"Pakornwut" reveals more evidence Suspicion of Sak Siam's financial statements revealing possible involvement in money laundering, preparing to submit an additional DSI to confirm the green light party believe it will not affect the establishment of the government because it is a continuous inspection Declare a clear stance on Party DNA along with party ministers
Mr. Pakornwut Udompipatsakul Member of the House of Representatives, the Kao Klai Party, announced the disclosure of additional information in the case of Mr. Saksayam Chidchob, Minister of Transport. tucked shares in a limited partnership Buri Charoen Construction This led to the Constitutional Court ordering Mr. Sak Siam to temporarily stop performing his duties.
Mr. Pakornwut revealed that he received a document explaining the allegations 3-4 weeks ago and found many suspicious points. Found new evidence that there are outstanding debts with the partnership. on the day of his inauguration as Minister And did not submit a statement of assets to the NACC. There is information that he borrowed money in 2015-2016 for 4 times in the amount of 108.4 million baht. There was a loan agreement. and repay the entire debt on April 22, 2019, 33 days before taking office, referring to the no-confidence debate in 2022, which asked whether the debt Mr. Sak Siam had with this partnership Was it transferred out at the same time as the share transfer? but never received an answer
“The undisclosed information suggests that after the share transfer, this debt was not transferred as well. The document is a tie that this amount of debt still belongs to Mr. Sak Siam after the transfer of shares in 2018, so the question arises whether the debt was really repaid on April 22, 2019, because the partnership's financial statements ended on December 31. 2019 clearly states that there is still money to be given The loan manager has an outstanding balance of 38 million baht, and then the debt balance is closed to 0 baht in the year-end financial statements of 2020, which the closing statement must be consistent with all documents and bank balances of the partnership. because it must be submitted to the government agency according to law Therefore, it is possible that Mr. Sak Siam owes the partnership 38 million baht at the end of 2019 and did not file an asset account with the NACC. Assuming optimism on April 22, 2019, 108 million baht was transferred to Partnership according to the document, ”said Mr. Pakornwut.
Mr. Pakornwut said that he was suspicious of the next matter. When considering the clarification documents, it was found that the partnership stated that Mr. Sak Siam borrowed money 4 times from 2016, 2017, 2018, specifying the same amount of 69 million baht, which corresponded to the 3-4 loan together, but the 1- 2 in the amount of 39 million baht, asking why it never appeared in the financial statements even once. And where did that amount come from? Is there a possibility that the debt might not be paid? and still has outstanding debt according to the financial statements therefore using the method to find out the amount of money actually transferred to the partnership This may be a transaction for other purposes, claiming that it is a debt payment. But the said amount did not match 69 million baht, so had to create a new amount of debt that did not appear. Make a loan agreement that is sent to the Constitutional Court, is there a duty stamp that will be stamped with a date that is officially legal or not? By pointing out that it is the power and duty of the NACC to investigate further
“The biggest suspicion is that the figures in the property listing are inconsistent with the partnership's sale of shares. If it was actually sold and received 120 million baht in January 2018, why did you submit the property in the 16 months after that there was only 76 million baht in cash as a deposit? Buying assets of at least 40 million baht within 16 months and the figure of 40 million baht is based on the assumption that before January 2018, Mr. Sak Siam did not have a single baht of money. From the clarification in the distrust discussion of Mr. Sak Siam that the money from the sale of shares is a personal matter that will be used. Therefore, it is not necessary to report to members of the House of Representatives. therefore wondering if the debt was paid back on April 22, 2019, why Mr. Sak Siam did not bring evidence to clarify in the council This debt is the last straw in associating Mr. Sak Siam with this partnership, ”said Mr. Pakornwut.
Mr. Pakornwut said that if the debt was actually paid, it would be an important evidence that he had completely cut off from this partnership. and will be able to immediately refute any doubts And admitted that it would become stuck causing himself to be knocked out in the middle of the council But Mr. Sak Siam did not clarify that the money from the sale of shares was used to repay the debt to this limited partnership worth 108 million baht. Mr. Sak Siam requested documents from the partnership. It is a billing receipt document. The new manager of the partnership has come to control and sign the document since the beginning of the year 2018 according to the actual transfer of shares.
Mr. Pakornwut said he had submitted a list of 22 witnesses to the Constitutional Court and a list of documentary witnesses. Items to be called by the court to refute Mr. Saksayam's statement to answer the allegations. And also found a list of 27 accounts of Mr. Sak Siam and related persons At the same time, it also reveals that there is a team to point out those who believe that it includes money laundering offenses at the Department of Special Investigation or DSI, therefore requesting independent organizations, both the NACC and the Constitutional Court. Invoking faith from society and practice treat every request according to the law according to the period of operation in the judicial process And the standards of work that are being questioned by society, about 9-10 months when filing a complaint with the NACC and the Constitutional Court side are approximately the same time. but progress has been made Now it's just waiting for the Constitutional Court to summon witnesses to give more information.
When asked if it was comparable to the lawsuit of the MP Kao Klang, how the speed and work were different, Mr. Pakornwut said it was probably not just this. And this would be just one story. If going back to the era of the NCPO, where the qualifications of ministers in each case were submitted for consideration at least 300 days, or sometimes more. But if it is the case of the Future Forward Party and the Progressive Party It's pretty quick as you can see. The part that has to be resubmitted again at the NACC because it is additional evidence. And is a separate issue from the last petition in the case of a share tuck, therefore wants the NACC to retrieve documents according to the powers available from banks and private sectors, including the government that can be linked to whether all Is the claim true? and the number of outstanding debts in the financial statements It's a financial error. Or is it a mistake that has never been used before?
When asked if this matter is related to the issue of forming a government that talks about the 3rd party coming to be a leader in forming a government or not Because there was a statement during this trend, Mr. Pakornwut said he knew that there was this document about 4 weeks ago from Pol. And in the past, he had not had time to watch this story. But after opening the council meeting and having time to look at documents for about a week, he finished this last Saturday. leading to a press release There is no reason to wait for anything in order to submit. because if waiting to happen, there will be one incident may not be in time So I thought I had to submit it.
As for whether it will affect the formation of a government that has asked for a Bhumjaithai Party or not, it is seen as doing normal duties. because he came out to reveal this matter since last year and submit a debate of no confidence Including submitting to the NACC and the Constitutional Court itself, so there is no reason not to do it. As for joining the government or not joining the government We had already made it clear that whether Mr. Phitha was Prime Minister or not, he would inspect all ministers. Not even the ministers of the Progressive Party including issues of honesty signed in the MOU of the 8 parties
As for the communication of not taking the Bhumjaithai Party or not, Mr. Pakornwut said it was not whether we would join or not join. In the end, we have to do the job of checking every ruling coalition. Including the party itself, which went into the ministerial position If there is a bad behavior or not. This is not about negotiations. Because negotiations with the government are now the responsibility of the Pheu Thai Party and the party's negotiating team. which he was not on the negotiating team
When asked if he accepted that it would affect the establishment of that government viewed as not affecting because it is considered a normal system Everyone already knew that the DNA of the Progressive Party was like this. He thought that if the Progressive Party could become a government and Mr. Phitha became Prime Minister The picture of the party advancing scrutinizing the ruling coalition among themselves would not be surprising. Better today pretending to be blindfolded and then one day we come back to examine him intensely. It's a picture that doesn't look pretty. Fraud checks don't have the right time to confirm what's right.
Will it force the choice down or not? Because if you don't take the 2 uncles' party, there will be only one option left, which is Phumjaithai, with Mr. Sak Siam as the secretary of the party. but we confirm here that we continue to do our duty If you want to say that we have to wait for the negotiations to end first I don't know when the negotiations will end. How long will we have to wait for the matter that we have examined? Therefore, it seems that there is no better solution. In addition to following the normal process. If the Constitutional Court makes any decision whether or not Mr. Saksayam will remain in the same position as Minister because it will be effective in the future If this petition is found to be wrong was unable to hold a ministerial position for at least 2 more years
Then, at 11:30 a.m., Mr. Pakornwut traveled to the NACC to submit a letter to investigate the further submission of Mr. Sak Siam's property account.
Source: Thai News Agency