Attorney General Denies Bias In Pojaman Ruling

[webfact]

Attorney general denies bias in Pojaman ruling

THE NATION

The attorney-general yesterday defended his office against suspicions of political bias after the public prosecutors' decision not to bring before the Supreme Court a tax-evasion case against fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's ex-wife and her brother.

Julasing Wasantasing said he saw no need to lodge an appeal with the high court in every case.

He added that he agreed with an earlier Appeals Court verdict that overturned a lower court's ruling against Pojaman Damapong na Pombejra, her brother Bannapot Damapong, and her secretary Kanachanapa Honghern.

In 2008, the Criminal Court had sentenced Pojaman and Bannapot to three years in jail each and Kanachanapa to two years' imprisonment, for involvement in a conspiracy to evade Bt546 million in tax liabilities related to a share transaction in 2000.

On August 24 this year, the Appeals Court acquitted Pojaman and Kanachanapa on "benefit of the doubt" but upheld the guilty verdict against Bannapot. However, his sentence was reduced to a two-year suspended jail term and a fine of Bt100,000.

Julasing said yesterday that it was normal for legal professionals to have different views about certain legal points. He said that next week he would provide politicians from the opposition Democrat Party with the documents they requested regarding the public prosecutors' decision not to pursue the tax-evasion case.

The attorney-general said that on October 5 next Wednesday he would also testify before a Senate committee on the matter. "I am ready to explain to prove innocence and transparency," he said.

Yesterday the Democrats' legal team, led by deputy party leader Thaworn Senneam, called on Julasing at the Office of the Attorney-General formally to request copies of relevant documents in the tax-evasion case.

Thaworn said the case had been under widespread public attention because it involved a large amount of money and relatives of political leaders.

"The Democrat working group will study the documents involving the case to determine whether the decision by the Office of the Attorney-General is in line with [legal] principles. There was a big difference between the verdicts of the lower court and the Appeals Court," the opposition MP said.

"Tax-evasion cases involve national security and they require a good standard. Public prosecutors have the duty to protect justice for the people. They have to defend their dignity too," he said.

The attorney-general yesterday came under a barrage of fiery questions from reporters while giving an interview at his office.

In response to Julasing's remark that different views were normal among legal professionals, a reporter asked why the public prosecutors decided against bringing the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision. He said it would mean the Appeals Court's verdict was ignored, although he agreed there were some cases that would need to go to the Supreme Court after a ruling by an appellate court.

He added that the decision not to pursue the case would also help the state save money.

When asked whether the public prosecutors would have made a different decision if the defendants had been someone else, Julasing said he had not based the decision on any individuals' names. "The decision would be the same, regardless of the names."

He insisted the prosecutors acted independently and expressed wonderment as to why there was suspicion on his office, and not the Appeals Court that acquitted the defendants.

The attorney-general said anyone who suspected him of malfeasance could seek his impeachment.

-- The Nation 2011-09-30

[MILT]

Julasing said yesterday that it was normal for legal professionals to have different views about certain legal points. He said that next week he would provide politicians from the opposition Democrat Party with the documents they requested regarding the public prosecutors' decision not to pursue the tax-evasion case.

Is it normal? Points of view based on the law? Interpretation of the law? Applying the law when being a professional means just that. Julasing should be ashamed of being the Attorney General. He took an oath to not do exactly what he just did. I just hope that his decision is over turned and that Pojaman is back in court. Could it be that her brother is rubbing elbows with the Pardon Thaskin Party. We all know his view whilst looking up from the Gutter "The Shin Dynasty that is re-emerging

[FOODLOVER]

He is the Attorney General not a judge and this matter should have been presented to the court as to not put the AG's office into this position. If not corrupt then just stupid.

"He added that the decision not to pursue the case would also help the state save money".

How much will it save compared to the tax revenue? Bah mak mak!

Edited September 30, 2011 by FOODLOVER

[siampolee]

He added that the decision not to pursue the case would also help the state save money.

a conspiracy to evade Bt546 million in tax liabilities

Does this man really think that the tossing away of the above sum is cheaper than taking the matter to court and that there is indeed or was a strong possibility of the sum due being paid?

Perhaps he thinks we all came up with the sun this morning.

[OzMick]

Because of the huge sum and the people involved, IMHO the matter should have passed to the Supreme Court if only to remove the PERCEPTION of bias. But you don't earn brownie points with khun T doing that.

[webfact]

Democrat to Investigate Attorney-General Over Refusal to Appeal Case Against Thaksin's Former Wife

The Democrats have expressed suspicion after the Attorney-General opted now to file an appeal to the Supreme Court after the Appeals Court acquitted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's ex-wife in a tax evasion case.

Democrat Party deputy leader and the head of the party's legal team, Thaworn Senium has requested that the public prosecutors provide copies of the relevant documents after they decided not to bring a tax-evasion case against Pojaman Na Pombejra, fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's ex-wife, before the Supreme Court.

Thaworn said he finds the decision suspicious and vows to study all the documents from the case, including the ruling of the lower court and the Appeals Court, as well as the opinions of the Attorney-General, to find the real reason behind the ruling.

Thaworn urged the Attorney-General to state whether they can release the requested documents by October 4 and to forward all copies to his legal team by October 11.

Thaworn threatened to cite the Office Information Act to pressure the Attorney-General to reveal the documents.

He pointed out that in the event the Attorney-General refuses to release the documents, it will reflect that the trial process is not transparent.

Meanwhile, Attorney-General Julasing Wasantasing replied that he will consider the Democrat's request and make his decision before the senator's Independent Regulatory Agency on October 5.

-- Tan Network 2011-09-30

[Arkady]

"Attorney general denies bias in Pojaman ruling."

Yeah, right! If he agrees with the appeal court ruling, that means that he now disagrees with his own prosecution and wasted millions of taxpayers' money in the first place.

[Buchholz]

Democrat to Investigate Attorney-General Over Refusal to Appeal Case Against Thaksin's Former Wife

The Democrats have expressed suspicion after the Attorney-General opted now to file an appeal to the Supreme Court after the Appeals Court acquitted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's ex-wife in a tax evasion case.

In an article from the other paper yesterday, Attorney-General Julasing is pushing for a law to be enacted which would have his office exempt to any criticisms of its decisions, which would make the current Democrat inquiries illegal.