Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’

[robblok]

20 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

So because there are pictures of Apichart together with Thaksin, which in itself doesn't proof anything, it is for you a small step to rule the Yingluck was involved simply on the base that she is a sister of Thaksin.

 

I'm glad you are not a judge who can rule if I ever had to appear before a court.

That depends if your guilty or not does it not. 8 other judges saw the connection.. just 1 did not. There is a huge link between this rice trader and Thaksin not just pictures but also business dealings.. we all know that YL obeyed her brother.. so in the end she helped friends of her brother. You are saying that was just a coincident.. good thing your not a judge there would be no criminals in jail. 

[CGW]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Maybe so, but being a PM you need a whole host of other qualities about you

other than intention, responsibility and accountability immediatly comes to minds

 followed by duty of care and need to exhibit fair disclosure of

actions just to keep one honest...

We are talking about Thailand here, there has never been a PM with the "qualities" you deem necessarily!

[pornprong]

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

Further proof that the justice-system is completely-rigged, and that the trial was unfair, because this judge took a dissenting-opinion & was free to do so  ...  thus demonstrating to other countries how wrong the whole thing was, erm  ...  give that man a lunch-pack or two !   

Yep, Thai legal system is perfectly fair and impartial and not the plaything of the Military / Elites and most certainly not one of the most corrupted institutions in the land..... just ask any of the street protestors who wore yellow, the red bull kid, the multiple rich drivers who have killed with their vehicles and never seen a day inside a cell, all the corrupt General's who have never even been charged, the recently released confessed murderer popcorn gunman.......etc....etc....

(whatever you do, just don't ask the two Burmese lads from Koh Tao or the elderly mushroom pickers from up north or the multitude of victims serving 5 - 50 years for LM and especially don't ask the 85 year old historian and social commentator who has been charged with LM following a lecture where he questioned the role of a previous king in an elephant battle that happened over 500 years ago).

 

 

 

[AGareth2]

by having one dissenting judge

The Junta can say that there was no interference and there is a separation of powers

[champers]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

I don't think bravo is the correct word .....  more like idiot ...

Maybe the judge is taking the longer view. The current situation will not last forever.

[AGareth2]

20 minutes ago, champers said:

Maybe the judge is taking the longer view. The current situation will not last forever.

maybe the Judge took the legal view

[Eric Loh]

21 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

by having one dissenting judge

The Junta can say that there was no interference and there is a separation of powers

Shouldn't have a verdict with dissenting judge and no unanimous agreement. Why even have 9 judges. 

[mduras01]

Hope Thaksin has a spare guest bedroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[chickenslegs]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

 ... Everyone knows here that the rice trader was close to Thaksin (as proven with pictures) ... 

 

50 minutes ago, robblok said:

 ... we all know that YL obeyed her brother.. so in the end she helped friends of her brother .. 

 

"Everyone knows" - Case closed!

[pornprong]

9 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

maybe the Judge took the legal view

Making him the odd man out.

[sawadee1947]

the one with "balls". Good man, not afraid of loosing previliges and be banned by Prayuth

[DavisH]

The boss of signs off on everything in this country that involves money. Underlings are not left to write their own cheques. I'm sure Yingluck knew what going on but perhaps didn't understand the full ramifications of what she was doing. 

[newshound77]

His Honour Pison Pirun is quite correct in his interpretation of the law.  Furthermore, and putting to one side his obvious courage in defying his colleagues sympathetic to the junta, his application of established legal principle and convention is somewhat refreshing within the Thai legal system.  The singular disappointment is that he has not ruled himself ineligible to sit on the bench whilst under illegal military rule.     

[JAG]

2 hours ago, quandow said:

I don't know the rules here - does this mean she's free to come back?

No no no, she has to pay for winning the election which Mark was supposed to have won....

[JAG]

2 hours ago, steven100 said:

If Pison Pirun wanted to get attention and in the limelight he sure will now. What an idiot   !!  she's guilty as hell  ....  he wants to big note himself.

I hope he has some very good body guards to be with him for the rest of his life

Possibly the most revealing post you have made on here. It rather confirms your views on justice, how it should be applied and how it should be administered.

 

Still, not really a surprise though...

[steven100]

2 hours ago, colinneil said:

Steven old lad, you need to calm down.

In your posts this morning, you are calling  people idiots, why?

Maybe it is you that is the idiot, not others.

ok ... i'm calm ...  maybe he's not an idiot but he sure can kiss his career goodbye   !

[Becker]

36 minutes ago, steven100 said:

ok ... i'm calm ...  maybe he's not an idiot but he sure can kiss his career goodbye   !

And if that is the case it's yet another example of how rotten things are in Thailand  - despite the fact that your beloved junta is in charge.

If you can't see that then you definitively are what you claim the judge is.

[jesimps]

3 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

While the esteemed judge may be entitled to her opinion, she is dead wrong on the law.  Negligence means failing to conform one's conduct to the applicable standard of care ("reasonable man standard")  and no intent to cause loss or to seek advantage is required.

 

 

If Yingluck wanted to escape liability, she could have pushed through a constitutional amendment to immunize elected officials from negligence claims, as most democracies do.  In the alternative, she could have done her job, rather than occupy her time with shopping extravaganzas and encouraging PTP to illegally grant amnesty to her big brother.

All of the things you mention there have been done in spades by the present regime, including I assume, the occasional shopping trip. Or are people in power not allowed the occasional break to spend a few bob?

 

[4MyEgo]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

In his verdict dated September 27, the judge explained that the Attorney-General had prosecuted Yingluck for negligence or misconduct. However, according to the law, the offence must be accompanied also by ill intention, or ill intention to cause loss to others.

Well there you have it, a judge who sees it for what it is, i.e. she is was not negligent and there was no ill intention on her part, albeit if you more than one judge, there will always be a swing, either way, of course, but seldom in a country ruled by the military.

 

Would love to read how the other 8 judges found her negligent though.

[MorristheRunt]

The judge is looking after his own future, he is preparing for the 2nd comming

[hugh2121]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes real proof it was rigged and no other opinions allowed. Plus it shows how hard it is to really convict someone. Everyone knows here that the rice trader was close to Thaksin (as proven with pictures). Now its a small step to connect the dots. This judge however did not see it that way. Thankfully the other judges did. 

 

But at least this shows it was not a show process and that they really did follow the law and discussed it extensively. Just one of the 9 thought the proof was not sufficient, the others were more clear minded and accepted Thaksin his friendship with the rice trader as proof. Its good otherwise an other criminal shin action would have gone unpunished. 

"accepted Thaksin his friendship with the rice trader as proof"

Circumstantial at best.

[hugh2121]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

That depends if your guilty or not does it not. 8 other judges saw the connection.. just 1 did not. There is a huge link between this rice trader and Thaksin not just pictures but also business dealings.. we all know that YL obeyed her brother.. so in the end she helped friends of her brother. You are saying that was just a coincident.. good thing your not a judge there would be no criminals in jail. 

"we all know that YL obeyed her brother.."

 

Do we indeed? Please direct me to the proof of your accusation.

[LannaGuy]

6 hours ago, YetAnother said:

then it is substantially flawed law;

by this logic, a person can be appointed or gifted into a job, do absolutely nothing and , by doing nothing, fail to prevent harm to people and possessions and seemingly it is ok by the law

 

 

As do all politicians in every country :

 

• sometimes their policies are unintentionally harmful
• sometimes they fail to prevent stupidity
• sometimes they make mistakes
• sometimes they do not realize, until hindsight, that they made bad policy

No where do they get prosecuted, if elected legally, after they leave office or lose an election. Only in Thailand.

[barefootbangkok]

7 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

While the esteemed judge may be entitled to her opinion, she is dead wrong on the law.  Negligence means failing to conform one's conduct to the applicable standard of care ("reasonable man standard")  and no intent to cause loss or to seek advantage is required.

 

 

If Yingluck wanted to escape liability, she could have pushed through a constitutional amendment to immunize elected officials from negligence claims, as most democracies do.  In the alternative, she could have done her job, rather than occupy her time with shopping extravaganzas and encouraging PTP to illegally grant amnesty to her big brother.

By that standard, wouldn't all the Prime Ministers who allowed corruption to go on be guilty of such negligence?  Let's see, how many knew or know of corruption in the government and allow it to continue?  Could it be all of them?

[barefootbangkok]

7 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

While the esteemed judge may be entitled to her opinion, she is dead wrong on the law.  Negligence means failing to conform one's conduct to the applicable standard of care ("reasonable man standard")  and no intent to cause loss or to seek advantage is required.

 

 

If Yingluck wanted to escape liability, she could have pushed through a constitutional amendment to immunize elected officials from negligence claims, as most democracies do.  In the alternative, she could have done her job, rather than occupy her time with shopping extravaganzas and encouraging PTP to illegally grant amnesty to her big brother.

By that standard, wouldn't all the Prime Ministers who allowed corruption to go on be guilty of such negligence?  Let's see, how many knew or know of corruption in the government and allow it to continue?  Could it be all of them?

[Dogmatix]

The act of negligence alone did not count as an offence in the laws cited by the Attorney-General, Pison pointed out.

 

Unless he was not looking at Section 157 of the Penal Code, it seems that the act of negligence alone does indeed count as an offence. This happened over a period of time and she was given several very explicit warnings at various times by credible government officials from different agencies that there was rampant corruption in the rice pledging scheme.  Her only response was to let the Commerce Minister, whom she knew or should have known to be under suspicion, appoint a committee comprising his own staff to investigate their own criminal activities.  Unsurprisingly they were unable to find any evidence of wrongdoing.  I would say that it is pretty clear that she:

 

1) did not exercise some of her functions to the injury of the Kingdom of Thailand which suffered huge losses as a result of the fraud;

 

2) she dishonestly exercised and failed to exercise her functions. 

 

Since she was chairman of the Rice Policy Committee and prime minister it is very hard to duck her responsibility for failing to investigate the credible allegations of corruption thoroughly.  The fact that she chose not to show up to the meetings of the  Rice Policy Committee doesn't exempt her from responsibility as chairman.  Effectively she was aware of strong suspicions that a minister and his deputy were engaging in fraud on a massive scale and she chose not to take any meaningful action to investigate it.  There was no need for the prosecution to prove that she was in on the scam with Sia Piang and her brother or that she profited from it.  It was enough to prove that she could have pressed the right buttons that would have led to the unravelling of the fraud, reduction of losses to the taxpayer and bringing the fraudsters to justice but she chose not to.   The other 8 judges were right.   She is lucky she didn't get the full 10 year sentence and B20,000 fine. In fact she got off without a fine at all.   

 

Section 157. Wrongful Exercise of Duties

Whoever, being an official, wrongfully exercises or does not exercise any of his functions to the injury of any person, or dishonestly exercises or omits to exercise any of his functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years or fined of two thousand to twenty thousand Baht, or both.

[Dogmatix]

1 hour ago, barefootbangkok said:

By that standard, wouldn't all the Prime Ministers who allowed corruption to go on be guilty of such negligence?  Let's see, how many knew or know of corruption in the government and allow it to continue?  Could it be all of them?

 

Yes, probably all of them but that doesn't make her less guilty, herself.   

 

Her nephew Panthongthae is trying to make a similar argument that he has been singled out unfairly because there were another 150 individuals and entities that helped syphon off the funds defrauded from KTB via the blatantly uncreditworthy Krisada Mahanakorn subsidiary.   He has my sympathy because I agree with him that all the money launderers should be investigated and charged before the statute of limitations expires in six months' time.  However, the fact that many others are guilty of the same offence and aren't being investigated doesn't mean that Panthongthae is not guilty as charged.

 

The same is true in Yingluck's case.  Maybe others will be charged with similar offences in future or, at least, the precedent will make people in power think twice. 

 

We cannot criticise the court for delivering justice in the case that was brought before them on the grounds that other similar cases that should have been brought before them were not.  The judges have no control over which cases are brought before them.   

       

Edited October 19, 2017 by Dogmatix

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. 

[wakeupplease]

Does it really matter now? just have to wait to see who gives her asylum, then we can comment.

[kingkenny]

In the big steaming pile of 5h1t  a piece of gold glistened.

Edited October 19, 2017 by kingkenny