Court rejects Yingluck’s request to block Bt35-bn rice-pledging compensation

[webfact]

Court rejects Yingluck’s request to block Bt35-bn rice-pledging compensation

By The Nation

 

 

The Administrative Court on Monday rejected a request by former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for an injunction against a government order for her to pay Bt35 billion in compensation for damages allegedly stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

 

The court argued that there were insufficient facts to conclude that the administrative order had been unlawful. The court needed to see more evidence from the trial of the case brought by Yingluck, it said in a statement released Monday.

 

“With some factors to support the injunction missing, the court has no power to order an injunction during the trial,” the court said.

 

In October 2016, the Finance Ministry issued an administrative order for Yingluck to pay compensation of Bt35 billion to the ministry for damages allegedly stemming from the expensive, corruption-plagued, rice-pledging project. Yingluck was held responsible for damages in her capacity as head of the government and chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee.

 

Yingluck later sued Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, the finance minister, his deputy and the Finance Ministry permanent secretary, alleging that the administrative order was unlawful. She also asked the Administrative Court to grant an injunction until a verdict is issued in her case.

 

In April 2017, the Administrative Court rejected Yingluck’s first request for an injunction, on the grounds that the Finance Ministry’s administrative order had not actually been implemented. Yingluck later made a second request for a court injunction after her bank accounts were frozen by authorities.

 

Yingluck’s lawyer, Noppadon Laothong, on Monday said the legal team would not focus on the case filed by the former prime minister against Prayut and others, but would point out that the administrative order was unlawful.

 

He said authorities had frozen 12 to 13 bank accounts and filed a lien against a house belonging to Yingluck.

 

Other members of Yingluck’s Cabinet have also faced similar administrative orders for them to pay compensation allegedly arising from the rice-pledging scheme, including former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, who was ordered to pay Bt1.76 billion in compensation, and his former deputy Poom Sarapol, who was ordered to pay Bt2.24 billion.

 

Both Boonsong and Poom are serving lengthy jail terms after the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders found them guilty of committing irregularities stemming from the rice-pledging scheme.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30337416

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-29

[daboyz1]

How can a fugitive ask the courts for anything? Come face the music. No different from the brother I suppose.

[Air Smiles]

 

Yingluck still trying to milk the Thai public purse even while a criminal on the run.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Air Smiles

[coulson]

1 hour ago, daboyz1 said:

How can a fugitive ask the courts for anything? Come face the music. No different from the brother I suppose.

She has to ask, you might do the same. 

 

Fugitive or not, there's a lot of face to lose, not just money.

 

As far as facing the music goes, ain't gonna happen and that's exactly how both parties like it.

 

Illigitemate money, seized by an illigitemate government, doesn't get much better.

[AGareth2]

where  would we be without another story of the lady in the news

[yellowboat]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

but would point out that the administrative order was unlawful.

What law?  If memory serves, they were seizing things before the verdict. 

[ramrod711]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Yingluck’s lawyer, Noppadon Laothong, on Monday said the legal team would not focus on the case filed by the former prime minister against Prayut and others, but would point out that the administrative order was unlawful.

Noppadon, is he out of jail again? How many convictions would disqualify a person from practicing law? She would be better off with whoever made up Prawits watch excuse.

[Just Weird]

2 hours ago, daboyz1 said:

How can a fugitive ask the courts for anything? Come face the music. No different from the brother I suppose.

The request was filed last year before she ran.

[Just Weird]

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Yingluck still trying to milk the Thai public purse even while a criminal on the run.

Did she make the request while on the run?

[Air Smiles]

13 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

What law?  If memory serves, they were seizing things before the verdict. 

 

It's perfectly normal in most if not all western countries for assets to be seized/frozen until the conclusion of a criminal trial.

 

In this case the authorities were correct in their assumption that Yingluck was a flight risk so were correct to freeze her assets.

 

Now she's freezing her own assets off in the UK winter.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Air Smiles

[Air Smiles]

Just now, Just Weird said:

Did she make the request while on the run?

 

Yes, ....lawyers are not allowed to represent a client in legal proceedings without the client's explicit consent.

[Air Smiles]

49 minutes ago, coulson said:

She has to ask, you might do the same. 

 

Fugitive or not, there's a lot of face to lose, not just money.

 

 

The face was already been lost when she skipped bail after claiming she would die for Thai democracy.

 

Not a peep out of her since on social media, how do you explain that? ...other than not wanting to rock the boat on the deal she cut with "the junta" ;).....

Edited January 29, 2018 by Air Smiles

[Just Weird]

6 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

Noppadon, is he out of jail again? How many convictions would disqualify a person from practicing law? She would be better off with whoever made up Prawits watch excuse.

What has Noppadon Laothong been imprisoned for?

[Just Weird]

4 minutes ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Yes, ....lawyers are not allowed to represent a client in legal proceedings without the client's explicit consent.

Geez...no she didn't.  The request for the injunction was made before she left.  What makes you say that her lawyer didn't have consent to represent her?

[coulson]

8 minutes ago, Air Smiles said:

 

The face was already been lost when she skipped bail after claiming she would die for Thai democracy.

Not at all, she stayed until the last moment, her sympathizers believe she had no choice.

 

11 minutes ago, Air Smiles said:

Not a peep out of her since on social media, how do you explain that? ...other than not wanting to rock the boat on the deal she cut with "the junta" ;)...

Totally agree with you.

 

But it doesn't exclude her from trying to get back what's hers to maintain her plight. In the same way the Junta pretends to be chasing her down.

[Shoeless Joe]

I wonder why Ms Yingluck Shinawatra hasn't looked for representation fom the myriad envious barrack-room lawyers on Thai Visa forum? Surprisingly (or not!) they all seem quick to voice their (expert?) opinions which are of course, in the main neither justified nor relevant.

 

Regards,

 

Joe

Edited January 29, 2018 by Shoeless Joe
typo

[Get Real]

1 hour ago, coulson said:

Fugitive or not, there's a lot of face to lose, not just money.

No but it´s the money she want´s. The face is gone already. Even if she still had it will fade with age.

[wakeupplease]

39 minutes ago, Air Smiles said:

 

It's perfectly normal in most if not all western countries for assets to be seized/frozen until the conclusion of a criminal trial.

 

In this case the authorities were correct in their assumption that Yingluck was a flight risk so were correct to freeze her assets.

 

Now she's freezing her own assets off in the UK winter.

No she is not, yes cold but not freezing but we have something called central heating here so just turn it on, its a bit like the aircon there usually a switch you press and bingo heat arrives, but after April you do not use it, or have to have aircon as it nice all the way to November. But whats even better is no mosquito's and no Dengue so the UK does have its advantages.

 

As for freezing her assets, can I write the word better not, but this is all about one thing and sadly stupid people believe what they are told in that neck of the woods because they say it so often idiots believe the real crooks who are taking your money and stuffing it in their back pockets everyday. Look back in history and most of the time the place has been ruled by crooks and they have had a field day spending your money on watches, tanks and subs and hiding it in bank accounts you will never see.

 

She is better off out of it and so are you but you cannot see it, she did and left, so what does that make you?

[wakeupplease]

6 minutes ago, Get Real said:

No but it´s the money she want´s. The face is gone already. Even if she still had it will fade with age.

She has not lost any face at all, but those who pointed the finger have, not only here but across the world. Don't believe everything you are told.

[midas]

2 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Yingluck still trying to milk the Thai public purse even while a criminal on the run.

.............. as opposed to carrying out a military coup

[Get Real]

5 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

Don't believe everything you are told.

Actually I am old enough to build my own opinion. How about you?

[wakeupplease]

2 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Actually I am old enough to build my own opinion. How about you?

Where did the old or age come from? All what was said was do not believe everything you are told. then you flip and add some age into it which implied I said you where not old enough to form an opinion. So you assumed i said something about age which I did not.

 

So that proves a big point here, Think b4 you gob off as it makes you look stupid if you do not. You should now see why Yingluck is better off in the UK, there are not so many children there.

[Sir Dude]

It is highly unlikely that any department of government or justice (along with a few others) are now free to decide anything really without interference or "guidance." Sure, believe that it's all fair due process etc. if you want to, but I don't think so.   

Edited January 29, 2018 by Sir Dude

[Cadbury]

3 hours ago, daboyz1 said:

How can a fugitive ask the courts for anything? Come face the music. No different from the brother I suppose.

Yingluck didn't have the artful cunning of the present self appointed Prime Minister when he granted himself immunity (courtesy Article 44) for everything he does. If she had been as devious and sly as the current PM it might be a different story.

[Basil B]

Her argument was she did nothing...

 

What her grey matter has difficulty in grasping is that she should have known what was going on and stopped it.

[isaanbanhou]

48 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Her argument was she did nothing...

 

What her grey matter has difficulty in grasping is that she should have known what was going on and stopped it.

 

Just as the PM should have known conscripts get murdered on military bases.  He should be convicted of murder and strpped of his assets and military pension.

[Ruffian Dick]

Does she have any dream of returning to power? I would guess so.

[Air Smiles]

2 hours ago, isaanbanhou said:

 

Just as the PM should have known conscripts get murdered on military bases.  He should be convicted of murder and strpped of his assets and military pension.

 

Absolutely, if indeed the murders were blatant and on the same scale as the rice scam, which they were not, so your comparison in this instance is invalid.

[webfact]

Court rejects Yingluck’s request to block Bt35-bn rice-pledging compensation

By The Nation

 

 

Authorities can now seize assets of|fugitive EX-PM over rice-pledging scheme

 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE Court yesterday rejected former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s request for an injunction against a government order for her to pay Bt35 billion in compensation for damages allegedly stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme – a decision that in effect allows authorities to resume the seizure of her assets.

 

The court argued that there were insufficient facts to conclude that the administrative order had been unlawful. The court needed to see more evidence from the trial of the case brought by Yingluck, it said in a statement released yesterday. 

 

“With some factors to support the injunction missing, the court has no power to order an injunction during the trial,” the court said.

 

In October 2016, the Finance Ministry issued an administrative order for Yingluck to pay compensation of Bt35 billion to the ministry for damages allegedly stemming from the expensive, corruption-plagued, rice-pledging project. Yingluck was held responsible for damages in her capacity as head of the government and chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee.

 

Yingluck later sued Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, the finance minister, his deputy and the Finance Ministry permanent secretary, alleging that the administrative order was unlawful. She also asked the Administrative Court to grant an injunction until a verdict is issued in her case.

 

In April 2017, the Administrative Court rejected Yingluck’s first request for an injunction, on the grounds that the Finance Ministry’s administrative order had not actually been implemented. Yingluck later made a second request for a court injunction after her bank accounts were frozen by authorities.

 

Yingluck’s lawyer, Noppadon Laothong, yesterday said the legal team would now focus on the case filed by the former prime minister against Prayut and others, while pointing out that the administrative order was unlawful.

 

He said authorities had frozen 12 to 13 bank accounts and filed a lien against a house belonging to Yingluck. 

 

Other members of Yingluck’s Cabinet have also faced similar administrative orders for them to pay compensation allegedly arising from the rice-pledging scheme, including former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, who was ordered to pay Bt1.76 billion in compensation, and his former deputy Poom Sarapol, who was ordered to pay Bt2.24 billion. 

 

Both Boonsong and Poom are serving lengthy jail terms after the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders found them guilty of committing irregularities stemming from the rice-pledging scheme.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30337430

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-30

[isaanbanhou]

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Absolutely, if indeed the murders were blatant and on the same scale as the rice scam, which they were not, so your comparison in this instance is invalid.

your logic is flawed