicated, when it was found that the owner, Fairmont, was not the one that has the authority to withdraw the cash. The payment instruction was from the company called Green Land Company limited.

One can easily assume that Green Land is definitely the owner of the mystery 2,720 million baht. Interesting enough, Datok Surin also admitted that the investment money was not his. He borrowed them from Fairmont!!

Who is the man behind the scene that is so very kind to Datok Surin, kind enough to lend him over 2 billion baht cash to invest in Kularb Kaew.

We need to take a close look at Fairmont or, rather, the real owner, Green Land Company Ltd.

The following is new stuff, posted especially for Nation blog members krub.

Green Land Company Limited was established in Brunei. Here is the address:
Britannia House 41, 4th Floor, Cator Road Bandar Seri Begawan, BS8811
Brunei Darussalam

Further digging krub: Having the name and with the help of Goggles, more fact reveals.

There is a company called Heritage Trust Group that is sharing the same address as Green Land Company limited. Heritage Trust Group is also at Britannia House 41, 4th Floor, Cator Road Bandar Seri Begawan, BS8811 Brunei Darussalam.

Another surprise!!They both also shared the same correspondence addresses in Singapore as well. Here it is: 50 Raffles Place #15-05/06 Singapore Land Tower Singapore 048623

Who are the Heritage Trust Group? Two names came up: Dr Angelo Vernados and NG GEOK LAN

Dr Angelo Vernados is currently founder of the Heritage Trust Group,Singapore, a provider of offshore companies, nominee and trust services to the legal, accounting and private banking sectors throughout South East Asia and the Middle East.

Ref:http://www.intellitrain.biz/team_advpanel.php

NG GEOK LAN also sits on the board of Heritage Trust Group. He is the one that authorize the 2,720 million baht on behalf of Green Land Company Ltd.

From the above, we can conclude that the money invested in Kularb Kaew that was supposed to be from the Thai entity is no longer valid. The money was from offshore account, managed by Singaporean company that provided what they call “ Wealth Management Services”. Dr Angelo Vernados and NG GEOK LAN are merely nominees, part of the services, that the company provided to the client.

When Surin cried out loud that he was not a Tamesek nominee. I truly believe in him. Tamesak belongs to Singaporean Government. No reason for the Government to arrange such a set up. I cannot help myself recalling on my very first theory that Thaksin never did sell his shares? So, who is the client? Temasek or Thaksin. Your guess is as good as mine.

BTW: If you can read Thai and rich enough, you may want to click on http://www.korbsak.com/talk_500420.htm to get more information on “Wealth management services ”. ha ha

 

[mortarmafia]

BURNING ISSUE
PM's future trivial given huge philosophical differences
By Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation
Published on September 5, 2008

It should be clear to even a casual follower of the political crisis that neither the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej nor the dissolution of Parliament will put an end to the deadlock. And a proposed referendum on whether the premier should stay or resign would likely be rejected by the anti-government protesters.


Meanwhile, the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) appears determined to establish nothing less than their so-called "New Politics", but with a fresh general election, the ruling People Power Party (PPP) appears likely to gain the most votes and form a government yet again.

PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul may have given a huge discount, as quoted by the Bangkok Post yesterday, when he said that perhaps the PAD's original 70:30 ratio proposal - wherein 70 per cent of the members of Parliament should be appointed and 30 per cent elected - could be reduced to 50:50, to make it more palatable.

A generous concession it may be, but this kind of New Politics would still automatically reduce every citizen's right to elect their own representatives by half.

Should the rural and urban poor, who form the largest block of voters, be returned to feudal times and be made to accept rule by a small group of self-righteous and supposedly benign rulers - leaders that would be appointed by an even a smaller group of "benign" elite? Would a majority of voters really accept, let alone learn to be content with, such a system?

If the PAD advocates this rule by the few - which could easily degenerate into rule by the fewer for the fewer - then there's no meaningful electoral and political space for rural and urban poor under the New Politics scheme, and indeed for most other voters as well.

So when will the well-intended but self-righteous middle class and elite who have been occupying Government House wake up to the reality that they will ultimately have to share political power and some space with the majority of the populace, distasteful though the thought might be? Or perhaps they believe the formula of 70:30 under New Politics is already "sharing", even if it must be discounted to 50:50.

As much as the Thai media like to talk about the need for the rural and urban poor needing re-education about the meaning and mechanism of elections and democracy, the so-called "educated" middle class and elite also need to unlearn their stereotypes and prejudices and learn more about democracy themselves.

For one thing, while the majority of the PAD protesters seem middle class and even conspicuously rich, a visible presence of urban and rural poor within the PAD rally can also be detected. Does this not mean that not all poor and less-formally educated people are "hopeless" from the standpoint of the PAD, who carp on so much about how "naive" the poor urban and rural voters are?

A recent remark by a major PAD supporter and jewellery-business owner Preeda Tia-suwan is very revealing. Last Saturday, at a public symposium attended by academics at Chulalongkorn University, Preeda defended the PAD's ASTV satellite television mouthpiece, saying it was not cultivating any political cult.

Preeda stressed those who watched ASTV and attended PAD rallies could not possibly have been brainwashed, "because they are middle-class people".

So now there is a new theory based on the notion that the so-called educated middle class are somehow immune to propaganda and brainwashing and an assumption that others outside this group easily fall for it.

The longer the "educated" middle class and elite continue to fail to see that an election does not ensure an honest and morally upright government - but it does ensure that every voter has a say in choosing their own representatives - the longer the political crisis and confrontation will linger. The current drama could take years, if not decades, to resolve itself. It is nothing short of a class war with two opposite groups of elites backing their respective sides, as well as a struggle to legitimise or invalidate the electoral process.