Thaksin refuses to participate in telecoms case under new law

By THE NATION 

 

 

FORMER PREMIER WILL NOT HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT IN ONE-SIDED ‘INQUISITORIAL’ TRIAL

 

FUGITIVE FORMER prime  minister Thaksin Shinawatra has decided not to fight a legal battle regarding a telecoms concession case against him because he disagreed with a new law that allowed trials in absentia, one of his lawyers said yesterday.

 

Lawyer Veeparat Srichaiya said he had learned from a person close to Thaksin that the former prime minister disagreed with the legal amendment allowing cases against politicians to be tried in the absence of the defendants.

 

“That law has a retroactive effect, which is against international legal principles. We oppose all forms of injustice,” he said.

 

Thaksin’s lawyer added that his government’s policy, which converted fees for state telecommunications concessions into excise taxes for concessionaire telecom operators, did not cause damage to the state and the companies involved did not gain from the policy.

 

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders on Tuesday started a trial in the case under a new law on criminal procedures relating to cases against politicians. 

 

The new law allows trials in absentia against politicians that were suspended because the defendants fled the country. 

 

Under the old law, legal cases against Thaksin were suspended pending his arrest, but under the new law passed last year, the court can try cases in the absence of fugitive politicians three months after an arrest warrant is issued following their escape.

 

Thaksin, 69, was sued by public prosecutors in 2008 on charges of malfeasance, dereliction of duty and violating the anti-corruption law. He fled the country in the same year and has since lived in self-imposed exile overseas. 

 

His government’s decision to allow companies with telecoms concessions to pay excise taxes instead of concession fees had allegedly lost revenue of Bt66 billion for relevant state agencies.

 

The policy executed by Thaksin’s government also allegedly benefited his family business at that time, Shin Corp, one of the telecoms firms affected by the policy.

 

The court on Tuesday also issued an arrest warrant for Thaksin after neither he nor his lawyer was present in court and he did not appoint anyone to act on his behalf. 

 

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam yesterday said if Thaksin did not appoint a lawyer to fight the case, the court would have no choice but to continue the trial unilaterally.

 

“You can’t help it. The court adopts the inquisitorial system,” Wissanu said. 

 

Thailand’s ordinary courts usually adopted the accusatorial system. 

 

He added that the judges might sometimes cross-examine prosecution witnesses, but defence lawyers would certainly do it better in the defendant’s interest.

 

“It is best to appoint your own lawyer. At least he can observe the trial,” said Wissanu, who is in charge of the government’s legal affairs.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30340440

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-03-08

2 minutes ago, webfact said:

Thaksin refuses to participate in telecoms case under new law

Why would he?

 

Does anyone think it is possible that he could be found "Not Guilty"?

 

Anyone?

 

Anyone?

56 minutes ago, webfact said:

that the former prime minister disagreed with the legal amendment allowing cases against politicians to be tried in the absence of the defendants.

Did anyone head any doubts that he will not agree? one thing is for sure, his hopes than one day,

a sympathetic PM will be in place to wipe clean his past, is getting to be, as time passes,

nothing but pipe dreams and that forever he will be banished for his beloved motherland....

Edited March 7, 20188 yr by ezzra

Maybe he should embrace the new law as it may come in useful when the current bunch abscond to escape their come uppance?

Retrospective laws

Coupe leaders beware

3 hours ago, webfact said:

That law has a retroactive effect, which is against international legal principles.

while hoping that he accepts his current status in thai affairs as his self-imposed, permanent state, his lawyers do have a point here, retroactive law is a dangerous, slippery slope

3 hours ago, webfact said:

violating the anti-corruption law.

There's an anti corruption law!!!

Thaksin Shinawatra has decided not to fight a legal battle regarding a telecoms concession case against him because he disagreed with a new law

 

Oh yes. I, too would disagree with a law that could find me guilty.

2 hours ago, YetAnother said:

while hoping that he accepts his current status in thai affairs as his self-imposed, permanent state, his lawyers do have a point here, retroactive law is a dangerous, slippery slope

We know why the law was enacted. Is there any establishment cronies or aligned politicians that are charged with corruption fleeing. None and all safely walk the streets while the lapdog agencies procrastinate the cases or turn a blind eye. 

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Why would he?

 

Does anyone think it is possible that he could be found "Not Guilty"?

 

Anyone?

 

Anyone?

Yes I think he could be found not guilty.. if he was not guilty. But I don't think he was not guilty. 

2 hours ago, YetAnother said:

while hoping that he accepts his current status in thai affairs as his self-imposed, permanent state, his lawyers do have a point here, retroactive law is a dangerous, slippery slope

True.. but this is a law that should have been on the books for years. (and would have to apply to all people not just political office holders). I see it as correcting a mistake from the past. But your right its a slippery slope.. but at least criminals on the run are now no longer safe. 

5 hours ago, webfact said:

That law has a retroactive effect, which is against international legal principles. We oppose all forms of injustice,” he said.

I thought almost everywhere in the world people can be tried in absentia.

of course he wont, he knows he is guilty as hell and thats why he has absconded from the country. He has been biding his time till the statute  runs out so he could get off all the charges but it has all backfired on him. Why should a criminal be allowed to simply wait out the statute and get off when they are guilty, if he was innocent he would come back and defend himself, same as his sister but they know they are not innocent and thats why they ran, they just dont want to be locked up for their crimes against the country, they consider themselves above everyone else and refuse to accept the truth

 

Many countries have the same procedures in place in the so called west.

Thailand just copied this kind of law

Edited March 8, 20188 yr by Autonuaq

Criminals prosecuting criminals.

 

Nothing new in that but it's difficult to feel that justice is being served for the people.

7 minutes ago, Autonuaq said:

Many countries have the same procedures in place in the so called west.

Thailand just copied this kind of law

Of course and it is a good law.. too bad it does not include non political office holders.

"....against international legal principles...."

 

....as is....... 'fleeing from the law to avoid prosecution'....???

5 hours ago, ezzra said:

Did anyone head any doubts that he will not agree? one thing is for sure, his hopes than one day,

a sympathetic PM will be in place to wipe clean his past, is getting to be, as time passes,

nothing but pipe dreams and that forever he will be banished for his beloved motherland....

I wish he could be a senior adviser of any Thai government......To have a better performance than Prayut it not difficult.

Don't you just love the way this Thai Government is obsessed with bringing Thaksin and Yingluck to justice??  Good on the Man in Dubai to thumb his nose at these morons.  The more they bluster and accomplish fo....ok all the more Thaksins popularity rises and his influence grows.  Simply ignore the both of them, no headlines in newspapers, no editorials, no TV stories, nothing at all.  Being ignored and marginalized like that would be like a knife to their ribs.  They seek and want all the fuss and without that they are just two criminals, albeit very rich criminals, on the lamb.  Of course this Goverment just keeps playing right into their hands.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

if Thaksin did not appoint a lawyer to fight the case, the court would have no choice but to continue the trial unilaterally.

“You can’t help it. The court adopts the inquisitorial system,”

My layman's understanding:

Cases in the court are not settled based on the merits of legal expertise and technicality under an adversarial system but rather under an inquisitorial system wherein both sides join a meeting with the judge to reach a mutual agreement on how court will reach a decision.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30313491

The adversarial, or accusatorial, system such as used in the United States and Great Britain involves

• opposing parties gather evidence and present the evidence, and their arguments, to a judge
• the judge knows nothing of the litigation until the parties present their cases;  defendant is not required to testify.

In the inquisitorial system,

• the presiding judge is responsible for supervising and steering the gathering of the evidence necessary to resolve the case
• the presiding judge questions the witnesses, including the defendant; a criminal defendant does not have to answer questions about the crime itself but may be required to answer all other questions at trial.

The inquisitorial system does not protect criminal defendants as much as the adversarial system.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inquisitorial+System

But if Thaksin and especially his attorneys do not attend the trial, how can an inquisitorial system work? Essentially it seems to me that the court would then serve as both judge and defense counsel. Under the adversarial system there simply would practically be no trial regardless of the absentee law.

Seems the military government can't help putting its "thumb on the scales" of justice.

 

 

44 minutes ago, Autonuaq said:

Many countries have the same procedures in place in the so called west.

Thailand just copied this kind of law

Citation please. Specific to civil  commercial matters.  Back up your claim or retract it.  In absentia is rarely used and only when the defendant has fled in mid proceeding or when there is a serious crime against humanity or war crime with the fleeing of the  defendant.

In Absentia trials are a rarity and their verdicts are subject to being vacated because of the breach of fundamental due process. I draw your attention to the 

Rome Statute of the  International Criminal Court, which illustrates the aforementioned;

Article 63 -Trial in the presence of the accused

1.  The accused shall be present during the trial. 

 

This is a fundamental provision of the courts you reference.

 

Once the  legal validity of the use of a retroactive law to prosecute is added, it is  quite clear that the proceedings suspend the accused's right to due process.

This isn't a Taksin issue, but one of due process, ad respect for transparent and fair judicial process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Citation please. Specific to civil  commercial matters.  Back up your claim or retract it.  In absentia is rarely used and only when the defendant has fled in mid proceeding or when there is a serious crime against humanity or war crime with the fleeing of the  defendant.

In Absentia trials are a rarity and their verdicts are subject to being vacated because of the breach of fundamental due process. I draw your attention to the 

Rome Statute of the  International Criminal Court, which illustrates the aforementioned;

Article 63 -Trial in the presence of the accused

1.  The accused shall be present during the trial. 

 

This is a fundamental provision of the courts you reference.

 

Once the  legal validity of the use of a retroactive law to prosecute is added, it is  quite clear that the proceedings suspend the accused's right to due process.

This isn't a Taksin issue, but one of due process, ad respect for transparent and fair judicial process.

 

 

 

 

How is this a commercial matter.. its under the penal code.. 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Under the old law, legal cases against Thaksin were suspended pending his arrest, but under the new law passed last year, the court can try cases in the absence of fugitive politicians three months after an arrest warrant is issued following their escape.

So, he would know essentially what sentence he would receive ? thereby giving him another reason not to come back. Great thinking !

38 minutes ago, SOTIRIOS said:

"....against international legal principles...."

 

....as is....... 'fleeing from the law to avoid prosecution'....???

Thaksin did not "flee from the law to avoid prosecution". Rather, this is a retroactive law being used to prosecute a new case. The manner in which the law is applied is the core issue. 

 

The fact that Taksin can travel freely throughout the world should give you a very clear indication of the strength of the original action against Thaksin. If the case was strong, i.e. not seen as politically motivated, all of the  countries through which Thaksin travels and transacts would have to intervene. Why do you think that the Thai government has not sought action to arrest and regain custody ? I offer that is because they Thai military administration cannot support its cases in accordance with some fundamental legal principles. The man has been in Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, Russia, France, Mongolia

Sweden, Switzerland, Fiji, Tonga, UK, Brunei,Uganda, Liberia, Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Singapore, Nicaragua, Montenegro,Swaziland

and  Sierra Leone to name some of his publicly reported on visits.  Surely, if Thailand could support its claim against  the man,  one of these countries would have arrested and acted to deport Thaksin to Thailand?

 

24 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

 

 

How is this a commercial matter.. its under the penal code.. 

It is not an crime which is alleged to have resulted in physical harm. The case relates to an allegation of financial fraud/dishonesty. And even if you wish to go that route, please provide  a citation of the western or even developing world countries which allow for a retroactive law for the prosecution of this type of financial crime allegation.  I repeat again; this is not a crime that relates to  murder, torture, or crime against humanity /war crime. Citation of the law please.

3 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

It is not an crime which is alleged to have resulted in physical harm. The case relates to an allegation of financial fraud/dishonesty. And even if you wish to go that route, please provide  a citation of the western or even developing world countries which allow for a retroactive law for the prosecution of this type of financial crime allegation.  I repeat again; this is not a crime that relates to  murder, torture, or crime against humanity /war crime. Citation of the law please.

That is different from what you posted.. you said it was commercial.. its not. Then you backtrack. No problem just be honest about it.

 

We were not talking about retroactive.. it was about this law and other countries.. I guess you need to backtrack as i caught you out. 

 

But your right retroactive is almost never done. 

1 hour ago, seajae said:

of course he wont, he knows he is guilty as hell and thats why he has absconded from the country. He has been biding his time till the statute  runs out so he could get off all the charges but it has all backfired on him. Why should a criminal be allowed to simply wait out the statute and get off when they are guilty, if he was innocent he would come back and defend himself, same as his sister but they know they are not innocent and thats why they ran, they just dont want to be locked up for their crimes against the country, they consider themselves above everyone else and refuse to accept the truth

 

They also know there is no such thing as justice and fair trials in Thailand.

 

I like them they did what the ruling elites always do and that enraged the elites.

 

When I say I like them, I in no way endorse their corruption, greed or brutality.

2 hours ago, robblok said:

True.. but this is a law that should have been on the books for years. (and would have to apply to all people not just political office holders). I see it as correcting a mistake from the past. But your right its a slippery slope.. but at least criminals on the run are now no longer safe. 

The law is fine. Retroactive is the issue.

5 hours ago, grumbleweed said:

Retrospective laws

Coupe leaders beware

retrospective indeed.