After months of twisting and turning in the Supreme Court trial, the defence in the Bt76-billion unusual wealth case involving ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra reached the climax last week.
Pending the wrap-up of trial proceedings, the high court will likely hand down its decision in a few months.
The prosecution may have thought it had a watertight case. But the testimonies of Thaksin's ex-wife Khunying Pojaman na Pombejra and their daughter Pinthongta Shinawatra have indicated otherwise.
At the heart of its arguments, the prosecution contends Thaksin is the family patriarch who has stashed his ill-gotten gains under the names of 44 family members and associates.
In the strongest defence rebuttal to date, the high court heard that Pojaman is the actual matriarch of the family business.
Pojaman contends honest hard work accumulated the family wealth.
Family members made individual decisions to sell controlling stakes in Shin Corp to Singapore's investment firm Temasek in exchange for a whopping fortune, she told the high court, insisting Thaksin had no control over the deal.
As the prosecution and the defence have both presented equally compelling arguments, the judicial decision may have to rely on a minute examination of evidence.
The defence arguments have outlined squeaky-clean bookkeeping. The prosecution have raised serious doubts about the defence rigging the records to fit its rebuttals.
Public prosecutors have shown a number of documents as evidence that records were made retroactively to back up a number of transactions among family members.
In one document, Pojaman was addressed as a Khunying. But the alleged transaction happened before she was bestowed with the honorary title.
In drawing its conclusion, the high court is expected to weigh evidence in deciding whether the Shin Corp deal is open and above board or a paper transaction to conceal Thaksin's wealth.
Pojaman and Pinthongta gave a commanding performance in the courtroom that the wealth is theirs and not Thaksin's.
In her testimony, Pojaman told the high court that she was testifying to defend her hard-earned assets. She made it clear she appeared on the witness stand to speak for herself and not her ex-husband.
In their divorce settlement agreed in Hong Kong last year, Pojaman and Thaksin decided to dissolve their marriage by allowing each side to keep marital assets under their names.
Thaksin has virtually no part in the Bt76-billion fortune under his name, the majority of which are in the names of Pojaman, her brother Bhanapot Damapong, Panthongtae and Pinthongta.
Pojaman outlined how the business empire was built. She said she "actually" sold her Shin shares to Bhanapot and Panthongtae.
She had financial records to show that the two repaid her under instalment plans.
She recounted how she had given Bt370 million as a birthday gift to Pinthongta.
The prodigal daughter used her gift as seed money to buy Shin shares from her brother Panthongtae. In a few short years, her investment grew to Bt23 billion.
Pojaman made three interesting arguments. The first argument is her denial about two proxy investment firms, Win Mark and Ample Rich.
She said the two were not paper companies formed to conceal the family's wealth but had actual owners and bona fide businesses.
The second argument is the Shin Corp deal was initiated and negotiated by Bhanapot in 2005. Bhanapot was reportedly unwilling to commit to heavy investment to develop the next generation of telecommunication business and wanted to retire.
The third and final argument is Panthongtae and Pinthongta made their adult decisions, freed from parental influence, to support Bhanapot.
Pinthongta brought up two assertions. One, that she was targeted for verbal torture by the Assets Examination Committee to coerce her testimony.
Another assertion is she was the true decision-maker in the Manchester City Football Club deal and the subsequent sale to reinvest in a diamond mine in Africa.
She said she wanted to set up the business for her father Thaksin to occupy his time while living in exile.
The defence is very convincing. But is it to be believed?