Anyone Familiar With Thai Law?

[snookium]

"I cannot return home because I was sentenced to two years' imprisonment," he said, adding that the case against him would be valid for another decade.

I will like to verify with all bros & sis on the quote mention above that if a suspect is wanted without a trial yet or sentenced for a jail term, is it true that he/she will be granted padron in 15years time if the police cannot catch him?

So in this case, Thaksin, is he able to get away with the law in 15 years time eventhough he is sentence to two year jail?

Advise needed. :huh:

[yabaaaa]

Im sure with his wealth he could do almost anything!

[snookium]

Im sure with his wealth he could do almost anything!

What about normal civilian?

[steveromagnino]

"I cannot return home because I was sentenced to two years' imprisonment," he said, adding that the case against him would be valid for another decade.

I will like to verify with all bros & sis on the quote mention above that if a suspect is wanted without a trial yet or sentenced for a jail term, is it true that he/she will be granted padron in 15years time if the police cannot catch him?

So in this case, Thaksin, is he able to get away with the law in 15 years time eventhough he is sentence to two year jail?

Advise needed. :huh:

As I understand, he has already been tried and convicted for this first case, so either he can appeal it (for which he requires additional new evidence) or become encarcirated (i.e. go to jail) and then get a pardon to reduce the sentence.

For additional crimes, it is (and I could be wrong) necessary that the defendant appears in person upon being indicted on the first day, after which they can be tried in absentia, but the proceedings cannot start until they appear. There is no pardon, but rather a statute of limitations on certain types of cases, so I think this is the 10 or 15 years you are referring to. If he stays away long enough, then he cannot be tried; same as tax law in NZ I think has a statute of limitation of 7 years, so any crimes committed with regards to tax evasion pre 2000 is forgiven.

Not a pardon, but just not eligible to be a court case anymore.

For the first cases with Khunying Pojaman and Thaksin, they thought it would never have got this far because they were sure they could get the ASC removed by changing the constitution prior to the verdict, declaring the court illegal; after that they then thought they could cut a deal (the money in the donut box, the approach at the funeral to Pa Prem, attempts at public pressure) and then by the time they realised they would not have a get out of jail card, they quickly moved abroad to evade the law.

Since the law is absolutely clear that the PM could not engage in deals involving connected parties, the minimal circumstantial evidence presented was easily enough to convict; what possible evidence could be found to counter the ruling I have no idea.

In the same situation, the case against the PM's wife had a smoking gun where she signed her name as Khunying Pojaman in 1999 I think it was, when in fact she did not have that title until 2 years later; this is a mistake no Thai would EVER make EVER so it became clear that she had fraudulently covered her tax evasion of the gift.

In both cases, the evidence is overwhelming, but we have yet to see a single admission of guilt, and it would not surprise me that both feel they did nothing wrong.

Therefore, in his terms, Thaksin believes he cannot come back, because he would immediately have to go to jail and then also to be tried for the other cases. This, apparently, is not acceptable to him. Therefore, he would prefer to be a fugitive and with his wealth, he may last longer than some of the kiddy fiddlers and crims camped down in Pattaya who get caught and rounded up from time to time. He also is able to attract sympathy as he is perceived in many western countries to be a popular leader who merely has suffered at the hands of the military and a baised court - without greater knowledge he is therefore an object of sympathy and a person to invite to stay for a while.

His supporters might understand that someone will not allow him to come back onto Thai soil, and he is exiled, and therefore should be encouraged to try to come back - hence the 'please come back' type messages from deepest Udon.

When in fact, all that is required is for him to fly in, go to jail and serve his time. It is only 2 years.

For this case.

Could end up being fairly old when he gets out though; even his most ardent supporters who are familar with other cases know full well that he is guilty of at least some of the crimes alledged. They claim the good outweighs the bad, and besides which almost everyone knows that almost every other politician and civil servant is on the take anyhow.

It would take someone very naive to genuinely think that he didn't do what was said; however, some of his biggest fans upcountry are probably sufficiently dosed up on PPP and TRT propaganda to believe this.

The same as a fair few PAD ardent supporters believe some absolute howlers.

[Maizefarmer]

"I cannot return home because I was sentenced to two years' imprisonment," he said, adding that the case against him would be valid for another decade.

I will like to verify with all bros & sis on the quote mention above that if a suspect is wanted without a trial yet or sentenced for a jail term, is it true that he/she will be granted padron in 15years time if the police cannot catch him?

So in this case, Thaksin, is he able to get away with the law in 15 years time eventhough he is sentence to two year jail?

Advise needed. :huh:

Nope - the sentance stands untill he serves it, whether it be 10 years or 20 years or whatever...... what is true to say in respect of Thailand, as it is for a lot of countries, is that there is a time tlimit beyond which one cannot be charged for a crime e.g. steal a car or nick some cash and the evidence only comes to light 20 - 30 years down the road - that would be beyond the statue of limitations (which in Thailand I think is 10years - I think). S of L's normaly exclude serious crimes like murder - e.g. evidence comes to light 20-30years down the road and you are still subject to been charged.

You can be pretty certain that there is (or will have been) behind the scenes activity between the UK and Thailand (at senior level) on how Thaksin is to be treated/deal't with while staying in the UK - and the only time the UK tends to buckle is when the judiciary over-rides it. I think Thaksin will stay - unless someone (some organisation) takes the matter to a UK court and seeks to have him extradited. I doubt the UK authorities will want to enforce or uphold any "courtesies" granted him discreatly in the face of a court challenge.

The UK likes to do favours behind the scenes, but it doesn't like it the attention it gets when the courts challenge it's desicions.

[snookium]

Then what about drug trafficking or murder in Thailand, is there statute of limitation for that person?

[wxpwzrd]

I am getting more curious about why the OP is asking. The topic is interesting from a general perspective, but I wonder if the OP has a specific reason for asking.

[slimdog]

"I cannot return home because I was sentenced to two years' imprisonment," he said, adding that the case against him would be valid for another decade.

I will like to verify with all bros & sis on the quote mention above that if a suspect is wanted without a trial yet or sentenced for a jail term, is it true that he/she will be granted padron in 15years time if the police cannot catch him?

So in this case, Thaksin, is he able to get away with the law in 15 years time eventhough he is sentence to two year jail?

Advise needed. :huh:

The statute of limitations for the offense is 10 years, in this case, the date starts from the date of conviction, the court has the power to extend the statute, (as they did in the case of Vattana Asavahame, where they extended the term from 10 years to 15 years at sentencing). As no extension was included in the final sentencing then the 10 year statute remains in force.

Thaksin still has a few more days to appeal the verdict. But it is neccessary to provide fresh evidence which would change the original verdict. The conviction was based on three pieces of legistation:

The NCCC Act Article 100, whist this is relatively clear, there is a provision that the NCCC must have published in the Government Gazette that the Prime Minister is barred from this particular activity. Whether or not this was ever published, I have no idea, but might give some grounds for appeal.

Bank of Thailand Act, Chapter 5. This clearly states what the FIDF is and who has responsibility for it's management, oversight and legal procedures. This again is relatively clear, but makes no mention of the Prime Minister.

Finally the State Administrative Act Article 11, this is the piece of legislature which really is going to be hard to counter, as it states the Prime Minister is liable for overseeing all state administrative bodies as well as supervising administrative officials in all ministries and state agencies. The only thing Thaksin has going for him is that he only has the authority to oversee state administrative bodies with cabinet approval, not personally.

In a sense I do feel a little sorry for Thaksin in this case, as nearly a Billion US$ was given to Erawan Trust over the past 25 years by many Prime Ministers, in ALL cases the reason was purely a conflict of interest, because of who owned Erawan Trust and goes back to dear old Pa Prem (who originally established the FIDF so that he didn't have to go cap in hand to the Bank of Thailand every time a cabinet Minister tried to bankrupt the financial system) and finished with Chuan,who refused to close the Institution down and made it what is today Bank Thai. The only Prime Minister who didn't take tax payers money to bail out what was probably the most corrupt of Thailands financial Institutions but actually put money into the system is sentenced to Jail..

But TIT

[JetsetBkk]

As I understand...

Escellent summary, steveR!

[Maizefarmer]

"Statutes of limitations" - apply to charges been laid against the accused - not in respect of the sentance been served, or the court case going ahead - its all about the charge(s) been laid i.e. if charged and prosecuted within the 10year statute, then the sentance (whatever it is) will stand till served - irrspective of how long he tries to avoid it.

Yes - drug smuggling is subject to the statute of limitations in Thailand: the only crimes not subject to the 10years statute are:

1) murder/homicide

2) les majeste (critisizing the Thai Royal family)

3) treason

Been absent has nothing to do with statutes of limitations - its all about whether or not the evidence comes to light within the 10year limitation to charge an individual.

What if charged but not prosecuted within the statute?

Prosecutors avoid that like the plauge - they'll hold the trial in abstantia.

So to answer the OP's question - Thaksin cannot hide behind the statute of limitations - and avoid serving any sentance by staying out of Thailand for 10 or 15 years. He has already been charged and prosecuted, so its a mute point. The only thing(s) he'll get away with is anything he done wrong (excluding the above) that he is not charged with within 10 years of alledgedly committing.

That all said, I think there is one other exception the Thai tax man I think is able to chase persons for taxes not paid that come to light after 10years - just like the IRS in the States can (and does) chase folk up to 25 years after the event (in at least one case I know).