Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’

[300sd]

At least there is one with integrity!

[Chris Lawrence]

At the end of the day YL has still been disgraced by the military types. 

[AGareth2]

the way I see it from reading some of the dissenting judgement is that she was convicted on a supposition.

Maybe a strong one

but still

a criminal judgement of this importance

convicting a Prime Minister

should be based on verifiable facts

not what people think she did or did not do

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

the way I see it from reading some of the dissenting judgement is that she was convicted on a supposition.

Maybe a strong one

but still

a criminal judgement of this importance

convicting a Prime Minister

should be based on verifiable facts

not what people think she did or did not do

In law, a verdict is based on formal finding of fact presented by the prosecutors. Supposition is a weak case to present. Similar to her case in the transfer of official which got her dismissed as PM although she had full authority for transfer of senior civil servants. Such high profile cases and both are really weak cases. 

[Dogmatix]

23 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

the way I see it from reading some of the dissenting judgement is that she was convicted on a supposition.

Maybe a strong one

but still

a criminal judgement of this importance

convicting a Prime Minister

should be based on verifiable facts

not what people think she did or did not do

 

It was not a supposition or conjecture. The ruling was mainly based on the incontrovertible fact that, having received credible information from relevant government agencies on a number of occasions regarding allegations that there was corruption involved in the supposed G2G rice sales, Yingluck set up a committee to investigate which deliberately comprised the subordinates of the Commerce Minister and his deputy who were alleged (and subsequently convicted) to be engaged in fraud.  Thus she actively committed negligence by facilitating the cover up of the crimes, rather than appointing an independent commission with powers to investigate and get to the bottom of what had actually happened.          

Edited October 20, 2017 by Dogmatix

[Becker]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

The judge should be free to vote as he wants and as he sees it. Unless he is incompetent that is a different story but i don't think he is. This judge just did his job how he saw fit. 8 others saw it differently they all did their job, this is a good example of how it was a free and fair vote. 

Free and fair vote? Well, let's just agree to disagree on that one.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

It was not a supposition or conjecture. The ruling was mainly based on the incontrovertible fact that, having received credible information from relevant government agencies on a number of occasions regarding allegations that there was corruption involved in the supposed G2G rice sales, Yingluck set up a committee to investigate which deliberately comprised the subordinates of the Commerce Minister and his deputy who were alleged (and subsequently convicted) to be engaged in fraud.  Thus she actively committed negligence by facilitating the cover up of the crimes, rather than appointing an independent commission with powers to investigate and get to the bottom of what had actually happened.          

I understand your point but from a legal perspective, at the time she set the committee, was the commerce minister explicitly pointed out as accomplice by the various sources you mention? Reatedly, is there a law saying it is compulsory to have an independent commission each time there is suspicion of corruption?

Edited October 20, 2017 by candide

[Dogmatix]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

and so... to follow your logic all the Thai Junta should resign if any corruption is found?  did Yingluck benefit?  take part in any corruption?  or she was just the PM of a country where corruption is endemic at EVERY level?  what about the 'amulet seller' who got 20m for 'advising' on statues?  to me that's much plainer than the Yingluck case but, no  doubt, his shirt colour is different.

 

Of course, I would welcome it if the junta, the current government or any subsequent were to resign as a result of a corruption scandal. But the discussion is about whether Yingluck was soundly convicted according to Thai law based on the evidence presented at the trial, not about whether governments or military juntas should resign, if corruption is discovered or suspected in their administrations.

 

Yingluck's actions to look the other way and facilitate a cover up when credible allegations of corruption, that were eventually found to have defrauded the taxpayer of billions of baht, emerged involving members of her cabinet would have been unlikely to lead to her conviction and jail sentence, if it were not for the fact that her administration was toppled by a military junta that decided to hold on to power for several years.  This is her bad luck and historically it is known as winners' justice.  Many historians, especially German and Japanese ones, have used this phrase to describe the justice meted up to German and Japanese war criminals after World War 2.   Most, but not all (the case of Josef Goebells stands out here, as he was hanged but held no power to order any executions or atrocities since he was merely a propagandist, repulsive though he may have been) were guilty of war crimes only because the defence of following orders was disallowed. Allied commanders and politicians who ordered atrocities such as the Dresden fire bombing and the atomic bombs in Japan, clearly targeted at civilians in violiation of the Geneva Convention, never stood trial and were revered as war heroes.  If the war had been won by the Axis, they would definitely have ended up at the end of ropes like their German and Japanese counterparts who would never have been considered to have committed any crimes at all.

 

Yes, justice is selective.  But I feel no regrets about the convictions and sentencing of virtually all of the German and Japanese war criminals, even though in different circumstances they would have lived out their lives as heroes.  Equally I am happy to accept the sound conviction and sentencing of Yingluck under Thai law, as it stands, even though she would never have had to face justice if it weren't for the military coup and there are many other Thai officials and politicians who deserve prison for corruption, who will never have their day in court.  It is Yingluck's bad luck to the one that got convicted but that doesn't make the ruling unsound.  She is lucky that she can start a new life of luxury abroad instead of having to go to prison.            

[LannaGuy]

8 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

Of course, I would welcome it if the junta, the current government or any subsequent were to resign as a result of a corruption scandal. But the discussion is about whether Yingluck was soundly convicted according to Thai law based on the evidence presented at the trial, not about whether governments or military juntas should resign, if corruption is discovered or suspected in their administrations.

 

Yingluck's actions to look the other way and facilitate a cover up when credible allegations of corruption, that were eventually found to have defrauded the taxpayer of billions of baht, emerged involving members of her cabinet would have been unlikely to lead to her conviction and jail sentence, if it were not for the fact that her administration was toppled by a military junta that decided to hold on to power for several years.  This is her bad luck and historically it is known as winners' justice.  Many historians, especially German and Japanese ones, have used this phrase to describe the justice meted up to German and Japanese war criminals after World War 2.   Most, but not all (the case of Josef Goebells stands out here, as he was hanged but held no power to order any executions or atrocities since he was merely a propagandist, repulsive though he may have been) were guilty of war crimes only because the defence of following orders was disallowed. Allied commanders and politicians who ordered atrocities such as the Dresden fire bombing and the atomic bombs in Japan, clearly targeted at civilians in violiation of the Geneva Convention, never stood trial and were revered as war heroes.  If the war had been won by the Axis, they would definitely have ended up at the end of ropes like their German and Japanese counterparts who would never have been considered to have committed any crimes at all.

 

Yes, justice is selective.  But I feel no regrets about the convictions and sentencing of virtually all of the German and Japanese war criminals, even though in different circumstances they would have lived out their lives as heroes.  Equally I am happy to accept the sound conviction and sentencing of Yingluck under Thai law, as it stands, even though she would never have had to face justice if it weren't for the military coup and there are many other Thai officials and politicians who deserve prison for corruption, who will never have their day in court.  It is Yingluck's bad luck to the one that got convicted but that doesn't make the ruling unsound.  She is lucky that she can start a new life of luxury abroad instead of having to go to prison.            

 

I think we will agree 'luck" should play no part in justice! prosecuting ex Ministers for 'negligence' is not found in any other country, as far as I know, and is repugnant.  Voters should decide not some General who is on a self-righteous 'Save Thailand' crusade.

 

I, instinctively, distrust ANY court in ANY country under ANY military repressive regime. It is this point that I proffer not that she was a great PM or even a competent one. It is the larger principle  that I argue for.

was a great PM

Edited October 20, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Dogmatix]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

I understand your point but from a legal perspective, at the time she set the committee, was the commerce minister explicitly pointed out as accomplice by the various sources you mention? Repeatedly, is there a law saying it is compulsory to have an independent commission each time there is suspicion of corruption?

 

It was clear that the allegations involved the fake rice exports to China.  As PM and chairman of the Rice Policy Commission knew or should have known that these sales of government rice stocks at the international price which was below the government's cost in the rice pledging scheme, thus causing a fiscal deficit, had to be approved by the head of the Commerce Ministry's Foreign Trade Department, the deputy commerce minister and the minister himself (all of whom now in prison serving hefty sentences).  Therefore it was not necessary for the individuals holding these positions to be named in the allegations, which, as you know, could have resulted in defamation charges.  It was just necessary for her to be aware of the chain of command involving exports of rice at a loss and to remember whom she had appointed to these positions.  Nevertheless, she chose to appoint their subordinates to investigate them.             

Edited October 20, 2017 by Dogmatix

[robblok]

35 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

You thinks the courts are not military?  really???  seriously???  you astound me and I did not have you down as 'naive' just right wing

Yes the courts are civil courts and there have not been any convictions by a military court for quite some time. If you don't know the difference it shows that you have no idea about the law and what constitutes a military court and what constitutes a civilian court. Its not about who is in charge of the country. 

[LannaGuy]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes the courts are civil courts and there have not been any convictions by a military court for quite some time. If you don't know the difference it shows that you have no idea about the law and what constitutes a military court and what constitutes a civilian court. Its not about who is in charge of the country. 

 

I credited you with more insight (I shall be kind). You MISS my point again and again and again.  It is a SUBTLE point that ALL courts under a MILITARY are not civil.  Get it?

 

You might not agree but don't even think of wondering if I know the difference  lol 

Edited October 20, 2017 by LannaGuy

[robblok]

18 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

It was clear that the allegations involved the fake rice exports to China.  As PM and chairman of the Rice Policy Commission knew or should have known that these sales of government rice stocks at the international price which was below the government's cost in the rice pledging scheme, thus causing a fiscal deficit, had to be approved by the head of the Commerce Ministry's Foreign Trade Department, the deputy commerce minister and the minister himself (all of whom now in prison serving hefty sentences).  Therefore it was not necessary for the individuals holding these positions to be named in the allegations, which, as you know, could have resulted in defamation charges.  It was just necessary for her to be aware of the chain of command involving exports of rice at a loss and to remember whom she had appointed to these positions.  Nevertheless, she chose to appoint their subordinates to investigate them.             

Correct the crime was done by YL and its a sound ruling, and yes had the military not been in power she would not have been convicted. But that does not make her crime any less real, had she stayed in power she would have escaped justice. Just like how the Germans and Japanese would have escaped justice. I like your comparison because we can act like its not true but whoever is no power always protects their own and attacks their enemies. YL did the same by turning Tarit on Sutheb and Abisith. So people should not complain when YL is treated the same way.

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

An error of judgement?  even incompetence?  where else do ex Pm's go to jail for such things?  ONLY under a dictatorship right?   we, you, all of us should shiver in DISGUST at such regimes and pray/hope that, one day, once the dinosaurs have gone a free society will emerge. 

No its negligence.. and not only under a dictatorship. She is a criminal found guilty its that easy. I know it does not compute in your world views. You rather have walk free and forget about all the damage she caused with her rice program and the corruption that was connected to it. 

 

I get it she is your darling, you will never see the truth that she is just an other HISO Shin in it only for her family. The irony is that because the amnesty she is in trouble. I love it.. Thaksin over reached.. the people revolted .. the corrupt government brought down and now they are paying for their crimes. All because her brother was more important then the future of Thailand. 

[robblok]

19 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I credited you with more insight (I shall be kind). You MISS my point again and again and again.  It is a SUBTLE point that ALL courts under a MILITARY are not civil.  Get it?

 

You might not agree but don't even think of wondering if I know the difference  lol 

No 

 

You don't get it they are still civil. Just in your mind they are all military. Because they rule not in your favor. It must hurt to be constantly reminded that your views are not the right views in the eyes of the law. That she is just a common criminal nothing more. 

[Dogmatix]

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I think we will agree 'luck" should play no part in justice! prosecuting ex Ministers for 'negligence' is not found in any other country, as far as I know, and is repugnant.  Voters should decide not some General who is on a self-righteous 'Save Thailand' crusade.

 

I, instinctively, distrust ANY court in ANY country under ANY military repressive regime. It is this point that I proffer not that she was a great PM or even a competent one. It is the larger principle  that I argue for.

was a great PM

 

It is certainly a point of view shared by many in regard to this case that no elected politician should ever face justice for negligence, particularly when that justice is brought about a result of a military intervention (as, indeed, to continue the analogy was the case with the justice brought about in Germany and Japan following military intervention under allied military rule after WW2).   However, Section 157 of the Thai Penal Code clearly provides for this. 

 

So really your argument is either that Section 157 should be repealed or that it should be amended so that elected officials should be exempted from charges of negligence and only appointed officials or those who appoint themselves should be be subject to the provision. 

 

The issue of legality under military regimes also appears to be an undertone of your argument.  Seizing state power is also a crime in the Penal Code and is punishable by death.  However, military juntas always amnesty themselves promptly as soon as they have taken power and revoke the current constitution and issue a temporary one in its place.  These orders have legal force as soon as they are published in the Royal Gazette, after countersignature by the monarch.  For better or for the worse, the legality of legislation of military juntas has been established by precedent.  Many revolutionary decrees were in use for years after the juntas that issued them had stepped down, including the original Alien Business Act and important sections of the Nationality Act.  On the other hand the judiciary is legally considered independent of the government and justices are technically appointed by the monarch.  A favorite illustration of this is that Thaksin and his wife were convicted of corruption when their own party was in power.   

 

The argument boils down to disagreeing with Section 157 as it stands and for the for the fact that military juntas are traditionally able to legalise themselves and their action, despite the fact that they commit a death penalty offence against the Penal Code in order to gain power.  But it is not about whether Yingluck was soundly or unsoundly convicted under Section 157.    

[Dogmatix]

27 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

An error of judgement?  even incompetence?  where else do ex Pm's go to jail for such things?  ONLY under a dictatorship right?   we, you, all of us should shiver in DISGUST at such regimes and pray/hope that, one day, once the dinosaurs have gone a free society will emerge. 

 

Thaksin, a former PM, was  sentenced to two years in prison for corruption when his own party was in power and his brother-in-law, Somchai, was PM.  He still argues that it was political, even though he, himself, was effectively in power through a nominee at the time.   Basically any argument can be marshalled, if you don't like the court's ruling.   

[The Deerhunter]

All he did was define negligence.  Guilty as charged.    Agree with Zaphod Reborn.

[SheungWan]

On 10/19/2017 at 3:06 AM, Eric Loh said:

So there's still benefit of doubt that she was guilty and no political expediency at work. What the junta wants, they get. 

No. No benefit of the doubt. A legal decision was made.

[tomta]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

the people revolted ..

Some of the people revolted

[AGareth2]

7 minutes ago, tomta said:

Some of the people revolted

some of the people are revolting?

[Eric Loh]

28 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

No. No benefit of the doubt. A legal decision was made.

A junta decision was made.

[Eric Loh]

39 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

All he did was define negligence.  Guilty as charged.    Agree with Zaphod Reborn.

Did you negligently omitted the rest of what he said? 

 

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

[SheungWan]

53 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

No. No benefit of the doubt. A legal decision was made.

 

24 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

A junta decision was made.

Still resentful that the judges did not accept Thaksin's offer of lunchboxes full of cash when it came to his trial. No concept of an independent judiciary with the Thaksin crowd.

[sjaak327]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

No its negligence.. and not only under a dictatorship. She is a criminal found guilty its that easy. I know it does not compute in your world views. You rather have walk free and forget about all the damage she caused with her rice program and the corruption that was connected to it. 

 

I get it she is your darling, you will never see the truth that she is just an other HISO Shin in it only for her family. The irony is that because the amnesty she is in trouble. I love it.. Thaksin over reached.. the people revolted .. the corrupt government brought down and now they are paying for their crimes. All because her brother was more important then the future of Thailand. 

Oh there we go again. The famed amnesty that never actually made it. The people revolted ? where are these people now Rob ? Why are they not revolting against an amnesty that did make It through ? It is because the people weren't really revolting against the amnesty bill, they were revolting to entice a coup and subsequent power hold on Thailand for the next few decades. It seems that for now they have succeeded, here is to hoping they will be removed out of the picture completely as soon as possible. 

 

Don't pretend that Yingluck received a fair trial, she did not. with Prayuth meddling using article 44 at two occasions.

 

As to the rice scheme, she was fully entitled to execute it, as she did receive a very solid mandate, and yes it was fraught with corruption, but there is no evidence that she benefitted from it, or was actually engaged in it. She was subsequently convicted for five years, on the premises that she did nothing (or too little) to stop the fake rice deals. Personally I don't think the evidence is enough to actually convict the ex PM.

 

Meanwhile this country is run by criminals who broke the law, and who are not accountable to anyone, why not revolt now, this is actually worth fighting for, not only do they waste tax payer money, they do it without a mandate, and in such a way that even a set of basic freedoms are being limited. And with an amnesty that makes the proposed amnesty look like child's play. 

[Dogmatix]

39 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Still resentful that the judges did not accept Thaksin's offer of lunchboxes full of cash when it came to his trial. No concept of an independent judiciary with the Thaksin crowd.

 

His two lawyers spent 6 months in prison for that fiasco.  That was the start of a pattern whereby he is quite happy to sacrifice people who do the dirty for him and let them go to prison, as long as he can cut deals whereby he and his close family are permitted to flee the consequences of his actions.  Yingluck's escape must have cost him a pretty penny but he left Bonsong, Phum et al who were not the ones that made the really big money from the fake rice exports to rot in jail, possibly for the rest of their lives.  The masterminds who were probably Sia Piang, who had already escaped from another case before being handed his 48 year sentence in absentia, and his nibs, himself are scot free and living in luxurious exile. 

 

It will be interesting to see what happens to his son who is coming up with some unconvincing excuses for his role in laundering some of the money that was syphoned out off Krung Thai Bank.  His main defence seems to be that he believed it was payment for some sort of investment and that the other 150 launderers should also be investigated.  I happen to agree with the latter argument, although I don't consider it a defence, but it will make as much difference to his case as the 2,500 people who also shared the content deemed offensive against Section 112 that got Pai Jatuporn jailed.     

[AGareth2]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Personally I don't think the evidence is enough to actually convict the ex PM

it would seem that the dissenting Judge agrees with you

[metisdead]

Troll posts containing disallowed references to the current government have been removed.  

[Dogmatix]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Oh there we go again. The famed amnesty that never actually made it. The people revolted ? where are these people now Rob ? Why are they not revolting against an amnesty that did make It through ? It is because the people weren't really revolting against the amnesty bill, they were revolting to entice a coup and subsequent power hold on Thailand for the next few decades. It seems that for now they have succeeded, here is to hoping they will be removed out of the picture completely as soon as possible. 

 

Don't pretend that Yingluck received a fair trial, she did not. with Prayuth meddling using article 44 at two occasions.

 

As to the rice scheme, she was fully entitled to execute it, as she did receive a very solid mandate, and yes it was fraught with corruption, but there is no evidence that she benefitted from it, or was actually engaged in it. She was subsequently convicted for five years, on the premises that she did nothing (or too little) to stop the fake rice deals. Personally I don't think the evidence is enough to actually convict the ex PM.

 

Meanwhile this country is run by criminals who broke the law, and who are not accountable to anyone, why not revolt now, this is actually worth fighting for, not only do they waste tax payer money, they do it without a mandate, and in such a way that even a set of basic freedoms are being limited. And with an amnesty that makes the proposed amnesty look like child's play. 

 

My recollection is that the movement against the Amnesty Bill gathered huge momentum only after the middle of the night session when they rammed through readings 2 and 3 simultaneously after changing the final version to include an amnesty for Thaksin and all other pending corruption cases of any description in the wee hours.  Before that the protests were very small and would not have toppled the government.    

 

I believe there was genuine disgust and anger at what happened, including from people who were not against the original version of the Amnesty Bill.  If you recall properly the red shirt leaders were also incensed by the surprise final version of the Bill because it would have let Abhisit, Suthep, Anuphong, Pravut et al off the hook for the killings of the red shirts at Ratchprasong.  So logically your argument means that the red shirt leaders were not really against the Amnesty Bill but wanted to induce a military coup. 

 

The later problems and the coup could easily have been avoided, if  the Yingluck government had not chosen to cling to the Amnesty Bill after the problems emerged.  She could have killed the Bill by withdrawing it from submission for Royal approval but chose not to, so the Bill could have a chance of resurrection later.  After the Senate was manipulated to reject the Bill it was a still a live Bill under the 2007 Constitution and could have been passed without change or further referral to the Senate by a new government.   The strategy was clearly to call a snap election and pass the Amnesty Bill within 90 days of the opening of Parliament, as provided for in the 2007 Constitution.  If Thaksin had not decided to bet everything on winning a snap election and getting his amnesty, I seriously doubt that the coup would have taken place.  It was the knowledge that the Amnesty Bill was still a live Bill festering in the background that did it in my opinion.            

[sjaak327]

39 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

My recollection is that the movement against the Amnesty Bill gathered huge momentum only after the middle of the night session when they rammed through readings 2 and 3 simultaneously after changing the final version to include an amnesty for Thaksin and all other pending corruption cases of any description in the wee hours.  Before that the protests were very small and would not have toppled the government.    

 

I believe there was genuine disgust and anger at what happened, including from people who were not against the original version of the Amnesty Bill.  If you recall properly the red shirt leaders were also incensed by the surprise final version of the Bill because it would have let Abhisit, Suthep, Anuphong, Pravut et al off the hook for the killings of the red shirts at Ratchprasong.  So logically your argument means that the red shirt leaders were not really against the Amnesty Bill but wanted to induce a military coup. 

 

The later problems and the coup could easily have been avoided, if  the Yingluck government had not chosen to cling to the Amnesty Bill after the problems emerged.  She could have killed the Bill by withdrawing it from submission for Royal approval but chose not to, so the Bill could have a chance of resurrection later.  After the Senate was manipulated to reject the Bill it was a still a live Bill under the 2007 Constitution and could have been passed without change or further referral to the Senate by a new government.   The strategy was clearly to call a snap election and pass the Amnesty Bill within 90 days of the opening of Parliament, as provided for in the 2007 Constitution.  If Thaksin had not decided to bet everything on winning a snap election and getting his amnesty, I seriously doubt that the coup would have taken place.  It was the knowledge that the Amnesty Bill was still a live Bill festering in the background that did it in my opinion.            

But IF the snap election would have netted enough seats in Parliament, this would have meant implicit voter approval. Democracy and all. 

 

It is clear the goal of Suthep was NOT to prevent the amnesty bill, not only because he himself had absolutely nothing to fear (the nacc to date has still declined to even look into the 2010 events, too busy to drag Yingluck to court of course), but because he does not seem to be opposed to amnesty, especially if it seems to benefit his good buddy Prayuth...

 

He started off his protest against the amnesty bill and to defend the constitution (his own words) but quickly changed his tune when he insisted, merely stepping down was not acceptable, he demanded power be handed to him and the PRDC in order to make 'reforms'. What reforms he was after is not all that difficult to understand, judging from the fact, that he was the only politician which endorsed the 'approved' constitution. 

 

In any case, preventing an amnesty bill, introduced by a government with a clear mandate, and then replacing it with a sweeping amnesty bill introduced at gun point, does not seem to be an improvement, apart from the hypocrisy, the human rights abuses and the fact that this lot can't be voted out, not even after the november 2018 election (providing this time they keep their word)....

Edited October 20, 2017 by sjaak327