By all means, authorities have the right to prosecute anyone who violates the law. But justice is not served when one person is singled out for punishment while hundreds, if not thousands, go free. In this case, the charges against Mr Surin appear more like political retribution than an honest attempt by authorities to dole out justice.

When the Commerce Ministry's Business Development Department handed over the Kularb Kaew case to police in October 2006, three suspects were named: Mr Surin, former Shin Corp chairman Pong Sarasin, and Suphadej Poonpipat, executive chairman of Thanachart Capital. It remains uncertain why police did not charge Mr Suphadej and Mr Pong as well.

At the time of the Shin sale in January 2006, Mr Pong and Mr Suphadej held a combined stake of 51 percent in Kularb Kaew. Back then, Mr Pong told reporters: "Kularb Kaew was established to make Shin a Thai firm after the transactions, but I'll soon have to sell the stake." It's hard to come to any other conclusion but that Mr Pong admitted to acting as a nominee so Kularb Kaew could become a Thai company - the exact crime Mr Surin stands accused of.

Mr Pong and Mr Suphadej, who were both found to have backed their "investments" using loans from the banks involved in the Shin takeover, within several months after the deal diluted their stakes to a combined 4.25 percent in Kularb Kaew. In March 2006, Mr Surin came on the scene, taking a 68 percent stake in the holding company. While Mr Surin has always maintained that he is not a nominee, the Commerce Ministry concluded earlier that he was, on the grounds that the proceeds used to buy the stake came through a "mysterious channel".

The importance of the case

This case remains highly significant because it strikes at the heart of the debate over the Foreign Business Act. For decades, authorities looked the other way as thousands of companies set up similar legal structures to sidestep the FBA. The law only started to be enforced, however, when Mr Thaksin's opponents sought to push him out of office.

Realizing that any decision to punish Kularb Kaew could affect many nominally Thai-owned companies, the Commerce Ministry expanded the investigation to include more than 10 large companies in the days prior to last year's coup. They include hypermarkets Tesco Lotus and Carrefour, as well as mobile phone company Dtac, the main rival to Shin Corp's Advanced Info Service (AIS). Dtac is owned by Norway's Telenor.

Inconsistencies?

Although the case against Mr Surin is moving forward, the cases against the other companies have gone nowhere. Why? Are firms who use legal structures similar to Kularb Kaew's not also in violation of the law? Or does the government know that retroactively enforcing the law by using this interpretation would seriously hurt the economy and Thailand's reputation for doing business?

The government needs to make a choice. Mr Thaksin has been out of Thailand for more than a year and a fresh election is coming in December. There is no more need to make a political point by singling out Mr Surin for punishment. Alternatively, if the police insist on bringing Mr Surin to trial, then serious investigations must occur into each and every one of the 1,200 foreign-Thai joint ventures that the Business Development Department suspects could be in breach of the law. If not, then this case will continue to be cited as further evidence that authorities are applying laws selectively for political purposes, and that does not bode well for the business climate or the country's independent institutions.

arrest warrant official document ordering police to arrest a person turn up come to a place (you're expected to come to) answer police charges be asked questions about a legal case by the police justice is not served not fair or just [Thai: yuhtitham] singled out receive special treatment that others do not receive a stake shareholdings, ownership in a company

diluted their stakes reduced their shareholdings maintained that claimed that, stated that a channel arrangements for money to be used for something retroactively enforcing people charged with crime before it was a law reputation be known or remembered for something good or bad

singling out when one person in a group is treated in a different way in breach of the law broke the law, violated the law cited as used as an example of does not bode well for indicates a bad future for business climate whether people feel good or bad about doing business