BANGKOK: Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra testified at the Central Tax Court in Bangkok on Tuesday (Oct 7), in support of his request to protect his assets while his lawsuit against the Revenue Department proceeds.
The dispute concerns enforcement of a 17.6-billion-baht tax claim linked to the sale of Shin Corp shares to Temasek.
Winyat Chatmontree, Thaksin’s lawyer, said the Revenue Department had frozen about 90 million baht in bank deposits and issued seizure or attachment orders covering five vehicles, including two bulletproof cars, and land in Chiang Mai jointly owned with Thaksin’s sister.
Winyat said the interim application was intended to preserve Thaksin’s assets while the lawsuit was being considered, rather than immediately cancel the tax assessment or end collection. He questioned how the Revenue Department would take responsibility if assets were auctioned and Thaksin subsequently won.
Thaksin’s legal team argues that the income underlying the tax claim formed part of about 46 billion baht from the Shin Corp share sale already transferred to the state under an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions.
Winyat rejected suggestions that the lawsuit repeated issues already decided by the Supreme Court’s Tax Division. He said the earlier case concerned the assessment process, including summonses and compliance with the Revenue Department’s rules, whereas the current dispute concerned subsequent enforcement.
Winyat questioned whether the Revenue Department had examined the earlier transfer or discussed it with the Ministry of Finance.
“The question is, the state has already seized it. Has the state already benefited from it? If the Revenue Department simply says that it was not the agency that collected it, is that fair to former prime minister Thaksin?” Winyat said.
Winyat put the principal tax at around 5.8 billion baht, with penalties and surcharges bringing the demand to about 17 billion baht. He argued that the court needed to establish whether the claim concerned the same income already transferred to the state.
“If it is the same income, then it is income that has already been collected. Are you still going to make one taxpayer, particularly Mr Thaksin, pay again? This is not a small amount, but 17 billion baht. It is part of the 46 billion baht. If it is not, everyone should come out and deny it. The Ministry of Finance should come out and deny it,” Winyat said.
Winyat cited documents or previously released information from the Comptroller General’s Department about the share-sale proceeds and their transfer to the state, saying these formed part of the factual basis of Thaksin’s challenge.
Winyat also said the withdrawal of an attachment order in some instances would not necessarily prevent further enforcement. That possibility was another reason to request interim protection for assets still affected.
Thaksin told the court, located at the Government Complex on Chaeng Watthana Road, that two of the five vehicles were specially made with bulletproof glass. He said he had faced several assassination attempts during his premiership and remained concerned about possible threats following incidents after he left office.
Thaksin said removing the vehicles would endanger his life and that replacements would take a long time to have specially made. Under cross-examination by the defendant’s side, he acknowledged that the cars remained in his possession, although they could be auctioned if enforcement continued.
Thaksin also said he no longer had proceeds from the share sale available to provide cash security to defer payment of the tax claim. Winyat said the two bulletproof cars were necessary for Thaksin’s daily life and personal safety.
Thaksin described himself as “the fruit of a poisonous tree” arising from a political coup. He maintained that the share sale had caused no harm to the state and said he had been overseas, but had respected the judgments issued against him.
Thaksin argued that the courts had been presented with a “tray full of poisonous fruit” from coup-era processes and described the Revenue Department’s action as improper.
Thaksin compared the Ministry of Finance to a father and the Revenue Department to a child. He said he had already handed all the money he owed to the “father”, but the “child” was demanding payment again because the two had not communicated.
Winyat said Thaksin’s legal team had invoked the “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument to question the fairness of processes originating in bodies established after coups.
Referring to the cases against Thaksin, Winyat said: “He has had assets seized and been prosecuted. Everyone knows that these things came from at least two groups that seized power.
The committees that were appointed, the individuals and groups of people whose authority came from those powers, are all poisonous fruit.”
Winyat said his team was not prejudging that all the processes were unlawful, but wanted the court to examine whether they were fair. He linked that argument to Thailand’s efforts to promote reconciliation and reduce political conflict.
Winyat said the court had scheduled its order on Thaksin’s interim application for November 16, 2026, at 9am. The main lawsuit would proceed separately under the court’s timetable.
Thaksin and a former Revenue Department official testified for the plaintiff, while the department called two legal officers responsible for tax refunds to give evidence on collection procedures and their views on handling the matter.
Thaksin received the court’s permission to leave for another engagement during testimony from a witness called by the public prosecutors. He smiled as he left, telling reporters: “There is nothing to say.”
Public prosecutors requested more time to submit an additional defence, citing the case’s complexity and the need to examine earlier judgments, Winyat said. Thaksin’s side did not object, and the court granted a third extension.
Winyat also addressed reports that Thaksin could face bankruptcy proceedings if further asset seizures failed to cover the tax demand. He said a previous Revenue Department director-general had tried to pursue that option and that the person leading the department might since have changed.
Winyat argued that bankruptcy action should be deferred while Thaksin’s team disputed whether any tax debt remained outstanding. He said proceedings were a future possibility if the debt went unpaid and that there was still time for the legal process.
Winyat emphasised that the interim hearing did not determine which side would win the main lawsuit. The application concerned protection of Thaksin’s assets pending judgment, not immediate cancellation of the tax assessment or an end to collection. - The Nation/ANN
