Thaksin Faces Criminal Case If Guilty On Feb 26

[webfact]

THAKSIN'S D-DAY

Thaksin faces criminal case if guilty on Feb 26

By Kesinee Taengkhio

Somsoutai Sapsomboon

The Nation

Published on February 12, 2010

BANGKOK: -- The national anti-graft agency will pursue a criminal case against ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra for filing false information about his assets, should he be found guilty in the assets-seizure case against him.

Prof Pakdee Pothisiri, a member of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, yesterday said the agency would request documents from the court that had been obtained from overseas, such as those from a Singaporean bank.

He said his investigative panel would add those pieces of evidence to the existing information from witnesses and documents it had gathered, so that it could prepare a report for the NACC commissioners to decide whether to pursue a case against Thaksin.

INVESTIGATING ALLEGATIONS

Pakdee heads the NACC subcommittee investigating allegations that Thaksin had reported false information about his wealth when submitting his financial statements with the agency.

He also said a guilty verdict by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in the assets-seizure case would affect criminal cases against Thaksin, such as those in which he is charged with malfeasance and dereliction of duty.

Politicians found guilty of filing false information with the NACC face a five-year ban from politics, as well as maximum imprisonment of six months and a fine of up to Bt10,000.

Meanwhile, two of Thaksin's children yesterday petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking an order preventing former members of the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) from "distorting facts and legal principles" by commenting on the assets-seizure case against their father.

In their petition, Panthongtae and Pinthongta Shinawatra said it was improper for anyone to comment publicly in a bid to distort the facts and legal principles regarding the case. They accompanied their lawyer to the court.

They said Udom Fuangfung and Kaewsan Atibodhi - both members of the now-defunct AEC - had presented personal views about the case, which could cause misunderstanding among the public that Thaksin had committed wrongdoings as alleged and hence deserved to have all Bt76 billion of his family's frozen assets seized.

Their lawyer Kittiporn Arunrat expected a court decision on the request in a day or two.

He said the former AEC members had completed their task when they forwarded their investigation report to public prosecutors.

He added that they should not comment publicly on the case as their remarks could have an impact on the trial.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict on February 26 on whether the Thaksin family's frozen assets should be seized by the state. He is accused of being unusually wealthy and abusing his power to unfairly help his family's businesses.

In Panthongtae and Pinthongta's petition, they cited Udom's article in the January 16 edition of the anti-Thaksin |ASTV Manager newspaper, which said that "according to |the principle, the frozen assets in any case where a politician is found guilty of being unusually wealthy must all be seized".

On January 18, Kaewsan commented in the Matichon daily, also suggesting that all the frozen assets must be seized by the state. His analogy was that if grass were stolen to feed a cow, then the whole cow must be seized, not just part of it.

Panthongtae and Pinthongta on Monday submitted their closing statements in the trial, claiming that Bt40.6 billion of the frozen family assets rightfully belong to them.

Pinthongta told reporters yesterday that their petition was aimed at seeking justice for her family. She said she had been frustrated over the past few years about the effect the case was having on her family.

Panthongtae asked reporters to keep their distance from his sister, as she had just been discharged from hospital.

He said that looking at Kaewsan's analogy from a different perspective, his grass had been stolen to feed a cow but when he seized the cow, he risked a charge of robbery. "I feel that I am being robbed. I would like to ask you to view it from a different viewpoint. My life is quite difficult now," Panthongtae said.

He also said that if Kaewsan's analogy were accepted, farmers should stop cultivating rice and instead shift to growing grass. Then, when stray cows fed on their grass, they would be justified in seizing them.

-- The Nation 2010-02-12

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[way2muchcoffee]

"Thaksin faces criminal case if guilty of Feb. 26th"

But this would be unseemly in the modern context.....So what to do that would generate similar results.

Do I need to go further......I dont think so.

In the modern context I suspect the best course is to shine a spotlight on corrupt practices and prosecute accordingly. Which is exactly what is being done.

[junglist]

karma is coming back....

[jdinasia]

The article in question doesn't mention that for a case to proceed against Thaksin that Thaksin must stop hiding overseas and show up in court at least once:(

[DP25]

I recall when the first case against Thaksin happened. "Honest mistake" was it called.

He has a lot of honest mistakes. Accidentally hid assets with the maid, honest mistake. Accidentally gave the box filled with cash to the judge instead of the one with donuts, honest mistake.

[brahmburgers]

The article in question doesn't mention that for a case to proceed against Thaksin that Thaksin must stop hiding overseas and show up in court at least once:(

Does absentia exist here in Thailand? It would seem that the defendant should be summoned, and if he/she doesn't show up (perhaps after a couple deadline extentions) then the court proceedings can proceed without the defendant in attendance. ..and a verdict come forth after that. If not so, tell me what's different. If not so, people could break the law here, and then go running across the border, and never be prosecuted according to Thai law.

Was it a short-lived proposal Ricardo? The 70-30 thing? That is a rhetorical question, because neither you nor I know. I have suspicion the idea is still lurking about somewhere. I have heard frequent references by PAD sympathisers about some people lacking the wherewithall to exercise their voting rights "correctly".

And your glorious leader was quoted as saying democracy wasn't his aim. So what? More muddying the waters. What the hel_l has that statement made by the PAD got to do with the trial of Thaksin? If he is found guilty then it doesn't matter a fetid Dingo's kidney to this trial what else he, or anyone else, did. Legal, illegal or otherwise.

Though I don't agree with the v. short-lived mention by someone associated with PAD, it's actually not far removed from how many democracies function. In the US, for example, a whole slew of prominent (politically powerful) people are appointed rather than popularly elected. Cabinet ministers and judges, to name just two categories. I assume it's similar over here in Thailand. Democracy doesn't have to mean everyone with political power is popularly elected.

[ballpoint]

Does absentia exist here in Thailand? It would seem that the defendant should be summoned, and if he/she doesn't show up (perhaps after a couple deadline extentions) then the court proceedings can proceed without the defendant in attendance. ..and a verdict come forth after that. If not so, tell me what's different. If not so, people could break the law here, and then go running across the border, and never be prosecuted according to Thai law.

In a number of cases it doesn't, hence the list of cases awaiting Thaksin's return. When tied in to the statute of limitations, there seems to be nothing to stop a suspect from fleeing the country until they run out, and then coming back a free person.

Though I don't agree with the v. short-lived mention by someone associated with PAD, it's actually not far removed from how many democracies function. In the US, for example, a whole slew of prominent (politically powerful) people are appointed rather than popularly elected. Cabinet ministers and judges, to name just two categories. I assume it's similar over here in Thailand. Democracy doesn't have to mean everyone with political power is popularly elected.

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it, that's not what this thread is about. I was pointing out that what the PAD may or may not have said has nothing to do with the current trial.

The thread title is "Thaksin Faces Criminal Case If Guilty On Feb 26". That seems the sensible, democratic, thing to do. No man is above the law. If the court finds him guilty of abuse of power then he should face criminal charges. What is so wrong with that? Yet we get his supporters on here saying not so, and dragging up the PAD, what others have or have not done, and what else Thaksin has or has not done. In short, applying the same cheap diversionary tactics as they do on most threads. Why should he not face criminal charges if found guilty? Putting him above the law would be an extremely warped view of democracy coming from those who claim to be its upholders.

Edited February 12, 2010 by ballpoint

[BIGTOE3]

The thread title is "Thaksin Faces Criminal Case If Guilty On Feb 26". That seems the sensible, democratic, thing to do. No man is above the law. If the court finds him guilty of abuse of power then he should face criminal charges. What is so wrong with that? Yet we get his supporters on here saying not so, and dragging up the PAD, what others have or have not done, and what else Thaksin has or has not done. In short, applying the same cheap diversionary tactics as they do on most threads. Why should he not face criminal charges if found guilty? Putting him above the law would be an extremely warped view of democracy coming from those who claim to be its upholders.

I totally agree with this post. Well done Sir

BT

[jdinasia]

Brahm --- he defendant must appear once to formally answer the charges. Thereafter, like in the Rachada land case, the trial may progress with or without the defendant, Thaksin has answered 2 of the myriad cases against him, the land case and the assets case.

I think there are approximately 19 other cases pending. When they finally get him in custody to serve his 2 years for the Rachada land case they can progress with the rest.

[monkfish]

Surely this case will bypass all other cases and he will be found guilty on all 19 charges in one go?

Otherwise they couldn't take all his money right?

[jdinasia]

Surely this case will bypass all other cases and he will be found guilty on all 19 charges in one go?

Otherwise they couldn't take all his money right?

Nope ...

I ALMOST wish they could do just that .... but even a scoundrel deserves his day (or 20) in court.

They can keep the assets deemed to be illegal and any appropriate (by law) penalty. That means the assets listed in the CURRENT case (2.2+ Billion dollars). Other cases like the theoretical one described in this thread might include further fines as well as jail time which could sap more from Thaksin, but the criminal case described above can only move forward if they find him guilty in the assets foreiture case.

[monkfish]

Surely this case will bypass all other cases and he will be found guilty on all 19 charges in one go?

Otherwise they couldn't take all his money right?

Nope ...

I ALMOST wish they could do just that .... but even a scoundrel deserves his day (or 20) in court.

They can keep the assets deemed to be illegal and any appropriate (by law) penalty. That means the assets listed in the CURRENT case (2.2+ Billion dollars). Other cases like the theoretical one described in this thread might include further fines as well as jail time which could sap more from Thaksin, but the criminal case described above can only move forward if they find him guilty in the assets foreiture case.

But surely to deem it as illegal then there must be a conviction? to go with it.

Edited February 12, 2010 by monkfish

[jdinasia]

Surely this case will bypass all other cases and he will be found guilty on all 19 charges in one go?

Otherwise they couldn't take all his money right?

Nope ...

I ALMOST wish they could do just that .... but even a scoundrel deserves his day (or 20) in court.

They can keep the assets deemed to be illegal and any appropriate (by law) penalty. That means the assets listed in the CURRENT case (2.2+ Billion dollars). Other cases like the theoretical one described in this thread might include further fines as well as jail time which could sap more from Thaksin, but the criminal case described above can only move forward if they find him guilty in the assets foreiture case.

But surely to deem it as illegal then there must be a conviction?

HUH? You mean if they keep his money? Yes that will be a conviction. The only penalty in that case is forfieture of the illegally gained assets. The criminal trial over those assets follows (or not in case he is acquitted) the forfieture case.

[monkfish]

Surely this case will bypass all other cases and he will be found guilty on all 19 charges in one go?

Otherwise they couldn't take all his money right?

Nope ...

I ALMOST wish they could do just that .... but even a scoundrel deserves his day (or 20) in court.

They can keep the assets deemed to be illegal and any appropriate (by law) penalty. That means the assets listed in the CURRENT case (2.2+ Billion dollars). Other cases like the theoretical one described in this thread might include further fines as well as jail time which could sap more from Thaksin, but the criminal case described above can only move forward if they find him guilty in the assets foreiture case.

But surely to deem it as illegal then there must be a conviction?

HUH? You mean if they keep his money? Yes that will be a conviction. The only penalty in that case is forfieture of the illegally gained assets. The criminal trial over those assets follows (or not in case he is acquitted) the forfieture case.

Sorry this does not make sense at all. If they find him not guilty at a later date do they return his money?

[jdinasia]

2 different types of trials. It is possible to be guilty in one and not the other.

Think of OJ Simpson. Acquitted in he morder trial if Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and convicted in the wrongful death case. The wrongful death case was about money .. the murder trial about the criminal acts.

No, If they get his cash it is gotten. They have to prove it was his and that it wasn't gained legally.

Later they can go after him for jail time if they can prove how it was gained.

[monkfish]

2 different types of trials. It is possible to be guilty in one and not the other.

Think of OJ Simpson. Acquitted in he morder trial if Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and convicted in the wrongful death case. The wrongful death case was about money .. the murder trial about the criminal acts.

No, If they get his cash it is gotten. They have to prove it was his and that it wasn't gained legally.

Later they can go after him for jail time if they can prove how it was gained.

Sorry I give in but thanks for trying.

Guilty and not Guilty at the same time? mm seems complex

I have no idea about OJ Simson but that case had to be the biggest legal joke in history of mankind.

Guess my problem is that I am from the UK where law is based on "Innocent until proved guilty" I know in Thailand it is "Guilty until proven Innocent"

Just one of those thing I can't get my head around.

Edited February 12, 2010 by monkfish

[Maestro]

This topic is about what may or will happen depending on the court ruling expected on February 26. It is not about a past event, about court decisions in the past.

Therefore, I shall now go and delete the discussion about a so-called "judicial coup", a term with which a past event appears to be referred to. (I'm afraid there won't be many posts left in this this topic)

--

Maestro

[dillon]

Am I wrong in thinking that this whole debacle is projection, hypocrisy and denial of any accountability by all sides from the word go.

The "evidence" is so distorted and to actually get to the 'facts' would be a labrynth of distorted truths due to personal and political priorities and opinion and just simple ignorance (ie without the knowledge of) what was really going on.

The person standing charge for the offences was, in fact 'in charge', voted in - obviously not in the belief that he was going to abuse his position of power for personal gain. There is no doubt in my mind that he looked after number one and abused his position of responsibilty to gain financially and as a result is guilty of abuse of power and completly took the p*ss.

It seems that in a developing country and indeed any governmental institution corrupt practices are par for the course - however wrong - this is a fact, power does corrupt. Therefore for Thailand to gain any kind of credible progress from this mess it needs to actually do whats right and justify the coup - for the rich and the poor. Taking Mr T's cash and using it to spread a bit of happiness is not an excuse for ousting him. Taking his cash will not prove themselves right. For me, evryone has some share of the blame because blind eyes were turned and the result is the distrust in the system we are seeing now. The finger pointing and blame apportioning is only showing what a mess this has all become, and also indicates that no progress will be made until it is acknowledged that nobody really knows - because the whole situation got out of control.

[brahmburgers]

Am I wrong in thinking that this whole debacle is projection, hypocrisy and denial of any accountability by all sides from the word go.

Yes, I'd say you were wrong. It's about one side in particular (the defendants, the Shinawats) who are trying to avoid being brought to trial to gauge whether they acted illegally against the interests of Thailand and its people. The prosecution is not alleging that no one else in Thailand is corrupt.

The "evidence" is so distorted and to actually get to the 'facts' would be a labrynth of distorted truths due to personal and political priorities and opinion and just simple ignorance (ie without the knowledge of) what was really going on.

The reason the evidence is wrapped in such 'a labyrinth of distorted truths' (your words) is the Shinawats intentionally wrapped their dealings in intrigue. It's the modus operandi of hiding indecent/illegal financial gains

Edited February 13, 2010 by brahmburgers

[ballpoint]

Am I wrong in thinking that this whole debacle is projection, hypocrisy and denial of any accountability by all sides from the word go.

Yes.

The "evidence" is so distorted and to actually get to the 'facts' would be a labrynth of distorted truths due to personal and political priorities and opinion and just simple ignorance (ie without the knowledge of) what was really going on.

Have you been following the case? some of the evidence presented for the prosecuting side by ex employees and government officials has been very plain indeed. Unless you're suggesting it was faked?

The person standing charge for the offences was, in fact 'in charge', voted in - obviously not in the belief that he was going to abuse his position of power for personal gain. There is no doubt in my mind that he looked after number one and abused his position of responsibilty to gain financially and as a result is guilty of abuse of power and completly took the p*ss.

Agreed. He even campaigned by saying as a billionaire he didn't need to be corrupt. He abused his power and he abused the faith put in him by the people.

It seems that in a developing country and indeed any governmental institution corrupt practices are par for the course - however wrong - this is a fact, power does corrupt. Therefore for Thailand to gain any kind of credible progress from this mess it needs to actually do whats right and justify the coup - for the rich and the poor. Taking Mr T's cash and using it to spread a bit of happiness is not an excuse for ousting him. Taking his cash will not prove themselves right. For me, evryone has some share of the blame because blind eyes were turned and the result is the distrust in the system we are seeing now. The finger pointing and blame apportioning is only showing what a mess this has all become, and also indicates that no progress will be made until it is acknowledged that nobody really knows - because the whole situation got out of control.

And how will progress be made by sweeping what he did under the rug? By giving him back money that may prove to be gained illegally? "No one's ever been prosecuted for this illegal activity before, so why start with Thaksin? It's just not fair" is hardly the way to effect change for the better. What should they do? Give him a warning and say "right, the next person who does it will get the book thrown at them"? Or say nothing, give him back his money and power, and allow things to carry on in the same corrupt way they always have? I find it very baffling that people come on here spouting about democracy and the corrupt elite, yet are clamouring for Thaksin to be absolved. Come on, it's not that hard to dig up impartial evidence against him for at least one of the crimes he's accused of. His supporters are either refusing to accept that he did any of what he is accused of, which seems to me to be rather a far fetched and gullible conclusion to make, or they know he's guilty, but don't care. Which is a ridiculous position for a true advocator of democracy to be in.

[jdinasia]

2 different types of trials. It is possible to be guilty in one and not the other.

Think of OJ Simpson. Acquitted in he morder trial if Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and convicted in the wrongful death case. The wrongful death case was about money .. the murder trial about the criminal acts.

No, If they get his cash it is gotten. They have to prove it was his and that it wasn't gained legally.

Later they can go after him for jail time if they can prove how it was gained.

Sorry I give in but thanks for trying.

Guilty and not Guilty at the same time? mm seems complex

I have no idea about OJ Simson but that case had to be the biggest legal joke in history of mankind.

Guess my problem is that I am from the UK where law is based on "Innocent until proved guilty" I know in Thailand it is "Guilty until proven Innocent"

Just one of those thing I can't get my head around.

No, it is innocent until proven guilty here as well.

Remember that a finding of "not guilty" is NOT the same as a finding of "innocent". Here it is actually better than in many places because the 'civil' portion comes before the criminal proceedings.

[jdinasia]

Ballpoint --- it isn't accurate to state that "nobody has been ..." There have been assets seized from other government officials in the past. The only difference here is the sheer scale.

[Terminator]

i don't give a flying hoot, as it is not my money, they can do what they like....

[rixalex]

His supporters are either refusing to accept that he did any of what he is accused of, which seems to me to be rather a far fetched and gullible conclusion to make, or they know he's guilty, but don't care. Which is a ridiculous position for a true advocator of democracy to be in.

You're quite right. It would be a ridiculous position were these people true advocators of democracy. They are not. Not even close.

[SomTumTiger]

Good, this guy deserves all the crap they heap upon him. The damage he has wrought on the country is huge. Cue tired "but what about yellows and airports". Trying to deflect my answer by pretending I favor the actions of the pad.

[jdinasia]

Good, this guy deserves all the crap they heap upon him. The damage he has wrought on the country is huge. Cue tired "but what about yellows and airports". Trying to deflect my answer by pretending I favor the actions of the pad.

No, Sorry to disagree but he doesn't deserve all the crap they heap on him. He only deserves to have crap heaped on him for which he is guilty. He, like anyone accused of a crime, deserves his day (s) in court. In his case though there is the additional issue of him being a convicted criminal that has fled justice.

I wonder if this is yet another crime in and of itself in Thailand, and if it has a statute of limitations?

[Samuian]

Good, this guy deserves all the crap they heap upon him. The damage he has wrought on the country is huge. Cue tired "but what about yellows and airports". Trying to deflect my answer by pretending I favor the actions of the pad.

No, Sorry to disagree but he doesn't deserve all the crap they heap on him. He only deserves to have crap heaped on him for which he is guilty. He, like anyone accused of a crime, deserves his day (s) in court. In his case though there is the additional issue of him being a convicted criminal that has fled justice.

I wonder if this is yet another crime in and of itself in Thailand, and if it has a statute of limitations?

I thought it's all one giant Conspiracy against this honest family man, politically biased court sentences, everyone against him envies him, his marvelous claim of nearly absolute power, his incredible ascend into the limitless sky, his incredible popularity, his unprecedented sense for real democracy and his heart for the poor farmers, his understanding that they all need urgently money to buy the latest Sat-TV set and at least one mobile phone in even the most remote household - he who was just very lucky in doing business and smart enough to make this incredible fortune in the shortest time ever!

Da Man!

An d a whole Nation which partly envies him partly simply adores him and therefor it is split into 2 - yes into red the pro eatable democrazy and the one who openly support "the Elite", the Country and Nationalism lead by some very backward thinking people, who still have values like ethics and some sort of morale, one of them even wants to go back to the roots, meditation, buddhist ideals... water buffaloes, organic farming, self sufficiency - huh?!

30 Baht Insurance and OTOP is efficient enough - the people only don't know how to be thank-and grateful

Who needs this when one has enough, plenty and plenty of money - "I can show you how it is done - again If you let me I will!"

[SomTumTiger]

But he is guilty. He's already been found guilty. Heap away. He can join the "petty wannabe dictorators" convention anyway. Where is it being held this year? Burma, Darfur? Always nice this time of year.

[SomTumTiger]

Dpes

Good, this guy deserves all the crap they heap upon him. The damage he has wrought on the country is huge. Cue tired "but what about yellows and airports". Trying to deflect my answer by pretending I favor the actions of the pad.

No, Sorry to disagree but he doesn't deserve all the crap they heap on him. He only deserves to have crap heaped on him for which he is guilty. He, like anyone accused of a crime, deserves his day (s) in court. In his case though there is the additional issue of him being a convicted criminal that has fled justice.

I wonder if this is yet another crime in and of itself in Thailand, and if it has a statute of limitations?

I thought it's all one giant Conspiracy against this honest family man, politically biased court sentences, everyone against him envies him, his marvelous claim of nearly absolute power, his incredible ascend into the limitless sky, his incredible popularity, his unprecedented sense for real democracy and his heart for the poor farmers, his understanding that they all need urgently money to buy the latest Sat-TV set and at least one mobile phone in even the most remote household - he who was just very lucky in doing business and smart enough to make this incredible fortune in the shortest time ever!

Da Man!

An d a whole Nation which partly envies him partly simply adores him and therefor it is split into 2 - yes into red the pro eatable democrazy and the one who openly support "the Elite", the Country and Nationalism lead by some very backward thinking people, who still have values like ethics and some sort of morale, one of them even wants to go back to the roots, meditation, buddhist ideals... water buffaloes, organic farming, self sufficiency - huh?!

30 Baht Insurance and OTOP is efficient enough - the people only don't know how to be thank-and grateful

Who needs this when one has enough, plenty and plenty of money - "I can show you how it is done - again If you let me I will!"

I don't mean to criticize, but does this mean something in English? Reads like Greek to me.

[Samuian]

Dpes

Good, this guy deserves all the crap they heap upon him. The damage he has wrought on the country is huge. Cue tired "but what about yellows and airports". Trying to deflect my answer by pretending I favor the actions of the pad.

No, Sorry to disagree but he doesn't deserve all the crap they heap on him. He only deserves to have crap heaped on him for which he is guilty. He, like anyone accused of a crime, deserves his day (s) in court. In his case though there is the additional issue of him being a convicted criminal that has fled justice.

I wonder if this is yet another crime in and of itself in Thailand, and if it has a statute of limitations?

I thought it's all one giant Conspiracy against this honest family man, politically biased court sentences, everyone against him envies him, his marvelous claim of nearly absolute power, his incredible ascend into the limitless sky, his incredible popularity, his unprecedented sense for real democracy and his heart for the poor farmers, his understanding that they all need urgently money to buy the latest Sat-TV set and at least one mobile phone in even the most remote household - he who was just very lucky in doing business and smart enough to make this incredible fortune in the shortest time ever!

Da Man!

An d a whole Nation which partly envies him partly simply adores him and therefor it is split into 2 - yes into red the pro eatable democrazy and the one who openly support "the Elite", the Country and Nationalism lead by some very backward thinking people, who still have values like ethics and some sort of morale, one of them even wants to go back to the roots, meditation, buddhist ideals... water buffaloes, organic farming, self sufficiency - huh?!

30 Baht Insurance and OTOP is efficient enough - the people only don't know how to be thank-and grateful

Who needs this when one has enough, plenty and plenty of money - "I can show you how it is done - again If you let me I will!"

I don't mean to criticize, but does this mean something in English? Reads like Greek to me.

That early in the day, or is this just that fly on your shoulder you mistaken for Epaulets ?