Dissolution Case : Thai Democrat Raises 5 Points

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT DISSOLUTION TRIAL

Dissolution case : Democrat raises 5 points

The ruling Democrat Party yesterday submitted its closing statement in writing to the Constitution Court in the dissolution case in which it is charged with misusing Bt29 million in the Political Party Fund allocated to the party in 2005.

In the closing statement, the Democrats raised five points questioning the legitimacy of the investigation that led to the charge against the party and suggesting that the punishment of party dissolution may be too severe, according to a Democrat source familiar with the case.

The party was charged with misusing Bt29 million of the Political Party Fund allocated to it in 2005.

Ramet Ratanachaweng, a member of the party's defence team, delivered 13 copies of the 172-page closing writ to the court.

He said he was assigned the job by the defence team's leader, Chuan Leekpai, who is the party's chief adviser.

Ramet said the Democrats were convinced they had given "the most complete facts and information" to the Constitution Court during the trial and would accept whatever verdict was handed down by the justices.

Chuan will call a meeting of the defence team in a day or two to prepare the final version of the oral closing statement to be read out before the court on November 29, Ramet said.

The meeting would also select the person to read out the statement, he said.

In its first argument, the defence said the Department of Special Investigation had no authority to investigate alleged misuse of the funds as that power belonged to the political party registrar, which is the role of the Election Commission chairman, according to the Democrat source.

The argument said the political party registrar had approved the party's financial statement of 2005 and therefore the charges were not warranted.

The closing statement argued that as the alleged offence took place in 2005, the Political Party Act of 1998 should have been applied, not that of 2007. While both laws penalise guilty parties by disbanding them, if the former is applied, party executives are not stripped of their electoral rights.

In the third point of argument, the party said the Election Commission had never requested the return of the allegedly misused funds. The Democrats yesterday also submitted with the closing statement an EC document stating that the funds found to have been spent differently from the original objectives must be returned to the EC.

The fourth point of argument insisted that the party's financial statement was properly and accurately prepared.

In the last point of argument, the statement said that if the party is found guilty and a dissolution verdict is reached, only the executive members of the party involved in the matter should face the political ban, according to the source.

-- The Nation 2010-10-29

[asiawatcher]

I often wonder why in this LoS where corruption is the motivation for politics, and charges laid so the opposite party can gain power or remove the competition, only to take greater advantage of mismanagement and abuse of power for financial reasons, it all seems such a wasted effort to tie up a court, legal counsel and all people associated with it when at the end of the day - when the new elections are called - it will all come to nothing anyway!

[chantorn]

I often wonder why in this LoS where corruption is the motivation for politics, and charges laid so the opposite party can gain power or remove the competition, only to take greater advantage of mismanagement and abuse of power for financial reasons, it all seems such a wasted effort to tie up a court, legal counsel and all people associated with it when at the end of the day - when the new elections are called - it will all come to nothing anyway!

TIT. Not used to it yet?

[Orac]

Seems a bit weak to me - but TIT

Point 1, that the DSI had no right to investigate, seems to avoid the issue that they had done anything wrong. Point 2 and point 5 seem to contradict each other, point 3 seems to either have lost something in translation - blaming the EC for them not giving the money back, and point 4 doesn't appear that relevant.

Maybe those more politically minded than me can find some merit in these points???

[whybother]

Seems a bit weak to me - but TIT

Point 1, that the DSI had no right to investigate, seems to avoid the issue that they had done anything wrong. Point 2 and point 5 seem to contradict each other, point 3 seems to either have lost something in translation - blaming the EC for them not giving the money back, and point 4 doesn't appear that relevant.

Maybe those more politically minded than me can find some merit in these points???

It's a bit hard to summarize 172 pages into 5 lines, so understandable that it appears a bit weak.

My view:

Point 1 - The people that should have brought the charges (political party registrar) actually approved the financial statements, so there is no reason for anyone to bring charges.

Point 2 - IF they are found guilty, the 1998 law should be used, which just disbands the party and doesn't ban the executives, instead of the 2007 law, which also bans the executives. This didn't work for the TRT.

Point 3 - IF they had actually misused funds, then the EC would have requested the return of the funds. They didn't do this, so the EC agreed that the funds were used legitimately.

Point 4 - The financial statements were properly prepared, so no reason for charges.

Point 5 - IF they are found guilty and the party is disbanded, only the executives involved should be banned. This didn't apply to the PPP.

So, if you view the points in the order of 1, 4, 3, 2, and 5, it makes a little more sense:

1) The charges shouldn't have been laid.

2) They prepared their financial statements correctly.

3) If they had misused funds, the EC would have requested the return of the funds, which they didn't, so the funds must have been used correctly.

4) If they are found guilty, the 1998 law should be used, which doesn't ban the executives.

5) If they are found guilty and the executives are to be banned, only the executives involved should be banned.

IMO, if they are found guilty, then all executives should be banned. The precedence has been set - not that precedence is necessarily used in Thai courts.

But given that the Political Party Registrar and the EC approved their financial statements, why have they been charged?

[animatic]

If the official organ doing the investigation has no authority to

investigate or bring charges, then the charges are then false.

An agreement on this and all other points are moot.

The Party Registrar already signed off on the expenditures.

in essence the registrar already has said they were approved.

And the EC also multiple times agreed this was not actionable.

An agreement on this and all other charges are moot.

If they are being charged under the wrong law or a non law,

it is a false prosecution.

The offense happened when the '98 law was in effect. The offense was from 2005, two years BEFORE the 2007 law. So if they are being charged under the 2007 law and it has no legislated provisions for RETROACTIVE affect, then it is a false prosecution.

And all other points are moot.

That the EC never made a request for return of the fund coupled with its signing off on the expenses accounting points to the EC, the official body to regulate this, as not having a problem with these issues. There was not official acceptance of a crime or breach having been committed.

The point that the EC accepted and signed off on a properly done accounting statement, points towards no breach of law. If agreed, all other points are moot.

As with PPP and TRT only the executives might potentially get banned, but because of sloppy wording of the law they are trying to get this point considered specifically. The Reds would like nothing more than have the entire Democratic party membership banned for 5 years.

Edited October 29, 2010 by animatic

[hammered]

The case has always been a lot weaker than any other diso case and it only saw the light of court time after the reds read the names and addresses of the EC members from their stage and said they couldnt guarantee the safety of these people and their families if they didnt immediatley forward the case.

The main thing about the case is poltical pressure from both sides. The Thaksin nominee part (to use Chalerms description) is obvious but also the Dems dont have a lot of freedom to do anything they want from the establishment while the case is around

[animatic]

The case has always been a lot weaker than any other diso case and it only saw the light of court time after the reds read the names and addresses of the EC members from their stage and said they couldnt guarantee the safety of these people and their families if they didnt immediatley forward the case.

The main thing about the case is poltical pressure from both sides. The Thaksin nominee part (to use Chalerms description) is obvious but also the Dems dont have a lot of freedom to do anything they want from the establishment while the case is around

The only real evidence is from printers who didn't get a free pass,

for ill planned graft via taxes avoided, and when they hit up the Dems

for extra cash and were told no. They went for revenge, and hoped for

profits to make up for their 'badly planned' bidding, with some 'help

from the opposition'. Who will grasp at any straw to ruin the Dems.

The printers didn't do their job as requested.

The Dems saw the product delivered and went to the EC,

asked for and received a sign off on slightly different specs for sign sizes,

to match what was delivered.

And then refused to pay extra to the printers,

who neglected to charge sales tax in their bids,

and then got told they must pay sales tax and

tried to hit the Dems up for more money.

And apparently later ginned up retroactive alternate receipts.

It has stunk from day one like the political long dead fish it is.

Edited October 29, 2010 by animatic

[jdinasia]

If what is being suggested in this thread is true, the outcome will be similar to that of Thaksin's former wife's case in the Radchadapisek land deal. The case falls outside of the legal framework. (The court that heard the land deal case was only empowered to take action against political office holders and she wasn't one.)

I am not sure how cut and dried the defense is. Thailand does not operate under the basic premise of legal precedent. Therefore, almost any case can be decided in almost any way. Take for example the Thaksin assets concealment case. The court made a decision that was not based upon precedent.

edit to add caveat ----- I am in no way criticizing any current or previous court decision in Thailand

Edited October 29, 2010 by jdinasia

[Hitch22]

If what is being suggested in this thread is true, the outcome will be similar to that of Thaksin's former wife's case in the Radchadapisek land deal. The case falls outside of the legal framework. (The court that heard the land deal case was only empowered to take action against political office holders and she wasn't one.)

I am not sure how cut and dried the defense is. Thailand does not operate under the basic premise of legal precedent. Therefore, almost any case can be decided in almost any way. Take for example the Thaksin assets concealment case. The court made a decision that was not based upon precedent.

edit to add caveat ----- I am in no way criticizing any current or previous court decision in Thailand

Does anyone in their right mind seriously think that the Democrat party is going to be disbanded and Abhisit forced to step down ????

Of course it won't happen . Let's be serious, we all know who class the shots here.