Court finds ex-PM Yingluck guilty of malfeasance in G2G deals but not negligent in preventing losses

[webfact]

Court finds ex-PM guilty of malfeasance in G2G deals but not negligent in preventing losses

By KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN 
THE NATION

 

 

THE SUPREME Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders yesterdays ruled unanimously to hand down a five-year jail sentence to fugitive former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra in absentia in the case concerning her government’s controversial rice-pledging scheme after the verdict had been delayed for one month.

 

The former prime minister was found guilty of malfeasance and negligence for failing to terminate phoney government-to-government (G2G) rice sales by her then-commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, who was jailed for 42 years last month. “Yingluck acknowledged the illegality of the G2G rice trade but refused to cancel a contract with a Chinese state enterprise,” the ruling stated. 

 

The grounds of the ruling was that Yingluck had given an interview in which she said trades had been conducted between governments. However, it was later exposed by the opposition party in a censure debate in Parliament that rice stockpiles that were supposed to be sent to China had been resold inside Thailand.

 

Although Yingluck set up an investigatory committee in response to the controversy, the court ruled that the former prime minister had not in good faith tried to bring her commerce minister to justice. 

 

The court ruled that the investigatory committee members were all under Boonsong’s supervision so the investigation did not answer questions raised in the censure debate.

 

In another allegation related to the implementation of the rice-pledging policy, which was implemented in such a way as to allow corruption and caused massive financial damage to the state, the court ruled that Yingluck was not guilty as it could not be proved she had been negligent in preventing losses. Despite damages and rampant corruption, the court ruled that malfeasance stemmed from practices at the operational level. 

 

Yingluck, as head of the National Rice Committee, had established regulations and preventative methods at the programme’s outset, the court found.

 

The judicial panel of nine judges yesterday met behind closed doors at 7am. After more than four hours of discussions, the panel returned to the bench at 11.15am to read the verdict. It took another four hours for the panel to finished reading the 90-page long verdict, which included details of the allegations, evidence and arguments from both sides. The final verdict including the five-year sentence was read at about 3pm.

 

Despite the significance of the case and the verdict to the country, few people showed up at the court yesterday, which was attributed to Yingluck’s absence. Less than 100 people were in the courtroom. Most of the attendees were reporters and Pheu Thai Party staff members.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30327864

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-09-28

[Samui Bodoh]

4 minutes ago, webfact said:

Although Yingluck set up an investigatory committee in response to the controversy, the court ruled that the former prime minister had not in good faith tried to bring her commerce minister to justice. 

 

The court ruled that the investigatory committee members were all under Boonsong’s supervision so the investigation did not answer questions raised in the censure debate.

 

The investigatory committee was under the former Commerce's minister's supervision, so Yingluck was sentenced to five years in jail.

 

How is this different from the army investigating itself and clearing itself?

 

Just askin'...

 

[pookiki]

If my memory serves me correctly, Prayut ordered the seizure of Yingluck's assets (forget the amount) on the sole basis that she was negligent in the rice pledging scheme? If so, then Prayut has 'illegally' used Section 44 in seizing the assets.  Unfortunately, there can be no illegal use of Section 44.

[steven100]

6 minutes ago, pookiki said:

If my memory serves me correctly, Prayut ordered the seizure of Yingluck's assets (forget the amount) on the sole basis that she was negligent in the rice pledging scheme? If so, then Prayut has 'illegally' used Section 44 in seizing the assets.  Unfortunately, there can be no illegal use of Section 44.

nice try pooki, but Yingluck is the guilty one .... and she's done a farkin runner.

[leeneeds]

The  rent a crowd has now been abbandoned free money flew the coup

 

how quick the faithful fall by the way when no money is given out,

[pookiki]

10 minutes ago, steven100 said:

nice try pooki, but Yingluck is the guilty one .... and she's done a farkin runner.

I think you missed the point.  My post was not contesting the court's guilty verdict. My post concerned the junta's confiscation of Yingluck's assets over the rice pledging scheme even before there was a verdict. As I understand the court's verdict, Yingluck's negligence was only related to the G2G rice sales.  The junta has already taken action to seize the assets of those directly involved in the G2G sales.  Yes, the court imposed a five year jail term and Yingluck has fled.  The junta has also used its extra-judicial powers to declare her guilty of an issue for which the court cleared her.

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, pookiki said:

I think you missed the point.  My post was not contesting the court's guilty verdict. My post concerned the junta's confiscation of Yingluck's assets over the rice pledging scheme even before there was a verdict. As I understand the court's verdict, Yingluck's negligence was only related to the G2G rice sales.  The junta has already taken action to seize the assets of those directly involved in the G2G sales.  Yes, the court imposed a five year jail term and Yingluck has fled.  The junta has also used its extra-judicial powers to declare her guilty of an issue for which the court cleared her.

That's a good point which junta faithful servant Steven did not try to answer. First the seizure was wrong because it was before the verdict. However with the court verdict that she was only guilty of malfeasance in the G2G deals and not negligent in preventing loss; it now make 2 wrongs. The seizure was based on the value of loss including storage and deterioration and others. The seizure value is now officially wrong. That can be a potential suit in the making. 

[Bob12345]

30 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

That can be a potential suit in the making. 

Unless the people have all covering amnesty and the judiciary in their back pockets.

 

I wont be holding my breath...

[silent]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

nice try pooki, but Yingluck is the guilty one .... and she's done a farkin runner.

And with that kind of clear admission of guilt who needed a trial anyway  

[AGareth2]

Do I understand this correctly?

She was not found guilty of negligence regarding the running of what turned out to be a scam, nor was she guilty of financially gaining from the scheme.

She was found guilty of not sacking her finance minister or at least reigning him in

5 years! seems a bit harsh

(she was removed from office for removing a civil servant!)

 

[Eric Loh]

52 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

Do I understand this correctly?

She was not found guilty of negligence regarding the running of what turned out to be a scam, nor was she guilty of financially gaining from the scheme.

She was found guilty of not sacking her finance minister or at least reigning him in

5 years! seems a bit harsh

(she was removed from office for removing a civil servant!)

 

You can replace Yingluck with either Chuan or Ahbisit in which a minister in their cabinet was involved in corruption scams and never need to suffer the harsh sentencing by the court. Suthep in the Sor Por Kor land reform scheme where he gave title deeds corruptly under Chuan. And again the 396 police stations corruption scandals under Ahibisit. This kind of judiciary selective conviction infuriated her supporters and even neutrals like me. 

[Ossy]

6 hours ago, pookiki said:

If my memory serves me correctly, Prayut ordered the seizure of Yingluck's assets (forget the amount) on the sole basis that she was negligent in the rice pledging scheme? If so, then Prayut has 'illegally' used Section 44 in seizing the assets.  Unfortunately, there can be no illegal use of Section 44.

You've got to hand it to this guy . . . with this devilish cunning, I reckon he could become the best PM . . . ever!      Oh, and another thing; have these assets ever been made public & if not, why not?