THAI'S STARRING ROLE IN HOLLYWOOD DRAMA

       An international thriller with a touch of glamour, intrigue and a money trail
       Two years after Americans Gerald and Patricia Green had taken over the running of the Bangkok International Film Festival (BKKIFF), Tourism Authority of Thailand governor Juthamas Siriwan had no doubts the Hollywood couple had transformed the backwater event into a glittering success.
       Mrs Juthamas confidently predicted before the start of the 2005 festival that it would generate a record five billion baht in film distribution revenue and entice more foreign movie crews to shoot in Thailand.
       But four years on, the Greens are facing jail terms of up to 10 years after a US court convicted them last Monday of paying $1.8 million in bribes to Mrs Juthamas to secure the festival and other lucrative TAT projects.
       While the former tourism chief has strongly denied the charges in the past, media and friends were unable to contact her last week. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is now deciding whether there are grounds to charge Mrs Juthamas based on information from the trial in Los Angeles.
       Gerald Green,77, and his wife Patricia,52, were found guilty of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), eight violations of the FCPA and seven acts of money laundering. In addition, Patricia Green was found guilty of two counts of falsely subscribing a US tax return.
       While the Greens were on trial in a US jurisdiction, Mrs Juthamas' alleged role in the corruption was widely mentioned in press reports and official court documents tendered by the US government.
       The US government's trial memorandum goes into details about the alleged intricate relationship between the Greens and Mrs Juthamas, how the payments were made, and how the former governor acted as an "adviser" to the TAT after she stood down once the claims became public.
       It says the Greens arranged payments totalling $1.8 million from a group of Beverly Hills businesses they owned for the benefit of Mrs Juthamas over a four-year period which resulted in $14 million in revenue for the Greens' businesses.
       "The corrupt payments took place by transfers into the overseas business accounts of Juthamas' daughter, Jittisopa Siriwan, aka Jib, Juthamas' friend,Kitti Chambundabongse, and occasionally by cash delivery to Juthamas in person. Defendants owed Juthamas these corrupt payments as a variable percentage on TAT-related contracts and subcontracts including, but not limited to, the Bangkok International Film Festival, the Thai Privilege Card,calendars, a book, a website, public relations consulting, a video and a logo."
       Gerald Green was the one who knew Mrs Juthamas and negotiated with her on budgets and details of TAT contracts, including contracts where the Greens' businesses "took the role of subcontractor" to other companies that formally held the contract with TAT.
       The document alleged the Greens "inflated the budgets of these budgets to allow for the payments to Juthamas,the official approving and promoting these same contracts".
       Patricia Green was in charge of dayto-day business operations and implemented her husband's scheme to make the corrupt payments, according to the document.
       "In planning and making the bribe payments for the benefit of Juthamas,defendants referred to them in discussions as 'commission' payments.When defendant Gerald Green instructed that it was time to make a 'commission' payment, defendant Patricia Green and another employee,Susan Shore, would look to see which of the businesses had the money available for any given payment. Defendant Patricia Green made all the 40 or more wire transfers and cashiers check transactions at the bank herself, and she planned and tracked these payments.These payments for Juthamas followed promptly upon the receipt into the Green businesses of TAT or TATrelated revenues."
       The memorandum alleges that planning and budgeting for the payments to Mrs Juthamas was documented extensively in handwritten notes, memoranda, budget drafts and internal documents prepared by the Greens, Shore and other employees.
       "The actual payments for Juthamas themselves were reflected in the Greens businesses' bank records and other accounting records, as well as in handwritten notes and schedules tracking amounts paid and still owing," the document says.
       "Both defendants, as well as their co-conspirators Juthamas and Jittisopa, engaged in various patterns of deception to hide the bribery from others, including the Thai government and later the United States government."
       The Greens hid the amount of business Mrs Juthamas was "corruptly directing" to them and evaded Thai government fiscal controls meant to check Mrs Juthamas' authority by splitting large contracts for the BKKIFF between their various businesses.
       Despite having the misleading appearance of being distinct businesses,they shared the same dummy addresses, telephone numbers and nominee "directors" and "presidents" for use in communication with other TAT officials.
       "In reality, all companies operated out of the same business offices with the same personnel," the document said.
       To hide the extent of the corrupt business Mrs Juthamas was directing to the Greens, other contractors were also recruited who arranged referral fees to the Greens, part of which was paid to the former governor. A third party company was also used as a "billing conduit" for funds intended for the Greens' businesses.
       The Greens transferred the bribes to overseas nominee bank accounts controlled by Mrs Juthamas in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Jersey and Singapore. Money from these accounts then flowed to accounts in Switzerland held in Ms Jittisopa's
       name, but controlled by Mrs Juthamas.
       "Neither Jittisopa nor Kitti had done any work as employees or contractors of (the) defendants' businesses on the TAT contracts that would explain why accounts in their names had received $1.8 million in the defendants' funds, which they concealed on their income taxes."
       The memorandum says that after Mrs Juthamas stood down as TAT governor, the Greens stopped getting new TAT contracts and had difficulty collecting amounts they claimed they were owed for the 2007 BKKIFF.
       It alleges that Mrs Juthamas acted as an "adviser" to the TAT and assisted in a plan to have TAT officials pay off the Greens' claim through a phoney third party transaction involving a Thai company.
       After last Monday's ruling, attorneys for the Greens said they were disappointed by the verdict and were preparing to appeal. The couple are free on bond and sentencing is set for Dec 17.
       "To me it's a case of circumstantial evidence," said Marilyn Bednarski,who represented Patricia Green. She added that "the people of Thailand were not victimised in any way" because the Greens provided "top notch services" for the festival.
       But US assistant attorney Bruce H Searby, who prosecuted the case in Los Angeles, said:"There is no more concrete type of harm to the Thai people than taking money out of their treasury and sending it on a round trip through LA back to a government official."
       While,Mrs Juthamas has maintained her silence on the allegations, in 2007, after she resigned as governor and as a member of the Puea Pandin Party, she threatened to sue the US Justice Department if it implicated her in the bribery scandal.
       "All the procedures involving the case were done according to the regulations and with fairness and transparency among all agencies concerned," she said at the time.
       "I have already contacted the company in Los Angeles and found that some employees were fired for unknown reasons. I believe those cases were caused by internal conflicts inside the company," she said, insisting it was a US matter that had no direct link to Thailand.
       In the original FBI affidavit against the Greens, neither Mrs Juthamas'name nor the recipient of the alleged bribes were identified, but the term "the Governor" and "the Governor's daughter" were used.
       Jerome Mooney, who represented Gerald Green, said he thought the case was pursued in part as a warning by the US government to the entertainment industry about how it works with foreign countries.
       "We understand the government taking a shot across the bow of Hollywood," Mr Mooney said."We just wish the shell hadn't landed on our clients' boat."
       Extra spending to keep local officials happy isn't that unusual.
       A 2007 Times analysis of the budget of the film Sahara , for instance, revealed that $237,386 was spent on "courtesy payments","gratuities" and "local bribes".
       These payments for Juthamas followed promptly upon the receipt into the green businesses of TAT or TATrelated revenues
       FULL HOUSE: The Bangkok International Film Festival was a success.