DSI Chief Discredits Previous Probe Into Thai Democrat Case

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT DISSOLUTION TRIAL

DSI chief discredits previous probe into Democrat case

By Piyanuch Thamnukasetchai

The Nation

The chief of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), in his role as Democrat Party witness in one of the two dissolution cases against the party, said he was convinced the previous DSI investigation into the alleged siphoning off of funds that led to charges of concealing a donation was unjustified and unlawful.

In his testimony, director-general Tharit Pengdit told the Constitution Court that the DSI's previous investigation team had been dishonest and treated a case that should have been under the scope of the securities law as a violation against the political party law, which is beyond the agency's jurisdiction.

He also said the DSI was setting up a fact-finding team to look into a complaint that the investigative team had concocted false evidence.

Tharit submitted his six-page testimony to the court yesterday, in addition to eight pages of relevant documents.

"I have reason to believe that investigation into this case by DSI investigators of the past was not right and not in line with the law," Tharit said in his testimony, referring to the Bt258-million donation case against the ruling party.

He said former DSI chief Thawee Sodsong and certain other senior officials at the time gave misleading information to the Special Cases Committee to accept as a special case the allegations of siphoning off TPI funds. However, the investigation later focused on the Democrat Party rather than top TPI executive Prachai Leophairatana.

Tharit said he also told the court why the DSI under his leadership later decided not to pursue the case, which if true is an offence under the securities and stock exchange law.

According to a source familiar with Tharit's testimony, in May 2008 a complaint was filed accusing Prachai of making a secret donation to the Democrat Party, which was in the opposition at that time. Thawee later assigned Suchart Wong-ananchai, who was then head of the DSI's international affairs and international criminal cases, to head the investigation although it was not a special case. Tharit said that he, as the DSI deputy director-general at the time, disagreed with Thawee's order but had to follow it.

In August 2008, Thawee asked the Special Cases Committee to designate it a special case by arguing that it was securities-related, without mentioning the alleged offence as per the political party law, which comes under the authority of the Election Commission, according to Tharit's testimony.

The investigators, led by Suchart, appeared to have a hidden agenda for investigating a case as an offence that was beyond their scope of authority, the testimony said.

In October 2008, after Suchart became DSI deputy director-general, he was assigned the job of overseeing the case in Tharit's place. And Thawee appointed Worachai Arakrat as the new head of the investigative team.

Tharit's testimony was that it appeared the moves were well planned with the eventual goal of bringing about a dissolution case against the Democrat Party.

The DSI chief said in his testimony that shortly after he assumed his current post, Worachai and other members of his probe team resigned as investigators. He later appointed his deputy Narach Sawetanand to head the investigation into the original fund-siphoning-off case. The new DSI probe team decided not to pursue the case under the securities law.

Tharit's testimony said he learned later that Suchart had testified before the Constitution Court that he had a "secret audio recording", which was not among the original evidence submitted to the court. Tharit said he was suspicious why Suchart's probe team did not mention the tape in its report and why he was personally holding such an important piece of evidence.

The DSI chief's testimony also mentioned the "very close relations" between key figures of the opposition Pheu Thai Party and Thawee and Suchart. The testimony, citing "reliable information", said that the two former senior DSI officials had regularly met with leaders of Pheu Thai and the anti-government red-shirt movement during the recent political unrest in April and May.

-- The Nation 2010-10-05

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT DISSOLUTION CASE

EC case against Democrat Party very suspect: Banyat

By The Nation

Former Democrat Party leader Banyat Bantadtan yesterday voiced suspicions of possible collusion behind the dissolution case filed against the ruling party.

Testifying before the Constitution Court, Banyat said he was convinced the Election Commission officials who took the case to court were acting under pressure from the red shirts. In addition, some EC officials might have wanted to seek revenge against the party for suing a previous team of election commissioners who were later imprisoned.

Banyat, a senior party adviser for the case, said certain senior EC officials had colluded with a former chief investigator from the Department of Special Investigation in building a case against the Democrat Party for allegedly misusing a Bt29-million subsidy obtained from the Political Party Development Fund.

In the second hearing of defence witnesses, Banyat said that judging from the inaccurate and false information provided by certain witnesses, it appeared as if they were "taught" by people with inside information on how to incriminate the Democrats.

He also noted that during the recent political unrest, a large group of red-shirt protesters had stormed into the EC office. Arisman Pongruangrong, who led the mob, told the EC commissioners to choose between the dissolution of the Democrat Party or "the dissolution of their lives". Shortly afterwards, the EC decided to bring the case to court.

The court yesterday also heard testimonies and the cross-examination of three other witnesses for the Democrat Party - former Democrat secretary-general Pradit Phattaraprasit, then deputy secretary-general Nipon Bunyamanee and Democrat MP Praporn Ekuru.

Pradit said a prosecution witness had made a false statement when she told the court that the party had paid her in November 2004 for making election posters in a move to prove that the Democrats made the payment before actually obtaining the fund from EC in January. He said the payment had been made as a cheque in February 2005.

-- The Nation 2010-10-05