FINAL COUNTDOWN

Violate that condition and the state will take away whatever is deemed your undeserved produce.

The question is if you do breach the rule, can the state take your cow? You bought it yourself. You have spent a lot of money raising it. When it fell ill, you paid the vet with your own cash.

If the answer is no, another question emerges: what is the undeserved produce? The legs? The body? The head? The entire cow has grown remarkably in its entirety since you fed it at the project site. And you did it knowing full well the consequences of your actions.

This analogy is what the Supreme Court hearing Thailand's biggest-ever political and corruption case is facing. The trial, centred on ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's Bt76 billion in alleged unusual wealth, will likely wrap up in two weeks' time, and a historic verdict that will have far-reaching repercussions on various aspects of Thai society is expected next month - and sooner rather than later.

Thailand has been grappling with the issue of conflict of interest ever since Thaksin was poised to become prime minister. The costly soul-searching has brought about an unprecedented national divide and one great political crisis after another. A main chapter will be concluded when the court hands down its verdict.

The prosecution believes it received a big boost on Thursday when a senior Securities and Exchange Commission member testified there was reliable evidence of massive shareholding concealment in the telecom business that Thaksin was supposed to give up on becoming prime minister.

The testimony, by assistant secretary-general Waratchaya Srimachand, corroborated findings by the Assets Examination Committee (AEC), whose origins have been decried by the Thaksin camp because it was set up after the September 19, 2006 coup.

Kaewsan Atibhodi, who led the AEC, has finished his testimony and expressed satisfaction with the prosecution's presentation. He said the case against Thaksin was built on three main arguments: Thaksin concealed his telecom shares while prime minister; the concealed shares belonged to businesses that benefited from his government's actions; and the laws prescribe "seizure of related assets" to punish such offences.

The defence's hopes of discrediting the investigators - the AEC - have been dashed by a lot of transaction information that the 2006 coup could not have brought about. Therefore, the defence's main strategy has been the "I paid for my cow" argument.

Kaewsan said what had been presented before the court included how the investigators established that Ample Rich, Win Mark and Thaksin's children were simply his nominees, while the fugitive ex-prime minister and his wife controlled a dizzying movement of shares of his telecom empire. The court has also been told how Thaksin not only controlled those shares, but also helped them increase in value through dubious state decisions.

He is confident the complete picture has been presented at the trial.

"Kanchanapa Honghern [Thaksin's ex-wife's personal assistant] was the movie director, Pojaman [na Pombejra, Thaksin's ex-wife] the producer, and Thaksin the owner of this movie project," Kaewsan said.

On Monday: The prosecution's case in detail.