The Securities and Exchange Commission has vowed to proceed with its investigations into two cases involving Shin Corp and the Shinawatra family, saying that it was doing its best to uncover any wrongdoing under the existing legal framework.

While the case involving Ample Rich Investments has been wrapped up, with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's son Panthongtae being fined Bt6 million, the SEC is still investigating possible insider trading by executives of Advanced Info Service Plc, which included Thaksin's younger sister Yingluck, as well as transactions involving SC Assets Plc, said SEC Secretary-General Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala.

The Stock Exchange of Thailand, under then president Kittiratt na Ranong, ruled that none of the AIS executives was guilty of insider trading in their sale of shares before Temasek Holdings' takeover of Shin Corp was announced.

"The SET's investigation is ready, but we are looking at the angles that the investigation did not cover. We have been contacting offshore organisations for further information," Thirachai said during an interview with a group of business reporters yesterday.

While saying that the investigation of SC Assets - majority owned by the Shinawatra family - was still open, Thirachai said the SEC was ready to open up the investigation involving Ample Rich transactions if new evidence emerged. He also insisted that Panthongtae had been fined the maximum according to the formula set by the sub-committee in charge of setting a penalty.

The Ample Rich investigation result was forwarded to the National Counter Corruption Commission for further investigation.

Thirachai did not specify when the investigations would be completed, saying that there were stumbling blocks, as they concerned foreign funds.

The interview took place a day after the Supreme Administrative Court ordered its lower court to rule if Shin's subsidiaries - AIS, Shin Satellite Plc and iTV Plc - were eligible for concessions following Temasek's takeover, which raised the three companies' foreign shareholdings.

Since the deal, the SEC has come under public criticism for its failure to punish any individuals believed to have benefited from the deal, particularly those in the Shinawatra family. At the centre of the criticism is Thirachai, who was appointed SEC secretary-general under the Thaksin government.

Thirachai yesterday reiterated that he had done his duty. Despite public criticism that the SEC had acted too late to pressure Shin to explain the takeover rumour, Thirachai said that under the Securities and Exchange Act the SEC's power

was limited to listed companies, not their shareholders.

"We have no power over shareholders who leak takeover attempts unless their action tends to manipulate share prices," he said. "It would have concerned us if Shin had been selling its assets and denied the rumour, but in this case it involved Shin's shareholders, over whom we have no power."

He also said that since the deal the authorities had realised there were legal loopholes in the takeover code. In Hong Kong and Singapore, major shareholders are obliged to inform the authorities of a takeover attempt. By failing to do so they face various sanctions."But we do not have the power to press criminal charges against anyone involved in a takeover," he said, adding that the law should be amended to plug the loopholes.

Asked if the Temasek-Shin transaction could be identified as share manipulation, Thirachai said the shareholders could be punished only if "are quite sure that they did leak the news. Do we know who leaked the news?" He showed surprise that such a takeover attempt could have caused an increase in Shin share prices.

The Shin deal was rumoured about two months before the deal was wrapped up. Shin share prices surged from Bt37.75 on December 1, 2005 to Bt48.25 on January 23, 2006, when the deal was announced.

Thirachai was also asked why the SEC had never questioned whether Shin's directors, including Banapot Damapong - Thaksin's brother-in-law, who then served as the company's chairman - knew anything about the deal, given that its size must have required due diligence. What, he was also asked, if they knew about the deal in advance but informed the exchange and the SEC otherwise?

"We have followed the guidelines set by the SEC Act. We care whether the buyer follows the rules, but whether there was due diligence or if the buyer incurred any investment risk does not concern us," Thirachai said.

Achara Deboonme

The Nation