Graft buster rules Yingluck guilty

[Emster23]

Show me a Thai politician not involved with graft and I'll show you a person in a coma. It's why they get into politics, of every stripe (Suthep and land deals in the south?). I do wish the YL bashers would lay off the sexist innuendos regarding her going on shopping trips... perhaps posters experience with their bar girl wives influences that slam? Men go shopping too.... They should also rush to her defense, since they consider her as bright as a bag of hair. She couldn't have had the brains to coordinate this rip off. She was a tool of evil advisers, along lines of Bush 2.

[rubl]

Maybe it was when the coup was happening, but prosecuting a corrupt PM whose government they then overthrew with plenty of evidence on the table to prove and support a conviction.... Well I doubt they would be bothered what the international community thinks.

If anything it would prove them right to bring down the government in the first place and exonerate them totally.

If this rice scam fiasco had happened in the UK, USA or any western country the results would have been the same... The government turfed out of power and the PM thrown in jail and it certainly wouldn't be a silly 2000 baht fine and a 5 year ban from politics.... It would be the FULL weight of the law.

But what do you mean by rice scam fiasco? There are two components, the perfectly legitimate subsidy involved (populism) for which there are parallels in many countries and alleged corruption in implementation.In some quarters in Thailand these have been conflated.If the PM, ministers or officials have been personally been involved in corruption obviously they should face criminal charges (though in the case of Khun Yingluck this is not seriously suggested).But there is no offence in the price guarantee scheme itself even if in my opinion it was ill advised.In any event the current effort to neutralise the former PM is driven by other factors.

Indeed rice scam fiasco, from the very start as well.

Imagine any government being so confident that they let one of the State Banks setup a 500 billion Baht revolving funds. Following which they nedd a few hundred more, following which another few hundred. The BAAC seems to have paid out close to 1,000,000,000,000 with only half lost. How's that for a revolving funds ?

At the least a clear case of negligence. The former PM seems to have neutralised herself, no need for others to help her dig a hole, apart from the golf caddy with his valuable advise, of course

[Tatsujin]

I said it early in this thread, others have said it, but I stick by my first impressions. This smells like a deal to let YS go and spare the country a divisive trial and perhaps imprisonment. YS is very popular in some circles. This would drag out for years and both sides would play the blame game.

It reminds me of when US president Nixon was impeached for crimes. Rather than stand trial he resigned. By US law the vice president Gerald Ford was immediately president, and he quickly pardoned Nixon to avoid a long public trial. Nixon was already ruined for any future. I thought it was best for the country which would have been embroiled in a long Senate trial when there were far more pressing issues at hand.

Maybe this is a similar desire of the current government to make it just go away. I don't know if I'm right, but time will tell. If it's true, I don't blame the general for wanting it to stop being a distracting focus.

I am not so sure a deal was struck to avoid division.

While in exile herself and big bro can continue to point fingers, claim political motivation, accuse the Dems of engineering this and keep up a campaign to create international contempt for the Junta et al.

I think it is better for all to go ahead with her prosecution with all the evidence laid out on the table for the whole world to see exactly what the Shins have been doing to the country and why the takeover was indeed justified.

Thing is... Now this is going to court, I am not sure exactly how the statute of limitations goes on this one.

I was of the opinion once you have been arraigned in court, then that dispenses with the SOL and you become a fugitive of the court and can be judged and sentenced in absentia..... if you are not yet arraigned, then the court can not proceed to trial and the SOL is still in effect. Meaning she could be free of all charges in 10 years.

Thaksin was already arraigned so he sentenced and now must serve his time, but Yingluck seems to be getting out of the country literally days before her arraignment.

Why are the NACC waiting till next week to send this to the court? What is wrong with Friday and have a special arraignment hearing before she goes?????

At least if she never returns, she can't use the SOL and must stay away for life.

The Statute of Limitations for Corruption cases will be extended to 30 years (along with some provisos about returning monies I would think) and then a lot of old cases will also be reopened/examined/taken care of.

[robblok]

It dosnt really matter if shes really guilty or not, making this public statement has already signed sealed and delivered the verdict at any trial.

Sure its a deal but, giving a way out and pass to travel as was done with her brother just shows that if guilty crime does indeed pay here still and clean up is not the same as a clean out..

No illusions there will be any fair trail by making this statement. None at all, talk about using propaganda

Only the guilty run or the persecuted, take your pick.

They will no doubt make a big noise later about fugitive and guilt but do remember who gave her the pass in the first place just as happened to big Brother.

If they were going to really change things there would be no exit door offered. Its a consolidation and change of power that is all it is.

Its a classic take it or leave it deal without any intention of bringing the guilty to justice. Real classic Thai power change deal.

The smart thing would be to run most would say run given the opportunity, but if truly innocent with enough principles and love for her country then return and fight no matter the outcome, if that happens ( and I hope it does ) then maybe the Country will be able to lay ghosts to rest and move on.

If she does run the ghost will always be there and the issue remains. Which is of course what the intention is, they need the boogy man/woman out there free not in prison.

PS I just won another beer for this step, another if she takes the way out.

As far as I know the NACC had to say this in order to have a trial, only after that can it be said if she is really guilty.

Seems to me the same as in other countries where a prosecutor decides if the case has to be taken to court or if there are no grounds. Maybe they should have ruled that they have a case in staid of calling her guilty.

But I do agree that she can now run but I really hope she does not and gets convicted. Remember she said no rice missing, rice was in good quality. Also she did not budget for the program as it was going to lead to a profit. By doing this a lot of budget was freed up to do other popular policies to get her in office. Question is was it on purpose (I think it was).

Then denying there was a problem and intimidating the lady of accounting that was the first to show us there were losses. I think its safe to say there are huge losses and the rice is not in all good state ... there is rice missing and grades of rice have been switched.

It was her job.. she was the chairman.. if they cant hold her responsible and charge her who else.

[sscsamui]

Sister see Sister do... Same same her brother,,, Bye Bye

[Seastallion]

An off topic nonsense post has been removed as well as a reply.

Dammit! I always miss out on seeing those. Wish the mods were a bit slower.

[smutcakes]

If YS would be found guilty of negligence in the management of the rice program, what statute of law would she be penalized under?

I presume incompetence/negligence when in office is not a criminal case? What type of sentence and what laws would they prosecute her of?

[ggt]

The timing smacks of collusion...she was given a "heads-up"...that she would be found guilty in the rice scheme and given a chance to leave the country...it will be a mucky affair if she is incarcerated...

[Sydebolle]

Out of sight - out of mind! Good riddance. Next please - Thailand go ahead there is so much work waiting ahead indeed!

[klauskunkel]

it's a tangled web.

If she runs away, she either shows she is guilty of corruption, or she is politically prosecuted.

If she stays and wins the trial, it would boost moral and credibility of red shirts.

if she stays and loses, it could provide a rally for red shirts.

the timing is interesting:

yesterday the military gave her permission to go on holiday (with the assumption that she will return)

today NACC rules her guilty for graft, and starts preparations for her trial.

That's not coincidence, that's the military telling her to run away now; a win win for all:

for Yingluck, she doesn't risk prison etc.

for the Junta, their image remains strong and believable

who loses? Justice of course, as always. There is no closure, no satisfaction, no definite 'whodunit?'

it just shows again that when you achieve a high enough position it comes with a get-out-of-jail-free card attached...

Oh, there is one more option:

she could go on holiday and come back...no she wouldn't.t, would she?

[Gonzo the Face]

Arresting the former prime minister is a giant red flag which would be noticed and likely responded to by the international community.

This development appears to me to be a giant face saving solution for everyone involved.

Don't think they care what international community thinks, they've already proven that.

Nonsense.It's a hyper sensitive matter for the Junta.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Maybe it was when the coup was happening, but prosecuting a corrupt PM whose government they then overthrew with plenty of evidence on the table to prove and support a conviction.... Well I doubt they would be bothered what the international community thinks.

If anything it would prove them right to bring down the government in the first place and exonerate them totally.

If this rice scam fiasco had happened in the UK, USA or any western country the results would have been the same... The government turfed out of power and the PM thrown in jail and it certainly wouldn't be a silly 2000 baht fine and a 5 year ban from politics.... It would be the FULL weight of the law.

......,and believe me that would be some heavy weight ! ! !

With the way the 'fattening' of America is going...... did you recently look at the blindfolded Lady Justice ????

[boomerangutang]

This determination of guilt without trial is definitely not politically motivated.

The trial comes after the decision by the NACC to indict her.

That is the next stage.

If she is innocent of negligence, she should return after her shopping trip to clear her name.

She has the money to hire the best lawyers.

Legal proceedings in Thailand are achingly slow and wracked with subjectivity and favoritism. Legal matters are like a flag in a gale, flapping whatever way the political trends dictate. I wouldn't blame her for skipping off. I would, in her predicament.

also: 500 billion baht is a gargantuan amount of money. If anything close to that amount was misappropriated, it surely went in to already-rich and well-connected peoples' pockets. I had been saying all along, that the rice millers were best positioned for siphoning off money. It's no coincidence that nearly all of them are Chinese-Thai - same as the Shinawatres.

[wirat69]

Same as the police in other countries investigating crime, they must come to a conclusion of guilt before passing a defendant on to a court for trial.

Yo Robby, that is not true in New Zealand or anywhere else that I am aware of.

The Police only need to establish that there may be a case to be answered.

It is for the Court, and the Court alone, to establish whether there is guilt..... or case not proven

[Just1Voice]

If I'm Yingluck, I come back and go through the trial. Even if found guilty, the penalties are 1-10 years in prison and max 20k baht fine. Prison? When's the last time ANY Hi-so or Elite went to prison for ANY crime, including murder. So, 1 year, suspended and maybe 20k baht fine. She spends more than that a month on make-up. Doing this would show she's not like her brother, and would earn her major face from her supporters. Plus, she's free to walk the shopping malls of Thailand and retains all her assets.

[Old Man River]

If she leaves the country, very much doubt she will return.

agree...but will they fall for the same trick twice and actually let her leave now?

"I promise I'll come back" - Thaksin when he went to the Olympics.

Make her leave her son as a guarantee.

Hold her son hostage? Seriously?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

First off changing the language used from 'guarantee' to 'hostage' is hyperbole. In any case, I don't believe 'hostage' means keeping the child in a dungeon. He could be left with the same people he was left with when his mother made other trips abroad, in her capacity as PM. It wouldn't be the first time they are separated as he was going to school in England before. So, yes. Seriously. If she is sincere in her appeal to travel and promise to return, what's the problem? She will only be away for twenty days, right?

Can he leave Thailand? If not, since he has no charges against him, that is holding him hostage. You are thinking from YL's side, guarantee, I am thinking from the kid's point of view, hostage.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Krataiboy]

This determination of guilt without trial is definitely not politically motivated.

The trial comes after the decision by the NACC to indict her.

That is the next stage.

If she is innocent of negligence, she should return after her shopping trip to clear her name.

She has the money to hire the best lawyers.

And of course she would get a fair trial.

[rametindallas]

Hold her son hostage? Seriously?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

First off changing the language used from 'guarantee' to 'hostage' is hyperbole. In any case, I don't believe 'hostage' means keeping the child in a dungeon. He could be left with the same people he was left with when his mother made other trips abroad, in her capacity as PM. It wouldn't be the first time they are separated as he was going to school in England before. So, yes. Seriously. If she is sincere in her appeal to travel and promise to return, what's the problem? She will only be away for twenty days, right?

Can he leave Thailand? If not, since he has no charges against him, that is holding him hostage. You are thinking from YL's side, guarantee, I am thinking from the kid's point of view, hostage.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Can he leave Thailand? If not, since he has no charges against him, that is holding him hostage

There are a lot of former cabinet ministers who cannot leave Thailand and have no charges against them. Are you going to start claiming that they, also, are hostages?

I am thinking from the kid's point of view, hostage.

Are you kidding me (and this forum)? You're actually saying that the kid's point of view is that he is a hostage for the two weeks his mom is away? He's not old enough to follow politics so he will 'know he is a hostage' only if you tell him. You have written some pretty good posts on this forum. Please don't ruin your reputation by being silly.

I don't mind you use the inflammatory/loaded word 'hostage'. Like I wrote already, hostage does not mean keep him in a dungeon on bread and water. He could be left with the same people he was left with when his mother made other trips abroad, in her capacity as PM. It wouldn't be the first time they are separated as he was going to school in England before and she has traveled the world as PM. If she is sincere in her appeal to travel and promise to return, what's the problem? She will only be away for 10 - 15 days, right? How about you answer my question Old Man River? She will only be away for 10 - 15 days, right? Why does she need her son with her if she's going to return?

Edited July 18, 2014 by rametindallas

[amse]

She's going to make a run for it, Guaranteed.

[rwhoov]

And we all know what a "fair and balanced" judiciary Thailand has. Now where have I heard that term "fair and balanced" before?

[Old Man River]

Hold her son hostage? Seriously?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

First off changing the language used from 'guarantee' to 'hostage' is hyperbole. In any case, I don't believe 'hostage' means keeping the child in a dungeon. He could be left with the same people he was left with when his mother made other trips abroad, in her capacity as PM. It wouldn't be the first time they are separated as he was going to school in England before. So, yes. Seriously. If she is sincere in her appeal to travel and promise to return, what's the problem? She will only be away for twenty days, right?

Can he leave Thailand? If not, since he has no charges against him, that is holding him hostage. You are thinking from YL's side, guarantee, I am thinking from the kid's point of view, hostage.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Can he leave Thailand? If not, since he has no charges against him, that is holding him hostage

There are a lot of former cabinet ministers who cannot leave Thailand and have no charges against them. Are you going to start claiming that they, also, are hostages?

I am thinking from the kid's point of view, hostage.

Are you kidding me (and this forum)? You're actually saying that the kid's point of view is that he is a hostage for the two weeks his mom is away? He's not old enough to follow politics so he will 'know he is a hostage' only if you tell him. You have written some pretty good posts on this forum. Please don't ruin your reputation by being silly.

I don't mind you use the inflammatory/loaded word 'hostage'. Like I wrote already, hostage does not mean keep him in a dungeon on bread and water. He could be left with the same people he was left with when his mother made other trips abroad, in her capacity as PM. It wouldn't be the first time they are separated as he was going to school in England before and she has traveled the world as PM. If she is sincere in her appeal to travel and promise to return, what's the problem? She will only be away for 10 - 15 days, right? How about you answer my question Old Man River? She will only be away for 10 - 15 days, right? Why does she need her son with her if she's going to return?

This is an argument that has no end. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[frozin1]

The headline Is simply an attention grabber. That's what headlines are meant to do.

In truth Ms Yingluck's involvement has been investigated (by the Thai version of a grand jury) and enough evidence has been uncovered to send the case to the prosecutor for consideration. This by itself does not constitute guilt, only that there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. It is the the courts duty to decide innocence or guilt once an indictment has been issued by the prosecutor and the individual has been bound over for trial.

Grand jury's can consider statements and evidence (such as hearsay) which may not be considered acceptable in a court of law and therefore may not be admissible as evidence in that venue.

F1

[SiggiCM]

This determination of guilt without trial is definitely not politically motivated.

The trial comes after the decision by the NACC to indict her.

That is the next stage.

If she is innocent of negligence, she should return after her shopping trip to clear her name.

She has the money to hire the best lawyers.

in Thailand you never can expect a fair trial, and everybody of you would leave the country and not come back for sure, dont blaim other people if this happens,

This coup was not to protect people, it is for take over the power, no power to the people, it is a fascist state and will be until the blow the junta away and put them in prison and fined them for breaking the law

[Robby nz]

Same as the police in other countries investigating crime, they must come to a conclusion of guilt before passing a defendant on to a court for trial.

Yo Robby, that is not true in New Zealand or anywhere else that I am aware of.

The Police only need to establish that there may be a case to be answered.

It is for the Court, and the Court alone, to establish whether there is guilt..... or case not proven

Just a matter of semantics isn't it, I use the term guilt because that is what is used in the OP.

It could just as well have said the NACC have ruled there is a case to answer.

In this case both mean the same thing.

[Cuchulainn]

If she leaves the country, very much doubt she will return.

We can only pray. Let it rot in the desert with the other amoeba.

[Cuchulainn]

Is there a spare room in Dubai or similar?

End of the Shinawtra dynasty?

Let's really hope so.

Shinawatra gang. R.I.P Hell .

[kmj]

Right hand please have a chat with the left hand before issuing press releases

[belg]

and still she can go on her merry way to dubai or other countries

well, lets hope she does not come back

who will be the next puppet controlled by bro & sis chinnawat

[Robby nz]

If I'm Yingluck, I come back and go through the trial. Even if found guilty, the penalties are 1-10 years in prison and max 20k baht fine. Prison? When's the last time ANY Hi-so or Elite went to prison for ANY crime, including murder. So, 1 year, suspended and maybe 20k baht fine. She spends more than that a month on make-up. Doing this would show she's not like her brother, and would earn her major face from her supporters. Plus, she's free to walk the shopping malls of Thailand and retains all her assets.

That may not be completely correct.

Should a court find her guilty on any or all the charges that are brought against her it could be that the court decides that there should be some restitution owing for the damages caused to the country by her actions or lack of action.

If that were to happen she would likely be up for a multi million or even billion Baht bill that could be collected by confiscating assets, as per big brother.

She would also be ineligible to stand again for parliament under section 102 of the constitution. Not, I would think, that she would want to after the experience of the last 3 years.

[Baerboxer]

Why or why must the Shin faithful insist that any comment or action against them must be politically motivated?

Really, you think she's innocent, that not bothering to turn up for one single meeting she was supposed to chair, that all the comments about there being no missing rice or corruption, all the false promises to pay farmers was all acceptable?

But of course, you've reviewed all the evidence, witness statements in coming to your learned opinion.

The NACC believe there is enough evidence to indict her. She should come back and robustly defend herself. She has the money to hire the best lawyers, although explaining how not bothering to turn up and doing anything is not negligence is a tad difficult - and certainly not political motivated.

I have faith in no one and I have no reason to believe she is innocent.

There have never been any credible reports that rice has not gone missing.

Her government was blocked from paying the farmers by the EC.

I am waiting to review the evidence that will be presented at trial just as you are.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that these charges and the trial are and will not be politically motivated. It would be a crime to say otherwise.

I think you will agree with me that nothing in the past 15+ years in Thailand has been more political than the rice scheme itself.

I agree that Yingluck does have access to enough funds to hire the best lawyers in the world to defend herself. Will that be enough money, considering who she is up against?

I agree with your comments apart from the one about paying the farmers. PTP were in a mess with payments from September. The cash flow was simply not there. No sales, the much vaunted 'deals' with other governments weren't coming to fruition and it looks like a large amount of cash hasn't been accounted for. Getting their hands on the 2.2 trillion was going to be their savior. This was made worse by PTP failing to address this issue and budget for the payments that would fall due whilst they were in caretaker mode. They knew they couldn't borrow more whilst only caretaking and their hopes of a quick victory in an election didn't happen. The EC simply followed the law.

[Baerboxer]

From the headline in the OP

"Graft buster rules Yingluck guilty"

She will get a fair trail because everyone including her lawyers know these charges are not politically motivated.

How could they possibly be politically motivated when politics has been outlawed by the junta?

Why or why must the Shin faithful insist that any comment or action against them must be politically motivated?

Really, you think she's innocent, that not bothering to turn up for one single meeting she was supposed to chair, that all the comments about there being no missing rice or corruption, all the false promises to pay farmers was all acceptable?

But of course, you've reviewed all the evidence, witness statements in coming to your learned opinion.

The NACC believe there is enough evidence to indict her. She should come back and robustly defend herself. She has the money to hire the best lawyers, although explaining how not bothering to turn up and doing anything is not negligence is a tad difficult - and certainly not political motivated.

No bear if they were serious she should not be allowed out of the country until after the case, they have a number of revoked passports they dont need to allow a very likely runner an opportunity to flee.

I cannot think of many more likely candidates with her family background and examples.... either its a forced stay to face the music or its a a deal.

Id like to see it done in court wouldnt you ?

Only one group has the keys to the back door exit and its not Yingluck or her brother. At least see this for what it is.

Wise words! T'would appear you are right in your thinking English.

And, yes, I would like to see it done in court like you.