Back in 1998, Pramut Sutabutr, the former director of the Mass Communication Authority of Thailand (now Mcot Plc), offered to help resolve Thaksin Shinawatra's multi-billion-baht business conflict with the latter's former US partner, William L Monson.

But the proposition went nowhere. As a result, the billionaire Thai leader now faces two perjury charges in the Criminal Court based on a business conflict which started in the mid-1980s.

The court has already scheduled a total of six hearings for September and October and will decide by October 16 whether to launch a full trial. The ruling could have far-reaching ramifications on Thaksin's political future.

For Pramut, who introduced Thaksin to Monson, a veteran cable TV operator, in 1982, the long-running conflict and personal bitterness should have ended years ago. But that didn't happen, even though he tried to be the mediator.

Pramut, now 66, was the chief executive of Mcot in the early 1980s when Thailand was about to start its cable-TV business.

One day in 1982, Pramut invited Monson, who was exploring cable-TV opportunities here, to meet Thaksin, then still a fledgling businessman in the computer industry.

Later, they became partners and put in US$250,000 each into a joint venture that preceded what eventually became International Broadcasting Corp or IBC, the country's first major cable-TV operator.

"IBC, now part of UBC, the country's only major cable-TV operator, was really the first money spinner for Khun Thaksin," said Pramut, who laments that his former friends were not able to reach a legal settlement.

Monson, who helped pioneer cable-TV in Hawaii in the 1960s, said Thaksin wasn't happy with their first joint venture set up in Bangkok in 1985 - due to the lack of a proper licence and substantial income - so Thaksin sold back his stake to Monson not long afterwards.

After the sale, Thaksin was, however, hired by Monson to help lobby the government for a proper nationwide cable-TV licence.

Once the licence was granted by the then PM's Office minister Chalerm Yoobamrung and Monson's comprehensive business plan was put on the table for a multi-billion-baht venture, Thaksin changed course, according to Monson, who has two children born to his Thai wife.

In April 1989, Thaksin filed a criminal lawsuit against Monson and his Thai company, alleging embezzlement of transmission equipment.

Monson's Thai manager at the time was thrown into jail for four days and police came to his office and confiscated the equipment.

However, Thaksin lost the first embezzlement case in a Thai court in 1994 and Monson was acquitted. Thaksin later appealed, but the Court of Appeals upheld the first court's ruling.

In 1995, Monson filed the first perjury charge against Thaksin, but the Criminal Court suspended its decision on whether to have a trial pending a further ruling on Thaksin's embezzlement suit.

Then, in 1998, Pramut offered to meditate the conflict, in which Monson had asked for a 40-per-cent share of IBC based on its market value in the early 1990s, when it was listed on the stock exchange.

The 40-per-cent share was about US$160 million, but the offer was ignored by Thaksin.

"He's now very rich, [and] I'm very poor," said Monson, referring to the Bt73-billion sale of Thaksin's family's stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Group of Singapore.

According to Pramut, Thaksin appeared to make his first billions of baht from the successful IBC operation and its listing on the stock market.

With an estimated gain of Bt4 billion from IBC, Thaksin later used the proceeds to branch into the satellite business and then into the mobile-phone business.

Having waited for the court to hear the perjury charge against Thaksin for many years, Monson in May 2006 decided to re-file the case as it was near the statute of limitations and would have expired.

"We had to dig up old documents which could have been destroyed already if Khun Thaksin's lawyer had not submitted the original 1989 embezzlement case to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

"Since Khun Thaksin had lost the embezzlement case in the first court and then the appeals court, it's proof that supports our perjury charges against the premier," said Pramate Sutabutr, Pramut's younger brother, who is now Monson's lawyer.

Pramate said Monson, the plaintiff, told the court he could no longer wait for the Supreme Court's final ruling on the 1989 embezzlement case since the perjury case was already 10 years old and near to its statute of limitations' expiring.

"As a result, I think the timing for court hearings is coincidental. The whole affair has been going on for a long time," Pramate said.

But Monson, who was here last week to finalise his cases, said the timing of these legal matters was just "providential".

The US businessman is aware that the next general election has been slated for October 15 but if it is delayed, as expected, the court decision from the first perjury case may just precede the poll. If the decision goes against the prime minister it could have a significant impact.