NACC warned it may face malfeasance charges

[webfact]

NACC warned it may face malfeasance charges



BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission was warned today that they might face charge of malfeasance in office in accordance with Article 157 of the Criminal Code for their refusal to allow seven more witnesses to testify in the defence of the premier and their refusal to check rice stocks.

Mr Bancha Parameesanaporn, a lawyer in charge of defending Ms Yingluck against the accusation of negligence of duty over the rice pledging scheme, said today that he would submit the last clarification to the NACC to reaffirm that the prime minister did not committee any wrongdoing as accused nor did she was negligent for not properly overseeing the rice pledging scheme.

Mr Bancha accused the NACC of not being fair to the prime minister for its refusal to allow seven more defence witnesses to testify and for its refusal to conduct field examination of rice stocks to prove wrong a report that over two million tonnes of rice have disappeared from the government’s rice stockpiles.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nacc-warned-may-face-malfeasance-charges/


-- Thai PBS 2014-05-01

[pmugghc]

Bkk Post has an article where Transparency International is urging the government to stop intimidating the NACC.

[NongKhaiKid]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

[Dr Bruce]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

[NongKhaiKid]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

I completely agree the courts and so much more here needs reform but reform is a multi-edged sword and tends to mean ' My Way '.

[WoopyDoo]

Hurry up and lodge your complaint to the courts so it can be instantly thrown out and they can get on with the job of cutting this cancer out of the nation before any more damage is done.... Just ask where the 600 Bn baht is... not the rice.... THE MONEY!!!!!

The rice scheme is CORRUPT from end to end, so stop standing there threatening to sue the agencies and show us where the 600 Bn went.

Edited May 1, 2014 by WoopyDoo

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Bkk Post has an article where Transparency International is urging the government to stop intimidating the NACC.

Every good member of TV has also been conveying that message , it borders on contempt of court.

[Thait Spot]

The NACC has bent over backwards to accommodate Yingluck and this is their reward

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[gabruce]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

I don't believe that is correct. I think there is a limit to how many witnesses and possibly whether they are relevant, otherwise some trial could go on until the defense has called a few billion witnesses. Having said that, I think that the NACC has made a mistake. Even if the witnesses are totally irrelevant, they should have allowed them to avoid the appearance of doing anything incorrectly. Of course, this is the NACC. It's up to the Senate to decide what to do with the recommendation of the NACC.

[Ricardo]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

But the NACC isn't a court as-such, this isn't some criminal case being tried under normal legal-rules, where you might have a point.

They're simply investigating, whether she might have a case to answer, for not having done her job (as head of the rice-committee) properly.

Allowing PTP/Yingluck's legal-advisers to keep calling more and more new witnesses, who don't add anything to the basic information they already have, was simply a delaying-tactic, would you not agree ?

At some point the NACC have to make a decision. Up to them, when they judge that point has been reached, not up to the caretaker-PM's lawyers.

Meanwhile warnings about facing malfeasance-charges simply give the impression that they're trying to pressure the NACC on their decision. How fair or just would that be ?

[NongKhaiKid]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

I don't believe that is correct. I think there is a limit to how many witnesses and possibly whether they are relevant, otherwise some trial could go on until the defense has called a few billion witnesses. Having said that, I think that the NACC has made a mistake. Even if the witnesses are totally irrelevant, they should have allowed them to avoid the appearance of doing anything incorrectly. Of course, this is the NACC. It's up to the Senate to decide what to do with the recommendation of the NACC.

I am more than willing to be corrected but I understand some of YL's witnesses were in essence ' character witnesses ' who, in other jurisdictions, are only called after a finding of guilt as part of mitigation.

If a defence witness is called to say YL didn't know what was going on as she never attended any rice committee meetings would simply be putting the noose around her neck but TIT so who knows ?

[chotthee]

Yingluck has already drag the case too long already.

Enough is enough.

Take off to Dubai now.

[pisico]

National Anti-Corruption Commission has already been categorically clear on the subject:

More witnesses? Not allowed.

We already have the necessary information...(to convict YS?)

To deny witnesses to a defendant shows bias.

So much for impartiality.

The NACC are clearly not on the side of blind justice. Then again, TIT

[GeorgeO]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

In most democratic countries, a person is given a specific time frame in which to prepare their case. If they do not meet the deadline, then tough, they must proceed with what they have prepared on the appointed date.

The NACC is aware that YL puts forward names of witnesses who suddenly find that they have to be at meetings elsewhere, thereby leading to a request for a further extension to prepare other witnesses.

Playing for time in such a way is not allowed in democratic countries, so it is clear that the NACC is trying to uphold real democratic principles in the face of PTP shenanigans...!!

[JesseFrank]

Is this the Thai version of the men in black ?

[Thaddeus]

I believe that anyone who wants to stand up and defend Yingluck, and therefore publicly hang themselves, should be given the chance to do so.

Didn't a couple of the original ones realise this, and suddenly became too busy doing other stuff.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Thaddeus

[srsv1238]

Bkk Post has an article where Transparency International is urging the government to stop intimidating the NACC.

Source please. How is this intimidation? It seems it is the NACC that is intimidating the PM by not allowing the PM to defend herself. Perhaps they have long ago made up their minds on this case.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[srsv1238]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

In most democratic countries, a person is given a specific time frame in which to prepare their case. If they do not meet the deadline, then tough, they must proceed with what they have prepared on the appointed date.

The NACC is aware that YL puts forward names of witnesses who suddenly find that they have to be at meetings elsewhere, thereby leading to a request for a further extension to prepare other witnesses.

Playing for time in such a way is not allowed in democratic countries, so it is clear that the NACC is trying to uphold real democratic principles in the face of PTP shenanigans...!!

Thailand is not a democracy. The majority wants democracy, but the few who ultimately rule Thailand do not want it because it would mean the dissolution of their power and favored positions.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Edited May 1, 2014 by srsv1238

[pmugghc]

Bkk Post has an article where Transparency International is urging the government to stop intimidating the NACC.

Source please. How is this intimidation? It seems it is the NACC that is intimidating the PM by not allowing the PM to defend herself. Perhaps they have long ago made up their minds on this case.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Search Bkk Post. We are not allowed to link to their site.

[drand11]

Go ahead and lodge the complaint with the Dems/PDRC....we all know that they setup the NACC and the NACC works for them. Its truly a job.

A few farmers complain of improprieties...(Since they haven't been paid)..and now, they try to unseat the PM. ONLY IN THAILAND!!

[drand11]

The PM doesn't even oversee the Rice Scheme. The GOVERMENT set it up so that the Commerce Dept. oversees the Rice Scheme Administration.

So why isn't the head of Commerce Dept. being removed?

This is all just politics. Let it be in Thailand.

[Bignose]

This is a government well versed and rehearsed in manipulating due process, by the very nature of their behavior and previous performance they do not want this investigation to be concluded! They know there are irregularities in how this scheme was structured and operated, how do they know? because that was their intention from day one. None of what happened with this scheme has been "by accident" This has been a well orchestrated en devour to re-distribute massive amounts of money from the country (and the people who need it most) to the family members, cronies and business associates of the people entrusted by the nation to run and protect the national finances.

A shockingly blatant attempt to pressure the NACC and to once again manipulate due process, just another ruse to try and delay the inevitable verdict.

I am no expert on Thai law but it seems to me that this commission had a very clear remit, they were to investigate the scheme and discover if there had been any corruption, maladministration and negligence during the formation and running of the scheme. I would suggest that they initially have identified the people who were most involved in the legitimate operation of this scheme, they would be the ones with the knowledge of any negligence/corruption. They have now spoken with these people and have the information they require.

Without preempting the final verdict it would appear to me they now have enough hard evidence of what has actually taken place, character witnesses or testimony from people not involved in this debacle are now a waste of time and unnecessary!

The NACC should now move forward swiftly and end the uncertainty, publish the findings sooner rather than later and expose the involved people for what they are, they are not people of honor nor do they have a sense of duty to the people who elected them and pay their wages. They will not "stand down" or take responsibility for what they have done, we need the findings published so we can help them on their way, for the good of all Thailand.

[Scamper]

This wouldn't be so funny if the witnesses that have already been heard didn't already turn out to be an absolute fizzle. Surely, one would think that Yingluck's lawyers would have pushed the very best, most convincing witnesses first, instead of suddenly dreaming up other names so far into the process. And not only have these witnesses been woefully ineffective - even embarrassing - in conveying any grasp of what they professionally ought to know - but are suddenly just as unavailable when they have been allowed. And now this, charging the NACC with malfeasance. And what court will accept such a ridiculous case ? To whom is Pheu Thai proposing this to ? Cameramen ? The NACC has the power to conduct this investigation as they see fit. They make their recommendations to the Senate, and the Senate takes over. That's the constitutional process.The misnomer that Pheu Thai have latched onto is the rice storage issue. Yes, there is plenty of skepticism all round as to what has been going on there. But it has nothing to do with what Yingluck is charged with. Rest assured, Pheu Thai, there is plenty of time later on to investigate all criminal aspects of this case - likely enough to occupy the courts and historians for years - if they are allowed to, that is. But Pheu Thai is in the business of not letting the courts or the independent agencies do anything. Pheu Thai is in the business of obstruction. Yes, this is most definitively contempt of court, and those who suggest otherwise have no concept of their own country.

[angmo]

Amazing how everyone bitches about Yingluck wanting more witnesses, time, rice checks and call it intimidation. What about Suthep completely defying the court by not turning up because he is busy inciting insurrection?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[JesseFrank]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Go ahead and lodge the complaint with the Dems/PDRC....we all know that they setup the NACC and the NACC works for them. Its truly a job.

A few farmers complain of improprieties...(Since they haven't been paid)..and now, they try to unseat the PM. ONLY IN THAILAND!!

The PM doesn't even oversee the Rice Scheme. The GOVERMENT set it up so that the Commerce Dept. oversees the Rice Scheme Administration.

So why isn't the head of Commerce Dept. being removed?

This is all just politics. Let it be in Thailand.

I think you should read up a bit before you comment.

Yingluck is the chairperson of the rice pledging committee, therefor is responsible for what went wrong, and was informed by NACC about the ongoing corruption long time ago

[JesseFrank]

Amazing how everyone bitches about Yingluck wanting more witnesses, time, rice checks and call it intimidation. What about Suthep completely defying the court by not turning up because he is busy inciting insurrection?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Suthep is indicted already and waiting the courtcase.

The NACC is now considering if they will indict Yingluck or not .

[h90]

National Anti-Corruption Commission has already been categorically clear on the subject:

More witnesses? Not allowed.

We already have the necessary information...(to convict YS?)

To deny witnesses to a defendant shows bias.

So much for impartiality.

The NACC are clearly not on the side of blind justice. Then again, TIT

yes let her come with another 700 witnesses and all will delay their appearance for some important reasons to drag out the case for another 15 years.....

And than have the NACC inspect every warehouse (hundreds, thousands?) like the PTP want.

There is very obvious enough information which is beyond any doubt.

[sweatalot]

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need.

I don't think so.

If the guilt is already proven any more witnesses to prove lack of guilt are unnecessary.

Allowing more witnesses would anly waste tax payers money and the time of the court - and would allow the culprit's party more time to hide evidence and create more delusion.

[drand11]

Note -

- Yingluk is not up on any Criminal Charges. lets all be clear of this. This is simply an issue of whether or not she did her job properly. No criminal charges.

- She is charged with failure to take action when told that there MAY be mismanagment of the Rice Scheme.

- She is charged with improper firing of an employee.

- The PDRC folks stands in the streets in honor of a man that is up on Insurrection charges.

- The Dem's Leader is up on Murder Charges.

I suppose you get the point.

[fab4]

Bkk Post has an article where Transparency International is urging the government to stop intimidating the NACC.

No it hasn't got an article "where Transparency International is urging the government to stop intimidating the NACC"

Don't lie.

The article reports that Transparency International called on the pro governement supporters to stop intimidating the government by barricading its offices and claiming it was biased.