Top red shirts buoyed by court verdict on arson
Opas Boonlom
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Red-shirt leaders' spirits have been lifted by the recent Ratchadaphisek Civil Court ruling that the arson attacks at CentralWorld and Zen Department Stores were not acts of terrorism while ordering Deves Insurance to pay more than Bt5 billion in compensation to Central group.

The court ruled that the attacks were not terrorism because the attackers had set the two department stores ablaze after the red-shirt leaders had called off the rally, hence the arson attacks were not politically motivated.

Besides, testimonies given to the court by the defendant Deves Insurance did not reveal that the arson attack was ordered by the red-shirt leaders.

The court ruled that the attacks followed riots, which were covered by the insurance policies that the Central group had bought from the insurance companies.

Red-shirt lawyers are seeking a copy of the court ruling in both cases to fight the terrorism case filed against them at the Criminal Court.

However, red-shirt leaders can't easily take advantage of this because cases against them have also been filed at Southern Bangkok Civil Court by people whose houses were burnt down in arson attacks. The court ruled in August 2011 that the attack was terrorism as it was aimed less at damaging assets but with a motive to oust the government. So, Southeast Insurance did not have to pay compensation as terrorism was not covered by the plaintiff's policies.

The two civil courts interpreted the 2010 red-shirt rally differently. The former believes the crisis was not terrorism, while the latter thinks it was. It's possible the two courts have different opinions on the same matter, as testimonies given during the trials could be different.

Or, different judges could have different perspectives on the same issue.

What remains to be seen is how the civil court rulings will impact the criminal case against the red-shirt leaders, even though a ruling by one court is not binding on other courts.

In criminal cases, the arson attack on CentralWorld was just one of several acts allegedly committed by the reds.

The public will have to wait and see if red-shirt chiefs will escape jail over the terrorism charges.


-- The Nation 2013-03-11

Of course they were politically motivated, my guess is this judge was motivated by the big insurance payout. Wonder what his cut of the proceeds is? If this ruling stands, all any terrorist organization will have to do in the future is make a statement that they are no longer protesting...before sending in their bombers or arsonists.

Idiot.

Edited March 11, 201313 yr by pumpuiman

The court ruled that the attacks were not terrorism because the attackers had set the two department stores ablaze after the red-shirt leaders had called off the rally, hence the arson attacks were not politically motivated.

I am unsure I have ever heard such nonsense in my life. "right boys go and burn Central down and raize Bangkok to the ground, and by the way this rally is officially terminated so don't blame us".

Besides, testimonies given to the court by the defendant Deves Insurance did not reveal that the arson attack was ordered by the red-shirt leaders

I think Deves Insurers need to get themselves new lawyers and ask the lawyers that they did have why the clips of the red leaders on stage ordering the burning were not shown in court.

I guess with 5 billion baht at stake then the party offering the biggest incentive won!

I find it shocking that anybody with a brain could read and accept the rationale as published.

If the arson attacks following the end of the protest were not politically motivated terrorism, it follows that they were common, garden-variety criminality induced my a massive dummy-spit reaction to not getting their own way.

If so, why should an amnesty for crimes committed during a political protest apply?

What a piss-poor result and a travesty of justice, clearly manipulated and possibly corrupt as it comes from the very people who are supposed to uphold the law. Definitively it was known to be able to happen as motor mouth Jutaporn and others had already incited the cry for 'burn Bangkok'. However, it was simply a callous act, performed by thugs and as yet, no-one (surprise, surprise) has been held accountable. So with any act of terrorism, often the offenders are not caught. The insurance company should be counter claiming against the Red Govt and Thaksin who paid these people but I guess with out any positive proof (how convenient), they can pass this off any way they wish.

What a piss-poor result and a travesty of justice, clearly manipulated and possibly corrupt as it comes from the very people who are supposed to uphold the law. Definitively it was known to be able to happen as motor mouth Jutaporn and others had already incited the cry for 'burn Bangkok'. However, it was simply a callous act, performed by thugs and as yet, no-one (surprise, surprise) has been held accountable. So with any act of terrorism, often the offenders are not caught. The insurance company should be counter claiming against the Red Govt and Thaksin who paid these people but I guess with out any positive proof (how convenient), they can pass this off any way they wish.

I think there is lots of positive proof, but it needs a lawyer and investigative team that will do their duty properly, and not be swayed by the size of counter payments, offered to achieve the opposite.

So it looks as if the reds defence against the accusation that they were committing terrorist offences is that they were merely undertaking criminal activities? Next stage is to show that anybody convicted of said criminal activities was acting solely under their own steam and not 'directed' as part of the red movement. Fake reds anyone?

Another weird verdict from our learned thai judges, the whole lot where acting against the state, who cares if the politicians had left the area, everyone of them are culpable

Research who owns the land under Central World, and you will realize why the ruling went in favor of Central World for the insurance payout....

The court ruled that the attacks were not terrorism because the attackers had set the two department stores ablaze after the red-shirt leaders had called off the rally, hence the arson attacks were not politically motivated.

I am unsure I have ever heard such nonsense in my life. "right boys go and burn Central down and raize Bangkok to the ground, and by the way this rally is officially terminated so don't blame us".

>Besides, testimonies given to the court by the defendant Deves Insurance did not reveal that the arson attack was ordered by the red-shirt leaders

I think Deves Insurers need to get themselves new lawyers and ask the lawyers that they did have why the clips of the red leaders on stage ordering the burning were not shown in court.

I guess with 5 billion baht at stake then the party offering the biggest incentive won!

I find it shocking that anybody with a brain could read and accept the rationale as published.

We all know how Thai courts operate on a basis of independence, rationality and equity plus a healthy dose of commonsense

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem that is created by not having precedent law to bind judgements. Every court is in a position to decide the absolute merits of every case, to splitting hairs on the definition of terrorism depending on seconds or moments of time. If the leaders tell their supporters to burn places down and they are present on a stage it is terrorism, but if they aren't present on a stage it is arson? What if someone acts today on the basis of propaganda they heard on the stage? That is arson because it comes after the protest?

I for one, thought straight away that the government started describing the protests as terrorism that it would cause huge problems with insurance, and subsequent judgements.

If they had stuck to offences such as incitement to violence, incitement to arson, theft, arson and the such, none of these issues would have arisen, but covering political protest with terrorism has complicated the whole issue. How can they try the leaders for terrorism, but claim that the acts of damage that occured by the supporters were in some cases terrorism and in others arson, when the acts are to all intents and purposes identical?

It's a conundrum. If ruled terrorism, as defined by the Govt's emergency decree at the time, the the insurance company can get out of paying. What exactly is terrorism however. It was certainly arson and certainly politically motivated since it took place during the Ratchaprasong siege, on a large scale, aimed at targets deemed part of the elite establishment, and incited by clear statements of encouragement made from the stage.

Excerpt from OP: "The court ruled that the attacks were not terrorism because the attackers had set the two department stores ablaze after the red-shirt leaders had called off the rally, hence the arson attacks were not politically motivated."

If the insurance company (and the Thai people) want a fair verdict, they need to get better lawyers, and hope they get objective and clear-thinking judges.

Alternatively, since Thaksin is super rich and has been known to pay for anything which benefits his Red brethren, it's not outlandish to perceive that he may have made a clandestine deal to reimburse the Insurance company, in order to pave a rosier path for the Reds.

Criminal law and civil law are two different things. Their defination of terrorism is not necesarrily the same.

I have a problem reconciling that this was not an act of terrorism and the Red Shirt leaders are culpable and that Kamnan Pho was convicted of murder for hiring a gunman to blow a political opponent away.

I have a problem reconciling that this was not an act of terrorism and the Red Shirt leaders are culpable and that Kamnan Pho was convicted of murder for hiring a gunman to blow a political opponent away.

Well, then the insurers don't pay, and that causes a biiiiiig problem.

Thai law is an arson.

Sickening, but not unexpected.

Research who owns the land under Central World, and you will realize why the ruling went in favor of Central World for the insurance payout....

The problem with that is that the Central World land & the insurance company (Deves) are both owned by the Crown Property Bureau. So, I think you can rule out that particular angle.

I'd suspect this is simply a case where money trumps everything else.

If the insurer was not held responsible in the civil case, then presumably CentralWorld would be stuck with the very large bill for repairing/rebuilding the mall. And the company, a very large and economically powerful one, clearly didn't want that, and presumably did whatever they could do to achieve that result.

As for the pending terrorism criminal cases, as noted, Thai courts aren't beholden to precedent or rulings by other judges in related cases. The opposite verdicts in different insurance cases associated with the arson clearly show that. Someone else above also pointed out that the legal definitions on the civil and criminal sides are probably different as well.

Thus, the criminal terrorism cases probably will proceed to whatever destined fate they're headed for -- with that outcome probably not influenced too much or at all on the courts' rulings in the insurance cases. In all likelihood, those facing the terrorism charges will be found guilty of littering and given one or two year suspended sentences...and then appointed to Cabinet positions.

I'd suspect this is simply a case where money trumps everything else.

If the insurer was not held responsible in the civil case, then presumably CentralWorld would be stuck with the very large bill for repairing/rebuilding the mall. And the company, a very large and economically powerful one, clearly didn't want that, and presumably did whatever they could do to achieve that result.

As for the pending terrorism criminal cases, as noted, Thai courts aren't beholden to precedent or rulings by other judges in related cases. The opposite verdicts in different insurance cases associated with the arson clearly show that. Someone else above also pointed out that the legal definitions on the civil and criminal sides are probably different as well.

Thus, the criminal terrorism cases probably will proceed to whatever destined fate they're headed for -- with that outcome probably not influenced too much or at all on the courts' rulings in the insurance cases. In all likelihood, those facing the terrorism charges will be found guilty of littering and given one or two year suspended sentences...and then appointed to Cabinet positions.

Ah, a civil terrorism case. How does that happen?

Surely you need a person or group to accuse directly?

Edited March 11, 201313 yr by Thai at Heart

Criminal law and civil law are two different things. Their defination of terrorism is not necesarrily the same.

Correct. This case sought a ruling on whether Zen's insurance carrier could invoke a terrorism exclusion contained within the insurance policy. Terrorism had to be defined by the insurance policy, and any criminal definitions of terrorism are irrelevant. Nevertheless, knowing how the Thai justice system works, this case came down to whether the court felt Zen had a reasonable business expectation that this type of act would be covered by the policy. Vandalism would probably be covered, but not a 9/11 type attack. For public policy reasons, the court shifted the risk of this loss to the insurer. Anyone who thinks this somehow vindicated or changed the criminal nature of the acts of the red shirts is delusional.

hence the arson attacks were not politically motivated

Weeks of shoutcasts, hatespeeches, 'till the last drop of our blood', followed by "it's over, go home". The arson might not be an act of terrorism, but I would suspect at least a possible relation with actions in deed and speech by our beloved Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders and even those UDD leaders who didn't make it on the party list.

Ah, a civil terrorism case. How does that happen?

Surely you need a person or group to accuse directly?

I was talking about the insurance cases being heard in the civil court system here...as opposed to the pending criminal court terrorism cases.

My post never talked about any "civil terrorism" case... Just the insurance cases and the criminal terrorism ones.

Edited March 12, 201313 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

aren't judges supposed to be clever??

obviously not in this case!!!

... or is this judge receiving a nice "pay-off" ?

aren't judges supposed to be clever??

obviously not in this case!!!

... or is this judge receiving a nice "pay-off" ?

Not sure cash is involved, but IMHO there is enormous political pressure to avoid the term "terrorism". Quite a few PTP party list MPs are facing terrorism charges laid during the previous administation, and if found guilty PTP could fairly be labelled as a party that used in terrorism in an attempt to overthrow the government of the day.