Panthongtae wants to question more witnesses

By The Nation

 

Panthongtae Shinawatra

 

A defence lawyer representing Panthongtae Shinawatra has requested the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to summon more witnesses for questioning in connection with money-laundering charges faced by the ex-premier’s son.

 

Lawyer Chumsai Sriyapai said the DSI needs to thoroughly question all witnesses concerning the charges before moving the case against Panthongtae forward. Panthongtae, son of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra is accused of receiving ill-gotten funds from Vichai Krisadathanont, former real estate tycoon, who was convicted over his company getting multi-billion-baht fraudulent loans from state-owned Krung Thai Bank.

 

According to his lawyer, Panthongtae dismissed the DSI charges as groundless and suggested that the DSI process was not transparent and was unfair. The lawyer therefore requested the agency to summon more witnesses for questioning to prove that he was not guilty.

 

The DSI said it would hold a meeting of investigators and public prosecutors to discuss Panthongtae’s request to question additional witnesses in the case and will ensure fairness for the accused.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30333979

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-12-14

Get him in court and let him face the evidence collected already. 

Buy time for buy ticket to Dubai 

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Get him in court and let him face the evidence collected already. 

said a typical Thai j boy judge, Oh wait a minute he is a brummie so he can't be. typical brummie though.

1 minute ago, wakeupplease said:

said a typical Thai j boy judge, Oh wait a minute he is a brummie so he can't be. typical brummie though.

Have you been drinking?

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Get him in court and let him face the evidence collected already. 

 

Don' t you believe he is entitled to a defence?  

8 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

 

Don' t you believe he is entitled to a defence?  

Chumsai Sriyapai, a defence lawyer representing Panthongtae Shinawatra 

what a joke, he was caught out and now wants more witnesses, isnt it his lawyers job to get his witnesses, the evidence is already there and has been for some time. Typical stalling tactic used by his father and aunty, the family has it down pat, maybe he is just a bit upset the family money isnt getting him off like he wanted. 

20 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

 

Don' t you believe he is entitled to a defence?  

Yes. 

 

In court. 

 

The accused does not decide when the prosecution has questioned enough witnesses to go to court. 

 

He’s had enough time to prepare.

 

Enough delaying.

 

Edited December 14, 20178 yr by Bluespunk

3 minutes ago, ratcatcher said:

Chumsai Sriyapai, a defence lawyer representing Panthongtae Shinawatra 

yes, absolutely correct.  Shinawatra's lawyer wants to question more witnesses.  Bluespunk wants the trial to start now with the evidence that is known.  I ask if Bluespunk doesn t feel Shinawatra  is entitled to a defence.  

 

I understand it is difficult to keep up after 5 posts on a thread, but I am missing your point

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes. 

 

In court. 

Then why would you not want his lawyer t be able to question witnesses?

3 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

Then why would you not want his lawyer t be able to question witnesses?

They’ve had time enough. 

 

And lets not forget, they can question them during the trial. 

 

Edited December 14, 20178 yr by Bluespunk

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

They’ve had time enough. 

 

And lets not forget, they can question them during the trial. 

 

They’ve had time enough.  Don't you think Shinawatra's lawyer is in a better position than you to determine that?

Surely he is entitled to a fair trial.

12 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

They’ve had time enough.  Don't you think Shinawatra's lawyer is in a better position than you to determine that?

Surely he is entitled to a fair trial.

He’s delaying. 

 

He’s had enough time. 

 

The defence does not tell the prosecution when the prosecution is ready for trial. 

 

“Lawyer Chumsai Sriyapai said the DSI needs to thoroughly question all witnesses concerning the charges before moving the case against Panthongtae forward.”

 

You do realise that’s what the defence is doing, right? They are telling the prosecution what they should do.

 

He’s not asking for more time for the defence team to question witnesses. 

Edited December 14, 20178 yr by Bluespunk

4 hours ago, isaanbanhou said:

They’ve had time enough.  Don't you think Shinawatra's lawyer is in a better position than you to determine that?

Surely he is entitled to a fair trial.

 

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

He’s delaying. 

 

He’s had enough time. 

 

The defence does not tell the prosecution when the prosecution is ready for trial. 

 

“Lawyer Chumsai Sriyapai said the DSI needs to thoroughly question all witnesses concerning the charges before moving the case against Panthongtae forward.”

 

You do realise that’s what the defence is doing, right? They are telling the prosecution what they should do.

 

He’s not asking for more time for the defence team to question witnesses. 

As often in Thailand, I assume that neither the prosecutor nor the accused can be trusted.

So I guess both opinions are equally valid.

On the one hand the defence is telling the prosecution what they should do, which may just be the usual delaying tactics.

On the other hand it is also quite posible that the prosecution may not have done what they should do, for reasons we all know too well.

Wouldnt look good for the Junta to do is put this kid in prison now they are trying to be friends of the people

Edited December 14, 20178 yr by Dave67

2 hours ago, candide said:

 

As often in Thailand, I assume that neither the prosecutor nor the accused can be trusted.

So I guess both opinions are equally valid.

On the one hand the defence is telling the prosecution what they should do, which may just be the usual delaying tactics.

On the other hand it is also quite posible that the prosecution may not have done what they should do, for reasons we all know too well.

I agree the prosecution may not be fully trustworthy, but the defence can’t just attempt to avoid trial by constantly crying and whining that the prosecution needs  to do more preparation. 

 

That’s just delaying tactics. He should just work on his preparation. 

At one point he all but admitted guilt, when he said that "it was a small amount of money". To me, this I want to question the witnesses before the trial is the Yingluck defense. You know the one, I want to call half the people in Thailand to the stand your honor. Get on with the trial.

19 hours ago, isaanbanhou said:

yes, absolutely correct.  Shinawatra's lawyer wants to question more witnesses.  Bluespunk wants the trial to start now with the evidence that is known.  I ask if Bluespunk doesn t feel Shinawatra  is entitled to a defence.  

 

I understand it is difficult to keep up after 5 posts on a thread, but I am missing your point

 

Do you think it usual practice for a defense lawyer to instruct the investigating agency on how many witnesses they must question before deciding to pass the case file to the prosecution for consideration as to proceed?

 

Oak is entitled to a defense, and is sufficiently wealthy enough to employ a competent defense team. Should the decision be to prosecute the defense team can call appropriate witnesses to question under oath in court. The court judges will decide if the number called or evidence they are presenting is appropriate.

 

No one suggests he isn't entitled to a defense. But he and his lawyers aren't entitled to badger the investigators and prosecutors before outside of court.

 

Btw - you are aware he previously accepted he received 10m ThB and announced he'd given it back. Another family trait when caught.

14 hours ago, Dave67 said:

Wouldnt look good for the Junta to do is put this kid in prison now they are trying to be friends of the people

 

He's not a "kid". Look up his past, from his alleged cheating at university, the one that fails no one!

20 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Have you been drinking?

 

Sadly, I think that's his normal state!

On 14/12/2017 at 10:38 PM, isaanbanhou said:

yes, absolutely correct.  Shinawatra's lawyer wants to question more witnesses.  Bluespunk wants the trial to start now with the evidence that is known.  I ask if Bluespunk doesn t feel Shinawatra  is entitled to a defence.  

 

I understand it is difficult to keep up after 5 posts on a thread, but I am missing your point

"Shinawatra's lawyer wants to question more witnesses"

 

No, I think you're mistaken, the lawyer wants the DSI to question more people, he doesn't want to question them himself, as you believe.  Which of course would take more time, it's thus a classic delaying-tactic, on the lawyer's part.

 

Perhaps hoping that a change-in-government may affect the outcome, if he can spin-it-out for long enough, who knows ?

 

If the lawyer thinks that other witnesses can add to the defence, then he can call them as defence-witnesses, once the case is being heard. And would do so, if they improve his client's chance of being found not-guilty.

 

The DSI feel that they have sufficient evidence for a conviction, the lawyer feels he has extra witnesses who support his client's innocence, it's time to let the court decide which is right.