In a recent development that has captured the attention of the public, Srettha Thavisin, the prime ministerial candidate from the Pheu Thai Party, has taken legal action by filing a defamation lawsuit against the well-known whistleblower, Chuwit Kamolvisit. This legal maneuver comes as a response to allegations made by Chuwit, who claimed that Srettha was embroiled in cases of land tax evasion in connection with the real estate giant Sansiri Plc.
Representing Srettha Thavisin, his attorney, Winyat Chatmontri, stressed that the intention behind the lawsuit was not to intimidate or harass Chuwit, but rather a proactive step to safeguard Srettha’s reputation in light of the damaging accusations leveled against him.
The defamation case, which has garnered significant attention, involves the testimony of 7 to 8 individuals who were directly involved in various aspects of land transactions, acquisitions, and the ensuing tax responsibilities. Winyat Chatmontri underlined that comprehensive and meticulously documented evidence supporting Srettha’s position will be presented during the upcoming court proceedings. Additionally, it was revealed that Srettha Thavisin intends to pursue a separate libel suit against Chuwit, seeking damages amounting to 500 million baht.
According to Srettha’s legal representative, the former CEO of Sansiri Plc was not directly engaged in the minutiae of land sales and purchases, as these tasks were squarely within the purview of the company’s dedicated land procurement team. Winyat Chatmontri clarified that, during Srettha’s tenure as a top executive, his role primarily encompassed granting approval for land acquisitions based on the information and figures presented to him, with the ultimate goal of advancing the company’s real estate initiatives. It was also emphasized that all requisite taxes associated with these transactions were diligently paid by the property sellers, adhering to the agreements established with the company.
Addressing a specific instance involving the sale of land in multiple batches, Winyat Chatmontri emphasized that such a strategy was rooted in legitimate “tax planning” and did not constitute an evasion of tax liabilities. This approach, he argued, was well within the boundaries of the law and did not inflict any harm upon the state’s revenue collection efforts.
Furthermore, Srettha’s legal representative highlighted the avenues that exist for responsible tax planning within the legal framework, including provisions for tax deductions through expenses related to life insurance. He also took the opportunity to underscore the credibility of his client, Srettha Thavisin, by drawing a sharp contrast between his record and that of Chuwit Kamolvisit. Unlike Chuwit, Srettha has not been implicated in any illicit activities and holds no prior convictions. Winyat Chatmontri concluded by urging Chuwit to be prepared for potential scrutiny regarding tax matters pertaining to hotels operated by companies associated with his children. The legal battle between these two prominent figures promises to be closely watched as it unfolds in the judicial arena.
