Scrapping AEC Rulings Would Spell Doom For Thailand: Chairman

[webfact]

INTERVIEW

Scrapping AEC rulings would spell doom for the country: chairman

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Amid the controversial proposals for reconciliation, the 2006 military coup and the legal effects of the Assets Examination Committee were pointed out as causes for current political conflicts. Nation News Agency's Attayuth Bootsripoom interviews former Supreme Court judge and AEC chairman Nam Yimyaem.

There has been a proposal to cancel all legal effects of the Assets Examination Committee for the purposes of reconciliation?

The AEC's work really had nothing to do with reconciliation. It was about allegations of corruption related to the country's money and damage to the country. The AEC's investigation stuck to civil and criminal laws. When we examined the cases, we let the accused people defend themselves according to their full rights. The AEC had no right to ignore those rights or take short cuts. More important, the AEC's work was not final. We had to pass it on for the attorney-general's consideration. If approved, the case was filed to the Supreme Court's division of criminal cases for political office holders. If a case was not approved, we set up a joint panel. If we agreed, we submitted the case to court; if not, the AEC filed the case alone. So the cases investigated by the AEC were completed at the court, not the AEC itself.

The AEC was criticised as being appointed by the administration established by the military coup, and therefore illegitimate, like a kangaroo court.

A military coup is undemocratic. But when the AEC was appointed, could it be dominated? Could the coup-makers dominate the AEC? No, they couldn't. All the AEC members worked to best of their ability without interference by the government.

Critics the AEC could be compared to the assets seizure committee appointed by the National Peacekeeping Council.

I don't think so. Someone asked me if I would agree to join the AEC, I don't know who it was. I don't know if it was General Sonthi or not, but he told me through someone that the AEC would be appointed. Then it was appointed. I saw it was for the country's sake and that joining it would be serving the country, so I was happy to do so. Although I realised that I would be drawing enemies, I accepted decisively.

The proposal that the AEC be abolished was based on a claim that its members were biased.

Honestly, none of the AEC members had any special sense of who was right and who was wrong. Our decisions were based on evidence and witnesses, documents and evidentiary exhibits. We examined them and reached guilty verdicts if appropriate. If we didn't think the accused people were guilty or if the evidence was insufficient, we ruled not guilty. There was no bias at all.

Many people said many of the AEC members had had cases against [fugitive former prime minister] Thaksin [shinawatra], such as Banjerd Singkaneti and Kaewsan Atibodhi. Even you were an investigator in the Thai Rak Thai dissolution case when you worked for the Election Commission.

The problem was whether Thaksin did wrong. If he did, he was guilty. If he didn't, he was not guilty. I did not aim at saying Thaksin was guilty.

Politicians say forgiveness and cancellation of cases against one another would bring reconciliation. Then they will pass an amnesty law.

The cases were handled by the AEC and ruled on by the court. How can you revoke that? The only way is to petition for royal pardon. Take the penalty first and then ask for royal pardon. Royal pardon doesn't mean not guilty. They are abusing their majority. Have they thought thoroughly whether this would violate the law? I am worried that they could be jailed for this. I warn them to look carefully into the laws. They cannot just claim the majority of votes in Parliament and decide [based on that].

King Prajadhipok's Institute's study proposed three options about the legal effects of the AEC. First, cancel the cases that haven't been ruled on. Second, cancel all of them and reintroduce them to the legal process. And third, cancel all the cases without taking legal action again. Do you agree?

The cases that have been ruled on must be final. Why would they cancel the cases and reopen them? That's not right. Why do they have to investigate retroactively and waste time and the country's money? Anyone who did wrong must accept that they were wrong. Everyone must be under the law. If they did wrong and then claimed they had many people behind them, so they were not wrong, how can that be right? If so, the law cannot be enforced in the future. Anyone with many supporters can be above the law.

Why do you think politicians are speeding up measures on reconciliation, cancellation of the AEC's legal effects and passing an amnesty law?

Considering their acts claiming many supporters, I noticed something. I doubt that they proposed to General Sonthi Boonyaratglin that the AEC cases be used for reconciliation. I will tell you, when the AEC froze the assets, powerful people called and thanked us that the government had achieved something. I didn't say who. I said powerful people. Figure out for yourself who that would be. And now just cancel the cases? What is that?

-What do you think that General Sonthi brought up the proposal to cancel the AEC work?

No comment. Please figure out.Is the atmosphere now healthy for reconciliation?

If it is according to the law, that's fine. If it's being forced through by the majority, that will mean problems and not fun.

In what form do you think reconciliation should come?

Talk. This person yields on this, that person yields on that. But please don't abuse your numbers. This is not reconciliation. They should stay away from legal cases, such as terrorism cases according to Order 66/23. Those who were accused must continue to be under the legal process. Those who were not accused are clean. Cases in police hands must be continued. As far as I remember, I was at the Supreme Court and was a judge for such cases. So [people found guilty] should come and accept their penalty and then petition for royal pardon. They must be like ordinary people, without special privileges.

-You are also among the conflicts.

No. I never have conflict with anyone. People just imagine. I follow the laws. I did my duty for the country. I did even though I was tired. I could have stayed freely at home but I worked hard on the AEC work. That was hard. All the AEC members faced the same thing. All worked actively and they were not tricky. Wrong is wrong, right is right.What if the AEC cases are cancelled?

That would be doom for the country. That would damage the country, destroy the principle of rule of law.-Do you feel uncomfortable that AEC is being accused nowadays?

That's why I give you this interview. If I'm happy why would I give interview. I'm upset that the AEC was accused all alone. They only talked half truth. They must speak all the truth. What was the AEC's authority. It had to stick with the laws. It could not override the law. The cases did not end at the AEC. We were just investigators.

-- The Nation 2012-04-06

[Thai at Heart]

What an indictment on a broken legal system.

[whybother]

Does the fact that the AEC was formed by the coup junta mean that Thaksin didn't commit any crime?

Thaksin's supporters want any investigations scrapped because other people are corrupt too. Can no-one be charged with corruption just because everyone is corrupt? Where are you supposed to start?

[phiphidon]

Considering their acts claiming many supporters, I noticed something. I doubt that they proposed to General Sonthi Boonyaratglin that the AEC cases be used for reconciliation. I will tell you, when the AEC froze the assets, powerful people called and thanked us that the government had achieved something. I didn't say who. I said powerful people. Figure out for yourself who that would be. And now just cancel the cases? What is that?

And there you have it, in a nutshell.................

[scorecard]

Considering their acts claiming many supporters, I noticed something. I doubt that they proposed to General Sonthi Boonyaratglin that the AEC cases be used for reconciliation. I will tell you, when the AEC froze the assets, powerful people called and thanked us that the government had achieved something. I didn't say who. I said powerful people. Figure out for yourself who that would be. And now just cancel the cases? What is that?

And there you have it, in a nutshell.................

"and there you have it, in a nutshell......... "

What does that mean? Please explain further.

[volk666]

Do you think Thaksin doesn't call and say thank you to officials who help him to avoid paying taxes, for example?

Working for the pleasure of powerful persons is not confined to the anti-Thaksin side, you know. Pointing that out in this interview doesn't challenge the basic logic - if a person is guilty he is guilty and the number of supporters cannot change that fact and should not allow one to be placed above the law.

Whether introducing this practice will be ruinous for Thailand or not I don't know but faith in ultimate justice is one of the most basic humans conditions. Take away that and a person would be depressed and devastated for a while. How would it scale when you apply this devastation to the whole country? How would society behave once it gets over the initial shock?

More importantly - will millions of people allow it to happen without fighting back?

[phiphidon]

Considering their acts claiming many supporters, I noticed something. I doubt that they proposed to General Sonthi Boonyaratglin that the AEC cases be used for reconciliation. I will tell you, when the AEC froze the assets, powerful people called and thanked us that the government had achieved something. I didn't say who. I said powerful people. Figure out for yourself who that would be. And now just cancel the cases? What is that?

And there you have it, in a nutshell.................

"and there you have it, in a nutshell......... "

What does that mean? Please explain further.

You should know why I cannot elaborate on this further. If you don't I suggest you investigate for yourself. I am not going to respond to your baiting. The above "interview" is an "I was only following orders" cop out.

[AleG]

Considering their acts claiming many supporters, I noticed something. I doubt that they proposed to General Sonthi Boonyaratglin that the AEC cases be used for reconciliation. I will tell you, when the AEC froze the assets, powerful people called and thanked us that the government had achieved something. I didn't say who. I said powerful people. Figure out for yourself who that would be. And now just cancel the cases? What is that?

And there you have it, in a nutshell.................

"and there you have it, in a nutshell......... "

What does that mean? Please explain further.

You should know why I cannot elaborate on this further. If you don't I suggest you investigate for yourself. I am not going to respond to your baiting. The above "interview" is an "I was only following orders" cop out.

He was congratulated for carrying out his duty, how sinister...

[FangFerang]

If a trial was inappropriately processed, declare it a mistrial and do it again. There are precedents for this process worldwide. How can any case denied an appeal ever be called final in any climate?

I am NOT siding with anyone. All courts are courts of law, not courts of justice. There are many final verdicts in every country that I follow in the news, many, and they are verdicts I do not agree with at all. The meat grinder to me is usually in the 'letter of the law versus the spirit of the law' dilemma. This interview seems generally outside the scope of that type of consideration, and (much worse) contains more than one implicit threat.

It seems to me to be too self-serving altogether to declare "it all happened fairly and no one should scrutinize our decisions".

Again, I am NOT siding with anyone. innocents are convicted and the guilty have walked away everywhere. That is why appeals are so important. Yes, appeals are the harvesting ground for ambulance-chasers and ruthless office-seeking attorneys, but without appeals there cannot even be a slight sense of justice found between the lines and letters of the law.

And God knows there is already too much injustice in this life for each of us.

[phiphidon]

Do you think Thaksin doesn't call and say thank you to officials who help him to avoid paying taxes, for example?

Working for the pleasure of powerful persons is not confined to the anti-Thaksin side, you know. Pointing that out in this interview doesn't challenge the basic logic - if a person is guilty he is guilty and the number of supporters cannot change that fact and should not allow one to be placed above the law.

Whether introducing this practice will be ruinous for Thailand or not I don't know but faith in ultimate justice is one of the most basic humans conditions. Take away that and a person would be depressed and devastated for a while. How would it scale when you apply this devastation to the whole country? How would society behave once it gets over the initial shock?

More importantly - will millions of people allow it to happen without fighting back?

Perhaps you should look at the efforts that went in to raising the Ratchada-Phisek case in the first place.

The 33 rai land was valued at around 1.3 million baht but as all the previous bidders complained about the price being too high no minimum price was set.

Then consider that out of the three bids for the 33 rai plot of land Thaksins wifes bid was the highest.

Pojaman Shinawatra - 772,000,000 baht

Land & Houses Plc - 730,000,000 baht

Noble Development - 750,000,000 baht

Then consider that out of the three adjacent plots adjacent the cultural centre that were sold by the FIDF Thaksins wife paid the most per sq.wah (1 sq.wah = 4 sq.m)

18th August 2003

35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:

538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003

33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:

772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah)

25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:

1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)

Then consider that when Pojaman was told to return the land (2010) she was paid 832 million baht (including interest @7.5% per year)

11 months later the 33 rai were sold by the FIDF for 1,815 million baht.

Yet the AEC kept on insisting that the FIDF file a complaint that there was a loss to the government involved. This they refused to do until the AEC threatened them with malfeasance. Even then they did not mention the names of Thaksin or his wife or that there was damage done to the state. Eventually the AEC filed their own complaint on behalf of the FIDF but this time naming names, and the rest as they say is history.

This information is compiled here http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/ and yes I am fully aware it is a blogger but he has done an extraordinary amount of work to compile information readily available into one place, including the trial itself.

Interesting to those of a more inquiring mind.

[h90]

Do you think Thaksin doesn't call and say thank you to officials who help him to avoid paying taxes, for example?

Working for the pleasure of powerful persons is not confined to the anti-Thaksin side, you know. Pointing that out in this interview doesn't challenge the basic logic - if a person is guilty he is guilty and the number of supporters cannot change that fact and should not allow one to be placed above the law.

Whether introducing this practice will be ruinous for Thailand or not I don't know but faith in ultimate justice is one of the most basic humans conditions. Take away that and a person would be depressed and devastated for a while. How would it scale when you apply this devastation to the whole country? How would society behave once it gets over the initial shock?

More importantly - will millions of people allow it to happen without fighting back?

Perhaps you should look at the efforts that went in to raising the Ratchada-Phisek case in the first place.

The 33 rai land was valued at around 1.3 million baht but as all the previous bidders complained about the price being too high no minimum price was set.

Then consider that out of the three bids for the 33 rai plot of land Thaksins wifes bid was the highest.

Pojaman Shinawatra - 772,000,000 baht

Land & Houses Plc - 730,000,000 baht

Noble Development - 750,000,000 baht

Then consider that out of the three adjacent plots adjacent the cultural centre that were sold by the FIDF Thaksins wife paid the most per sq.wah (1 sq.wah = 4 sq.m)

18th August 2003

35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:

538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003

33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:

772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah)

25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:

1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)

Then consider that when Pojaman was told to return the land (2010) she was paid 832 million baht (including interest @7.5% per year)

11 months later the 33 rai were sold by the FIDF for 1,815 million baht.

Yet the AEC kept on insisting that the FIDF file a complaint that there was a loss to the government involved. This they refused to do until the AEC threatened them with malfeasance. Even then they did not mention the names of Thaksin or his wife or that there was damage done to the state. Eventually the AEC filed their own complaint on behalf of the FIDF but this time naming names, and the rest as they say is history.

This information is compiled here http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/ and yes I am fully aware it is a blogger but he has done an extraordinary amount of work to compile information readily available into one place, including the trial itself.

Interesting to those of a more inquiring mind.

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

[phiphidon]

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

Sorry, what do you mean by max building high being restricted?

[phiphidon]

Do you think Thaksin doesn't call and say thank you to officials who help him to avoid paying taxes, for example?

Working for the pleasure of powerful persons is not confined to the anti-Thaksin side, you know. Pointing that out in this interview doesn't challenge the basic logic - if a person is guilty he is guilty and the number of supporters cannot change that fact and should not allow one to be placed above the law.

Whether introducing this practice will be ruinous for Thailand or not I don't know but faith in ultimate justice is one of the most basic humans conditions. Take away that and a person would be depressed and devastated for a while. How would it scale when you apply this devastation to the whole country? How would society behave once it gets over the initial shock?

More importantly - will millions of people allow it to happen without fighting back?

Perhaps you should look at the efforts that went in to raising the Ratchada-Phisek case in the first place.

The 33 rai land was valued at around 1.3 million baht but as all the previous bidders complained about the price being too high no minimum price was set.

Then consider that out of the three bids for the 33 rai plot of land Thaksins wifes bid was the highest.

Pojaman Shinawatra - 772,000,000 baht

Land & Houses Plc - 730,000,000 baht

Noble Development - 750,000,000 baht

Then consider that out of the three adjacent plots adjacent the cultural centre that were sold by the FIDF Thaksins wife paid the most per sq.wah (1 sq.wah = 4 sq.m)

18th August 2003

35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:

538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003

33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:

772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah)

25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:

1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)

Then consider that when Pojaman was told to return the land (2010) she was paid 832 million baht (including interest @7.5% per year)

11 months later the 33 rai were sold by the FIDF for 1,815 million baht.

Yet the AEC kept on insisting that the FIDF file a complaint that there was a loss to the government involved. This they refused to do until the AEC threatened them with malfeasance. Even then they did not mention the names of Thaksin or his wife or that there was damage done to the state. Eventually the AEC filed their own complaint on behalf of the FIDF but this time naming names, and the rest as they say is history.

This information is compiled here http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/ and yes I am fully aware it is a blogger but he has done an extraordinary amount of work to compile information readily available into one place, including the trial itself.

Interesting to those of a more inquiring mind.

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

OK, I presume you mean building height. Yes the building height was restricted to nine stories or approx 23 metres before the sale of land. This was the idea of the BMA but was subject to cabinet approval. And yes, this restriction was lifted after the sale, again as a result of a BMA idea but still subject to approval from the cabinet.

However as Malee Manmintra, the Deputy Director of Bangkok City Planning Department, testified, this applied to a zone within 500 metres of the subway station only. Pojaman Shiniwatras "land" was outside of this zone.

[inquisitive]

Perhaps I am missing something here. I understood the charges against Pojaman not to be that she should have paid more, but rather that she should not have been allowed to bid in the first place. Let's look at this in the abstract: If God were to place a bid on a piece of land, how many would bid against him? How much God bids would not be the issue. The bidding would have to be considered unfair no matter what the price, since other bidders would feel pressured to abstain.

If I have that concept right, then comparing prices with other properties completely misses the point.

[kimamey]

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

Sorry, what do you mean by max building high being restricted?

I'm just guessing but does it mean that the maximum height for any building on the land was restricted before the sale. Then after the sale it was either increased or the restriction was lifted completely. I would think the effect would be to keep the price low for the sale which would then increase after the restriction was lifted. I would also assume that it's being suggested that the height restriction was manipulated for personal gain.

[h90]

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

Sorry, what do you mean by max building high being restricted?

I'm just guessing but does it mean that the maximum height for any building on the land was restricted before the sale. Then after the sale it was either increased or the restriction was lifted completely. I would think the effect would be to keep the price low for the sale which would then increase after the restriction was lifted. I would also assume that it's being suggested that the height restriction was manipulated for personal gain.

exactly....

[phiphidon]

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

Sorry, what do you mean by max building high being restricted?

I'm just guessing but does it mean that the maximum height for any building on the land was restricted before the sale. Then after the sale it was either increased or the restriction was lifted completely. I would think the effect would be to keep the price low for the sale which would then increase after the restriction was lifted. I would also assume that it's being suggested that the height restriction was manipulated for personal gain.

If that were the case all three bidders who won land would have gained by the "low" prices - in fact the low prices were a realistic price for the land and the FIDF Officials ageed between themselves that if anyone bid over 750 million baht the deal would go through.

After the sale only Pojaman would not benefit from her land because it was outside the zone that had been de-restricted. The other two land buyers benefitted from being able to build higher buildings.

[phiphidon]

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

Sorry, what do you mean by max building high being restricted?

I'm just guessing but does it mean that the maximum height for any building on the land was restricted before the sale. Then after the sale it was either increased or the restriction was lifted completely. I would think the effect would be to keep the price low for the sale which would then increase after the restriction was lifted. I would also assume that it's being suggested that the height restriction was manipulated for personal gain.

exactly....

So you didn't bother reading my reply, post #13 ?

Edited April 6, 2012 by phiphidon

[geriatrickid]

Does the fact that the AEC was formed by the coup junta mean that Thaksin didn't commit any crime?

Thaksin's supporters want any investigations scrapped because other people are corrupt too. Can no-one be charged with corruption just because everyone is corrupt? Where are you supposed to start?

Nope.

However, if the AEC came about because of an illegal act, then all of its activities are not legitimate. That fact cannot be argued as it is an accepted legal principle around the developed world. That is the issue for me. No matter how much there is a denial of political interference, the AEC owes its existence to the coup, which was illegal and unconstitutional. One of the fundamental cornerstones of justice is that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial and the judge(s) must be impartial. the manner in which the trial was held and the manner in which the judges were authorized indicates at the very least the possibility of bias. In any developed country court system, that characteristic alone would be grounds to have the decision dismissed. Don't believe me? Go and ask someone with experience in court when a case is pleaded and adjudicated.

This does not mean that the decision of the AEC does not have merit or is not worth considering. IMO, the case(s) should be retried by judges appointed in the correct legal manner, not appointed by the military with a vested interest.

[phiphidon]

Perhaps I am missing something here. I understood the charges against Pojaman not to be that she should have paid more, but rather that she should not have been allowed to bid in the first place. Let's look at this in the abstract: If God were to place a bid on a piece of land, how many would bid against him? How much God bids would not be the issue. The bidding would have to be considered unfair no matter what the price, since other bidders would feel pressured to abstain.

If I have that concept right, then comparing prices with other properties completely misses the point.

Well I wouldn't have used God as an example - that only works if you are cowed by deities or even believe in them. The tenuous point that the AEC made was that the FIDF came under the jurisdiction of the state and Thaksin was PM. Also I believe that the signature of the husband is still required on signing land deeds so it would be difficult for him not to have been "involved" when Pojaman bought any land. And this was a public auction of land that the FIDF had bought from the Erawan trust which itself had seized the land over a defaulted 103 million baht loan.

Why did it take 5 months after the sale before the AEC decided to go after Thaksin and why did they put pressure on the FIDF to complain when the FIDF said that everything was legal, why did they threaten the FIDF with malfeasance and why did they finally put in a complaint themselves supposedly on behalf of the FIDF?

They wanted to screw Thaksin anyway they could.

[bigbamboo]

Do you think Thaksin doesn't call and say thank you to officials who help him to avoid paying taxes, for example?

Working for the pleasure of powerful persons is not confined to the anti-Thaksin side, you know. Pointing that out in this interview doesn't challenge the basic logic - if a person is guilty he is guilty and the number of supporters cannot change that fact and should not allow one to be placed above the law.

Whether introducing this practice will be ruinous for Thailand or not I don't know but faith in ultimate justice is one of the most basic humans conditions. Take away that and a person would be depressed and devastated for a while. How would it scale when you apply this devastation to the whole country? How would society behave once it gets over the initial shock?

More importantly - will millions of people allow it to happen without fighting back?

Perhaps you should look at the efforts that went in to raising the Ratchada-Phisek case in the first place.

The 33 rai land was valued at around 1.3 million baht but as all the previous bidders complained about the price being too high no minimum price was set.

Then consider that out of the three bids for the 33 rai plot of land Thaksins wifes bid was the highest.

Pojaman Shinawatra - 772,000,000 baht

Land & Houses Plc - 730,000,000 baht

Noble Development - 750,000,000 baht

Then consider that out of the three adjacent plots adjacent the cultural centre that were sold by the FIDF Thaksins wife paid the most per sq.wah (1 sq.wah = 4 sq.m)

18th August 2003

35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:

538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003

33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:

772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah)

25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:

1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)

Then consider that when Pojaman was told to return the land (2010) she was paid 832 million baht (including interest @7.5% per year)

11 months later the 33 rai were sold by the FIDF for 1,815 million baht.

Yet the AEC kept on insisting that the FIDF file a complaint that there was a loss to the government involved. This they refused to do until the AEC threatened them with malfeasance. Even then they did not mention the names of Thaksin or his wife or that there was damage done to the state. Eventually the AEC filed their own complaint on behalf of the FIDF but this time naming names, and the rest as they say is history.

This information is compiled here http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/ and yes I am fully aware it is a blogger but he has done an extraordinary amount of work to compile information readily available into one place, including the trial itself.

Interesting to those of a more inquiring mind.

But you forget that the max. building high was restricted BEFORE the sale and lifted AFTER the sale.

Perhaps I am missing something here. I understood the charges against Pojaman not to be that she should have paid more, but rather that she should not have been allowed to bid in the first place. Let's look at this in the abstract: If God were to place a bid on a piece of land, how many would bid against him? How much God bids would not be the issue. The bidding would have to be considered unfair no matter what the price, since other bidders would feel pressured to abstain.

If I have that concept right, then comparing prices with other properties completely misses the point.

Exactly. The deal was illegal in the first place because it is expressly forbidden for government officials or their families to buy government land as the practice would be open to abuse... as we saw here. Thaksin was charged for abusing his position to facilitate the deal.

And 33 rai for a private residence in BKK? I don't think so!

Edited April 6, 2012 by bigbamboo

[h90]

Does the fact that the AEC was formed by the coup junta mean that Thaksin didn't commit any crime?

Thaksin's supporters want any investigations scrapped because other people are corrupt too. Can no-one be charged with corruption just because everyone is corrupt? Where are you supposed to start?

Nope.

However, if the AEC came about because of an illegal act, then all of its activities are not legitimate. That fact cannot be argued as it is an accepted legal principle around the developed world. That is the issue for me. No matter how much there is a denial of political interference, the AEC owes its existence to the coup, which was illegal and unconstitutional. One of the fundamental cornerstones of justice is that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial and the judge(s) must be impartial. the manner in which the trial was held and the manner in which the judges were authorized indicates at the very least the possibility of bias. In any developed country court system, that characteristic alone would be grounds to have the decision dismissed. Don't believe me? Go and ask someone with experience in court when a case is pleaded and adjudicated.

This does not mean that the decision of the AEC does not have merit or is not worth considering. IMO, the case(s) should be retried by judges appointed in the correct legal manner, not appointed by the military with a vested interest.

You confuse here many things:

the coup wasn't illegal!

Per definition are unsuccessful coups illegal and successful coups legal. Same as for revolutions and similar changes. Else we would all still live in absolute monarchies worldwide and America would be under the rule of the British Queen.

And the AEC isn't illegal because I am sure there are the laws for it.

But even if that all would be illegal, it does not make the evidence against Thaksin wrong.

Courts rule on the evidence (and on how much is in the pastry box, Mr. T. sends them) and not on the source of evidence.

[retarius]

I guess this is good news for Supoj

[OzMick]

The AEC is an investigative body which presents evidence to a court which decides if an offense has been committed by the nominated person.

The legality, or lack of it, of the AEC is irrelevant, the court decided that a crime had been committed. Tough TIT Thaksin.

I find that process far more ethical and legal than when what appears to be an obvious crime fails to reach court because persons subject to influence decide that there is no case to answer. IMHO should the court decision be voided, Thaksin would end up in the same position as Ying-lucky.

[phiphidon]

The AEC is an investigative body which presents evidence to a court which decides if an offense has been committed by the nominated person.

The legality, or lack of it, of the AEC is irrelevant, the court decided that a crime had been committed. Tough TIT Thaksin.

I find that process far more ethical and legal than when what appears to be an obvious crime fails to reach court because persons subject to influence decide that there is no case to answer. IMHO should the court decision be voided, Thaksin would end up in the same position as Ying-lucky.

Well how do you feel about the secretary of the AEC/ASC declaring that "witnesses and evidence are rubbish". You happy with that kind of legality?

A sub-panel of the Assets Scrutiny Committee investigating the Shinawatra family's alleged assets concealment has decided to recommend that the ASC take legal action against the family without waiting for some 300 other defense witnesses to testify. ASC secretary Kaewsan Atipho, who also sits on the sub-committee, said the panel decided to conclude its investigation into the case in which former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife Potjaman were accused of failing to declare their shares in Shin Corp during Mr Thaksin's time in office.

There was no need to consider some 100 additional pieces of evidence or hear the testimony of more than 300 other defense witnesses, said Mr Kaewsan.

''Those evidence and witnesses are useless. Most of them are company staff, former and current MPs and senators. What we have in our investigation [report] now is complete,'' he said.

http://www.asiaviews...eports&Itemid=9

[OzMick]

The AEC is an investigative body which presents evidence to a court which decides if an offense has been committed by the nominated person.

The legality, or lack of it, of the AEC is irrelevant, the court decided that a crime had been committed. Tough TIT Thaksin.

I find that process far more ethical and legal than when what appears to be an obvious crime fails to reach court because persons subject to influence decide that there is no case to answer. IMHO should the court decision be voided, Thaksin would end up in the same position as Ying-lucky.

Well how do you feel about the secretary of the AEC/ASC declaring that "witnesses and evidence are rubbish". You happy with that kind of legality?

A sub-panel of the Assets Scrutiny Committee investigating the Shinawatra family's alleged assets concealment has decided to recommend that the ASC take legal action against the family without waiting for some 300 other defense witnesses to testify. ASC secretary Kaewsan Atipho, who also sits on the sub-committee, said the panel decided to conclude its investigation into the case in which former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife Potjaman were accused of failing to declare their shares in Shin Corp during Mr Thaksin's time in office.

There was no need to consider some 100 additional pieces of evidence or hear the testimony of more than 300 other defense witnesses, said Mr Kaewsan.

''Those evidence and witnesses are useless. Most of them are company staff, former and current MPs and senators. What we have in our investigation [report] now is complete,'' he said.

http://www.asiaviews...eports&Itemid=9ur

I'm surprised your name wasn't mentioned. If sufficient evidence of a crime committed has been presented, in this case documents of land title transfer, what is a pack of Shinawatra lackeys and sycophants going to say to alter that? AEC collects evidence for prosecution, not defense; courts make the decision as to guilt. What part of that is hard to understand?

[phiphidon]

The AEC is an investigative body which presents evidence to a court which decides if an offense has been committed by the nominated person.

The legality, or lack of it, of the AEC is irrelevant, the court decided that a crime had been committed. Tough TIT Thaksin.

I find that process far more ethical and legal than when what appears to be an obvious crime fails to reach court because persons subject to influence decide that there is no case to answer. IMHO should the court decision be voided, Thaksin would end up in the same position as Ying-lucky.

Well how do you feel about the secretary of the AEC/ASC declaring that "witnesses and evidence are rubbish". You happy with that kind of legality?

A sub-panel of the Assets Scrutiny Committee investigating the Shinawatra family's alleged assets concealment has decided to recommend that the ASC take legal action against the family without waiting for some 300 other defense witnesses to testify. ASC secretary Kaewsan Atipho, who also sits on the sub-committee, said the panel decided to conclude its investigation into the case in which former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife Potjaman were accused of failing to declare their shares in Shin Corp during Mr Thaksin's time in office.

There was no need to consider some 100 additional pieces of evidence or hear the testimony of more than 300 other defense witnesses, said Mr Kaewsan.

''Those evidence and witnesses are useless. Most of them are company staff, former and current MPs and senators. What we have in our investigation [report] now is complete,'' he said.

http://www.asiaviews...eports&Itemid=9ur

I'm surprised your name wasn't mentioned. If sufficient evidence of a crime committed has been presented, in this case documents of land title transfer, what is a pack of Shinawatra lackeys and sycophants going to say to alter that? AEC collects evidence for prosecution, not defense; courts make the decision as to guilt. What part of that is hard to understand?

The part where when gathering evidence to see whether a case should be heard by a court, it takes some defence evidence and witnesses but not all, it's called cherrypicking. That's what I find hard to understand. Doesn't sound very thorough to me. The FIDF said there was no case to answer. The AEC wouldn't have been in any position to push the case forward if there wasn't a complaint. In the end the AEC wrote the complaint themselves. Checks and Balances, my A.

Perhaps if you could take time off from throwing insults around and read the background and the witness statements on both sides (such as there is on the defence side) it might enlighten you, but I doubt it.

[OzMick]

Too hard for you, it seems. Guilt or innocence is not decided by a government department whose employees are subject to influence. If sufficient reason is suspected, an independent body such as the AEC collects evidence sufficient for prosecution and presents to an independent court, who then decides guilt or innocence.

I don't care if your A is checked, striped or polka-dotted. That is how things did, and should, work.

It is my fondest hope that some day whoever came up with "lying in court is not perjury if you're not the accused" gets to explain that before a judge. It is a perfect example of why independent investigative bodies and courts are required.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

What an indictment on a broken legal system.

Can no-one be charged with corruption just because everyone is corrupt? Where are you supposed to start?

Yes it is broken. Yes they are all corrupt. There is nothing to be gained by going through multiple circuses of pretending to serve justice but continued conflict and uncertainty.

Thaksin won, he bought the country again fair and square. Put the old constitution back, let him return, drop all charges and wipe the slate clean on all sides.

That's the definition of reconciliation and the only way the government can start to actually try to be effective at taking care of all the other real problems the country is facing, it obviously doesn't work for Thaksin to have to try to manage everything by remote control from Dubai.

If people want to try to go through the motions of having a "fair and just rule of law" legal system, good luck IMO that's impossible to the fundamental flaws at a social/cultural level, nothing to do with "politics" and again IMO they shouldn't even bother trying.

[rubl]

Well how do you feel about the secretary of the AEC/ASC declaring that "witnesses and evidence are rubbish". You happy with that kind of legality?

A sub-panel of the Assets Scrutiny Committee investigating the Shinawatra family's alleged assets concealment has decided to recommend that the ASC take legal action against the family without waiting for some 300 other defense witnesses to testify. ASC secretary Kaewsan Atipho, who also sits on the sub-committee, said the panel decided to conclude its investigation into the case in which former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife Potjaman were accused of failing to declare their shares in Shin Corp during Mr Thaksin's time in office.

There was no need to consider some 100 additional pieces of evidence or hear the testimony of more than 300 other defense witnesses, said Mr Kaewsan.

''Those evidence and witnesses are useless. Most of them are company staff, former and current MPs and senators. What we have in our investigation [report] now is complete,'' he said.

http://www.asiaviews...eports&Itemid=9ur

I'm surprised your name wasn't mentioned. If sufficient evidence of a crime committed has been presented, in this case documents of land title transfer, what is a pack of Shinawatra lackeys and sycophants going to say to alter that? AEC collects evidence for prosecution, not defense; courts make the decision as to guilt. What part of that is hard to understand?

The part where when gathering evidence to see whether a case should be heard by a court, it takes some defence evidence and witnesses but not all, it's called cherrypicking. That's what I find hard to understand. Doesn't sound very thorough to me. The FIDF said there was no case to answer. The AEC wouldn't have been in any position to push the case forward if there wasn't a complaint. In the end the AEC wrote the complaint themselves. Checks and Balances, my A.

Perhaps if you could take time off from throwing insults around and read the background and the witness statements on both sides (such as there is on the defence side) it might enlighten you, but I doubt it.

I'm a bit confused by all this. There seems to be a suggestion that 'cherry picking' happened but obviously only by the AEC. Seems strange that after the case was forwarded to court, the defence lawyers didn't pick up on this. Does that make the conviction in absentia and the lack of a timely appeal to a higher authority court a fault of k. Thaksin's legal representatives? Does this explain why k. Thaksin after giving his word in writing simply didn't return from the Bejing Olympic Games?