NACC stands by case against Yingluck, asks if all files read

[cocopops]

The only explanation that accounts for the NACC and OAG's office bickering in public is the obvious one - that for political reasons the NACC voted 7-0 for an unwarranted indictment and the OAG is embarrassed of it.

Occam's razor people!

Edited September 6, 2014 by cocopops

[halloween]

The only explanation that accounts for the NACC and OAG's office bickering in public is the obvious one - that for political reasons the NACC voted 7-0 for an unwarranted indictment and the OAG is embarrassed of it.

Occam's razor people!

There is another equally simple answer, that AG is reluctant to put his name to an indictment which would incur the wrath of a malicious and vindictive, wealthy and politically powerful criminal known for exacting retribution on his opponents. It's not likely that red shirt thugs would be showing up at his home or publishing his address phone numbers and family members details under the current government, but it is not a permanent state of affairs by any means.

[Bakseeda]

The supporters to hang YL are upset with the AG decision to turn back the report and re-look at it and add more juice to it. Now they have to come up with wild stories of pay backs by the Shins. I wish they would show prove instead of just these wild actuation. Please give facts not wild fantasies.

Go back to skool... your American is awfull...........

[Thai at Heart]

It seems that there needs to be a little more than screaming "money was lost, she did it".

[Thai at Heart]

A major problem is that the NACC has little investigation power.

They need to beg for every little piece of paper.

Quite in contrast to some European tax investigation authorities,

like Guardia di Finanza in Italy or the Steuerfahndung in germany.

If there is sufficient suspicion and it is necessary, then they come with 200 or more specialists

(accounting professionals, computer specialists, tax officers, interrogation psychologists) for a visit.

All phones and computer lines of the suspects are blocked before.

If someone does not cooperate, then they sent them immediately in Detention, so they can not warn other culprits.

This kind of tax police brings the state more money than it costs.

Guess in Thailand they would start in the Ministry of Finance.

Full systematically, first the review of all money transfers over 100 Million Baht.

Who signed the payment, which bank has received the money, for what and who are the account holders.

Certainly they could identify a plot, a cluster or some persons with names.

This is hard work but not rocket science.

So they prepared this case using seargent somchai and an abacus? No wonder it got thrown out.

[Arkady]

The A-G also declined initially to prosecute a case against former auditor-general Jaruvan, a key anti-Thaksin figure, for staging a fake seminar with government funds. After the joint committee with the NACC he decided the evidence was complete and is now proceeding with the prosecution.

I would expect Yingluck's case to go the same way. There is only upside for the A-G in being more cautious in a high profile political case, particularly in this case where the main defence argument is that the NACC rushed the investigation and failed to question 50 of Thaksin's closest and most dishonest associates as witnesses on the grounds that they had nothing to do with the case. The joint committee might even come up with some new angles that strengthen the case against Yingluck.

Anyway the NACC has the power to prosecute the case by itself, if the joint committee doesn't agree and the NACC prosecutors will get some tips from the A-G committee about loopholes the defence will try to exploit. Personally I don't understand why the NACC has not prosecuted the other perpetrators first. They seem to have documentary evidence of scams like the fake rice exports which should surely strengthen their case against Yingluck.

[rubl]

It seems that there needs to be a little more than screaming "money was lost, she did it".

Tjeez man, be serious.

That should have been "money was lost, she didn't know"

[NCFC]

NACC amending laws? I thought a duly elected government did that. Oh wait a minute....

So this body acts as lawmaker and prosecutor. What happened to checks and balances?

Edited September 6, 2014 by NCFC

[rubl]

NACC amending laws? I thought a duly elected government did that. Oh wait a minute....

So this body acts as lawmaker and prosecutor. What happened to checks and balances?

Oh come on NCFC, Eric saying the NACC amends laws doesn't make it so.

"Panthep also dismissed a claim in a report by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) - a Hong Kong-based consultant group - that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions.

The NACC chief said the legal amendments were done according to international standard - the charter of the United Nations, for example, for laws relating to bribery cases by state officials or people at private firms."

So, I guess the NLA will have work to do.

[NCFC]

NACC amending laws? I thought a duly elected government did that. Oh wait a minute....

So this body acts as lawmaker and prosecutor. What happened to checks and balances?

Oh come on NCFC, Eric saying the NACC amends laws doesn't make it so.

"Panthep also dismissed a claim in a report by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) - a Hong Kong-based consultant group - that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions.

The NACC chief said the legal amendments were done according to international standard - the charter of the United Nations, for example, for laws relating to bribery cases by state officials or people at private firms."

So, I guess the NLA will have work to do.

Unfortunately Rubl, you left some relevant parts out of your quote, which had you included them will show that the NACC is making/amending laws.

" he said he was willing to work with the Office of the Attorney-General, which on Thursday asked the NACC for more evidence on charges it seeks to lay against Yingluck and asked that a joint panel be set up to make a stronger case against the former premier."

"if the joint committee cannot agree on the case then the matter will be sent back to NACC so they can indict Yingluck themselves"

"Panthep also dismissed a claim... that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions...the legal amendments were done according to international standard"

So Panthep is acting as both lawmaker and prosecutor, and doubtless has powers of judge and jury, too. Democratic much?

[rubl]

NACC amending laws? I thought a duly elected government did that. Oh wait a minute....

So this body acts as lawmaker and prosecutor. What happened to checks and balances?

Oh come on NCFC, Eric saying the NACC amends laws doesn't make it so.

"Panthep also dismissed a claim in a report by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) - a Hong Kong-based consultant group - that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions.

The NACC chief said the legal amendments were done according to international standard - the charter of the United Nations, for example, for laws relating to bribery cases by state officials or people at private firms."

So, I guess the NLA will have work to do.

Unfortunately Rubl, you left some relevant parts out of your quote, which had you included them will show that the NACC is making/amending laws.

" he said he was willing to work with the Office of the Attorney-General, which on Thursday asked the NACC for more evidence on charges it seeks to lay against Yingluck and asked that a joint panel be set up to make a stronger case against the former premier."

"if the joint committee cannot agree on the case then the matter will be sent back to NACC so they can indict Yingluck themselves"

"Panthep also dismissed a claim... that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions...the legal amendments were done according to international standard"

So Panthep is acting as both lawmaker and prosecutor, and doubtless has powers of judge and jury, too. Democratic much?

So, Panthep dismisses claims the NACC will amend laws, and continues with " said the legal amendments were done according to international standard"

So where does it say the NACC will do it?

The NACC may petition the NLA and make suggestions, that would be according to standards.

[MILT]

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

I don't mind sticking up for Yingluck, I think there is cause to say she knew, but how much , with the double talk and shady characters in the background, that you wouldn't invite to a mother in Laws BBQ, how was the scheme pitched to her, was any risk analysis given to her or alternative methods , the NACC should be going after the Ministers and heads of departments who introduced this stupid scheme, lets hear more in this direction. width=32 alt=coffee1.gif>

I too don't mind saying that even if your theory were true the next proper and respectful move for the PM would to have step down from over seeing the rice scheme and appoint

an oversight committee selected neutrally to investigate the irregularities in the scheme.

[Robby nz]

The A-G also declined initially to prosecute a case against former auditor-general Jaruvan, a key anti-Thaksin figure, for staging a fake seminar with government funds. After the joint committee with the NACC he decided the evidence was complete and is now proceeding with the prosecution.

I would expect Yingluck's case to go the same way. There is only upside for the A-G in being more cautious in a high profile political case, particularly in this case where the main defence argument is that the NACC rushed the investigation and failed to question 50 of Thaksin's closest and most dishonest associates as witnesses on the grounds that they had nothing to do with the case. The joint committee might even come up with some new angles that strengthen the case against Yingluck.

Anyway the NACC has the power to prosecute the case by itself, if the joint committee doesn't agree and the NACC prosecutors will get some tips from the A-G committee about loopholes the defence will try to exploit. Personally I don't understand why the NACC has not prosecuted the other perpetrators first. They seem to have documentary evidence of scams like the fake rice exports which should surely strengthen their case against Yingluck.

In some cases they have already laid charges against others, an example I posted elsewhere :

Former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and ex-deputy commerce minister Poom Sarapol were charged by the agency, together with 13 other persons including former director-general of the External Trade Department Manas Sroypol who was involved in negotiations to sell rice to two Chinese state enterprises on government-to-government contracts.

The evidence gathered for this and other cases would all have been incorporated into the 4,000 pages of evidence the NACC sent to the OAG.

[wandasloan]

The fact that the OAG did not bother to read all of the documents, (if in fact that is the truth), indicates to me

It indicates absolutely nothing, where "absolutely" is an absolute word. There is NO fact that "the OAG" (is that a man or a woman?) didn't do its job. No fact at all. You state specifically there is no fact. It indicates nothing at all.

Accusing an independent organisation directly under the protection of the NCPO of malfeasance or corruption, however, as you and the Official Thai Visa Committee On Justice And Shin Suppression have been trying on - THAT is certainly an indication of a wish for trouble.

Thai Visa, once again, shamelessly breaks its own rules, allowing rumours and direct accusations of corruption without a shred of caution.

.

[rubl]

The fact that the OAG did not bother to read all of the documents, (if in fact that is the truth), indicates to me

It indicates absolutely nothing, where "absolutely" is an absolute word. There is NO fact that "the OAG" (is that a man or a woman?) didn't do its job. No fact at all. You state specifically there is no fact. It indicates nothing at all.

Accusing an independent organisation directly under the protection of the NCPO of malfeasance or corruption, however, as you and the Official Thai Visa Committee On Justice And Shin Suppression have been trying on - THAT is certainly an indication of a wish for trouble.

Thai Visa, once again, shamelessly breaks its own rules, allowing rumours and direct accusations of corruption without a shred of caution.

That's sarcasm, isn't it? I'm asking as I can't find that "direct accusation of corruption"

PS OAG = Office of the Attorney-General. In this case probably a team consisting of male and female members.

[Baerboxer]

So the NACC is amending the law to fix all the legal loopholes so they can nail Yingluck. Watch for the NACC amending, modifying, enact retro active laws and interpreting according to its needs. Much like Taksin land case. They are so desperate that they will even bitch and by-pass the OAG

What laws were changed in Thaksin's land case?

PTP were the biggest mis-interpreters and twisters of laws. Tarit in particular - look at his wonderful view of perjury in deciding not to proceed against Yinngy, the day after she took office. Or the AG deciding to let Thaksin off because although there was evidence he was out of the country at the time. Remember the judge saying he thought Thaksin guilty in the "honest mistake" case, but gave him another chance as he was PM?

Get your facts right Eric.

It's no good worrying about Eric - he's as big a Thaksin apologist as Fab4 or Mango Bob. He's just a lot creepier.

Dru, the impression that I got from your reply is that you never face your life objectively and tend to side step and avoid. I have never seen a reply from you with objective rebuttal and worst here, you insult and dragged other posters into your degratory remark.

What I have posted are not my opinion but extracts from news. NACC is amending laws and intend to by-pass OAG are all documented news including statement that they want to nail Yingluck. Even Taksin land case that even amazed the then BOT governor Pridiyathorn (current deputy PM) who was the legal supervisor of the tender, not Taksin and that the tender price was above market price. Retro active laws were enacted here. If you don't understand what I am saying, you really is lacking in knowledge to discuss this.

Look at which law Thaksin actually and knowingly broke, was prosecuted for and convicted. He then fled and broke bail.

Not all the hyperbole but the actual law, that has PM he knew fully well he was breaking, but chose to ignore.

Now, answer my question - which law was changed?

Talking of changing laws, didn't someone change them at a stroke and the take advantages of the changes to sell a company and avoid tax? Or is that o k ?

[Arkady]

The A-G also declined initially to prosecute a case against former auditor-general Jaruvan, a key anti-Thaksin figure, for staging a fake seminar with government funds. After the joint committee with the NACC he decided the evidence was complete and is now proceeding with the prosecution.

I would expect Yingluck's case to go the same way. There is only upside for the A-G in being more cautious in a high profile political case, particularly in this case where the main defence argument is that the NACC rushed the investigation and failed to question 50 of Thaksin's closest and most dishonest associates as witnesses on the grounds that they had nothing to do with the case. The joint committee might even come up with some new angles that strengthen the case against Yingluck.

Anyway the NACC has the power to prosecute the case by itself, if the joint committee doesn't agree and the NACC prosecutors will get some tips from the A-G committee about loopholes the defence will try to exploit. Personally I don't understand why the NACC has not prosecuted the other perpetrators first. They seem to have documentary evidence of scams like the fake rice exports which should surely strengthen their case against Yingluck.

In some cases they have already laid charges against others, an example I posted elsewhere :

Former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and ex-deputy commerce minister Poom Sarapol were charged by the agency, together with 13 other persons including former director-general of the External Trade Department Manas Sroypol who was involved in negotiations to sell rice to two Chinese state enterprises on government-to-government contracts.

The evidence gathered for this and other cases would all have been incorporated into the 4,000 pages of evidence the NACC sent to the OAG.

Have they actually charged them? Yingluck was the only one put up for impeachment, although Boonsong, Poom and possibly Niwathamrong were also eligible for impeachment. I don't remember anything about criminal charges against Boonsong et al, just comments from the NACC about the investigation.

[Old Man River]

NACC amending laws? I thought a duly elected government did that. Oh wait a minute....

So this body acts as lawmaker and prosecutor. What happened to checks and balances?

Oh come on NCFC, Eric saying the NACC amends laws doesn't make it so.

"Panthep also dismissed a claim in a report by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) - a Hong Kong-based consultant group - that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions.

The NACC chief said the legal amendments were done according to international standard - the charter of the United Nations, for example, for laws relating to bribery cases by state officials or people at private firms."

So, I guess the NLA will have work to do.

Unfortunately Rubl, you left some relevant parts out of your quote, which had you included them will show that the NACC is making/amending laws.

" he said he was willing to work with the Office of the Attorney-General, which on Thursday asked the NACC for more evidence on charges it seeks to lay against Yingluck and asked that a joint panel be set up to make a stronger case against the former premier."

"if the joint committee cannot agree on the case then the matter will be sent back to NACC so they can indict Yingluck themselves"

"Panthep also dismissed a claim... that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions...the legal amendments were done according to international standard"

So Panthep is acting as both lawmaker and prosecutor, and doubtless has powers of judge and jury, too. Democratic much?

So, Panthep dismisses claims the NACC will amend laws, and continues with " said the legal amendments were done according to international standard"

So where does it say the NACC will do it?

The NACC may petition the NLA and make suggestions, that would be according to standards.

Does the NLA take the senate's place? Impeachment would have needed senate approval.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Old Man River]

The A-G also declined initially to prosecute a case against former auditor-general Jaruvan, a key anti-Thaksin figure, for staging a fake seminar with government funds. After the joint committee with the NACC he decided the evidence was complete and is now proceeding with the prosecution.

I would expect Yingluck's case to go the same way. There is only upside for the A-G in being more cautious in a high profile political case, particularly in this case where the main defence argument is that the NACC rushed the investigation and failed to question 50 of Thaksin's closest and most dishonest associates as witnesses on the grounds that they had nothing to do with the case. The joint committee might even come up with some new angles that strengthen the case against Yingluck.

Anyway the NACC has the power to prosecute the case by itself, if the joint committee doesn't agree and the NACC prosecutors will get some tips from the A-G committee about loopholes the defence will try to exploit. Personally I don't understand why the NACC has not prosecuted the other perpetrators first. They seem to have documentary evidence of scams like the fake rice exports which should surely strengthen their case against Yingluck.

To what extent can the NACC go beyond indictments? I can't recall them ever going farther than indicting. As I understand it, pre-coup, impeachment would then need senate approval and criminal offenses (malfeasance etc.) would need criminal court involvement.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Edited September 7, 2014 by Old Man River

[tomacht8]

I am still amazed what kind of view from responsibility some have here.

To be the chairwoman of the NRC is the same as the captain's seat on a 747 Jumbo.

The captain (YL) presents its flight path (the rice scheme).

The weather experts say it is madness ever fly away, it will be impossible to achieve the goal.

(There were countless warnings from subsidies experts that this rice scheme will never work.)

The captain is insecure and has little experience.

Then the CEO (Thaksin) of the flight company (PT) sends his co-pilots friends (PT-Ministers).

Order: The flight must be conducted (they need the votes).

The Fuel Tank officer (internal administrative officers) on the ground informed, that the fuel (money) will last for only half the distance.

The chief mechanic (international subsidies experts) on the ground informed, that there is a hole in the fuel line (Corruption),
and he expected that 30%-40% fuel (money) will leaking out.

So the Jumbo starts.

After the first quarter of the flight, the fuel gauges (BACC: no money) are already on reserve.

The air traffic controllers (press, opposition in parliament) offer an emergency destination to bring down this madness flight.
The captain ignored all warnings.

The engines go out. Some passengers in their panic jump overboard (Farmers who killed themselves).

The Jumbo crashes and the wreckage is widely scattered (rotten rice in the warehouses).

The damage is incredible, lost the aircraft (700 Billions) and all passengers dead (rice industrie).

The owners of the airline (the public) have to bear the loss.
Miraculously, only the pilots survived.

The pilots are now in court and refuse to testify.

So what was it?

- negligence?

- malfeasance?

- irresponsibly

- supervision violation?

If the defenders (lawyers) then say, the captain does not know how to fly an airplane,

then I would suggest prison.

[rubl]

Does the NLA take the senate's place? Impeachment would have needed senate approval.

"As the interim charter stipulates that members serve both as a senator and an MP, they can impeach political office-holders."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/758179-nla-to-vote-on-provisions-for-impeachment-of-lawmakers/

[belg]

all the paper tiger detectives overhere knew what this scam was about

but nodoby in YL governement had a clue

[rametindallas]

The fact that the OAG did not bother to read all of the documents, (if in fact that is the truth), indicates to me that it's pretty much case closed.....

So a joint panel will now try and make a stronger case for the prosection of YL......we'll see.

A huge face loss to the NACC.......which could well affect many other profile cases that they have on their books.

A huge face loss to the NACC

And now, the NACC will go around the AG if they can't get him to prosecute, as is their right, so as to get their 'face' back. This is far from over. I'm concerned that someone, either through threat or bribe, got to the AG. We are all witness to the 'Great Turnaround' of previous coup leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin, who went for overthrowing Thaksin to Thaksin ally. Nothing in Thailand is as it seems and nothing is impossible.

[rametindallas]

I don't mind sticking up for Yingluck, I think there is cause to say she knew, but how much , with the double talk and shady characters in the background, that you wouldn't invite to a mother in Laws BBQ, how was the scheme pitched to her, was any risk analysis given to her or alternative methods , the NACC should be going after the Ministers and heads of departments who introduced this stupid scheme, lets hear more in this direction.

The only way for that to happen, because it all happened behind closed doors, is to bring Ms Yingluck to court and have her blame them to absolve herself. She would be the only prime witness (everyone else would be 'hearsay') who could testify, under oath, to their guilt.

Edited September 7, 2014 by rametindallas

[rametindallas]

It's amazing what kind of view from responsibility some have here.

The whole last year there was several times, weekly news that there are irregularities with the rice scheme.

Ministers have repeatedly asked questions in Parliament.

- They mentioned the specific cases with names, quantities, location and even the account numbers.

- Internal administration officials, which have confirmed the irregularities, were transferred and made ​ silenced.

- About nightly bulk transfers of Natthawuts transport company was reported.

- The director of the BAAC was silenced.

- Reports on rotting and missing rice

- Warehouses were set on fire.

- Farmers had to wait for their money, were lied for months and some killed themselves.

So what those responsible ministers and the chairwoman (NRC) have done the whole last year?

- no parliamentary questions have been answered.

- Denial, cover up, lying, cheating, snake in the grass strategy.

- Alibi warehouse testing, with the result: everything was in best order.

This is more then only a case of dereliction of duty!

Negligent supervision duty injury with concealment in office.

The culprits have contributed absolutely nothing to clarify and limit the damage,

on the contrary, the damage was through the denial and passivity far from larger.

Everyone knows that the G-to-G deals were very high placed in the hierarchy.

Control mechanisms could be bypassed.

Or how else a 500 million baht check could be once issued?

Or how else somebody can provide and cash out a 500 million check at a bank without examination?

Or how else can 1 million tonnes of rice just got out of warehouses and disappear?

Those are more signs of organized economic crime, nothing less.

Then why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption? Generally the courts prefer some more substantial arguments and evidence than just "everyone knows". What it haste on NACC's part? They were an integral part of the planned series of steps to justify the overthrow of the government. Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability as a major reason.

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Yep. Taken from the playbook of Thaksin who twice (second time through his puppet, Yingluck.) dissolved Parliament and both times leading to illegitimate governments.

why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption?

Really, you have no idea what detail was presented to the OAG so, why make wild suppositions? I've just read that the NACC sent more than 4,000 pages of evidence to the OAG.

Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability

If Ms Yingluck had stayed within the law, she would not have been impeached. Unfortunately, for her and for Thailand, she relied totally on advise from her 'caddy' and blindly broke many more laws that we are even of aware of, yet.

Edited September 7, 2014 by rametindallas

[northernjohn]

It seems the attorney general doesn't want to prosecute lil sis. Perhaps some relative or staff member suddenly got rich?

The shina-woman was the head of a government including Tarit and Chalerm. Then it is impossible not to be dirty. No matter if some far head crook was pulling the strings.

She put her own head in the noose. How can she be PM and chair of important committees and not know anything ?

It's ridiculous, and damning, to claim she didn't know because she never attended parliament or meetings she chaired.

What's the reason / excuse, too busy with other matters such as touring the world at any opportunity ?

I agree 100% with you

From the following quote it looks to me like the Attorney-General wants to prosecute her.

However, he said he was willing to work with the Office of the Attorney-General, which on Thursday asked the NACC for more evidence on charges it seeks to lay against Yingluck and asked that a joint panel be set up to make a stronger case against the former premier.

[northernjohn]

There is an incremental, 'moving the goal posts' approach here that won't help intermational credibility - if at first you do not succeed change the rules and the personnel involved until you get the desired result. As Eric says above, the same thing happened in the Thaksin land deal case (doubtlessly he was a shady character, but that too failed to meet the test of due process). Things like this make it easy for critics to say that Thai law is shaped by Thai politics.

P.S. The suggestion in the land deal case is not so much that the law was changed, but that the established understandings about the rules on Ministers and public auctions were set aside, even when official advice was to the contrary.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.co.uk/

The very fact you talk about shady land deals goes to prove that the real McCoy is in power now. Look at the illegally attained land that the government is seizing back from the owners.

[citizen33]

P.S. The suggestion in the land deal case is not so much that the law was changed, but that the established understandings about the rules on Ministers and public auctions were set aside, even when official advice was to the contrary.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.co.uk/

The very fact you talk about shady land deals goes to prove that the real McCoy is in power now. Look at the illegally attained land that the government is seizing back from the owners.

There are indeed many people of all colours who seem to have been involved in dubious land deals in the past, particularly if we include smallish deals where a plot is acquired to build a house for the person involved (as with TS's wife). Several generals are alleged to have benefited from such transactions in years gone by. It will be interesting to see how far any clean-up goes,

[brucec64]

It's amazing what kind of view from responsibility some have here.

The whole last year there was several times, weekly news that there are irregularities with the rice scheme.

Ministers have repeatedly asked questions in Parliament.

- They mentioned the specific cases with names, quantities, location and even the account numbers.

- Internal administration officials, which have confirmed the irregularities, were transferred and made ​ silenced.

- About nightly bulk transfers of Natthawuts transport company was reported.

- The director of the BAAC was silenced.

- Reports on rotting and missing rice

- Warehouses were set on fire.

- Farmers had to wait for their money, were lied for months and some killed themselves.

So what those responsible ministers and the chairwoman (NRC) have done the whole last year?

- no parliamentary questions have been answered.

- Denial, cover up, lying, cheating, snake in the grass strategy.

- Alibi warehouse testing, with the result: everything was in best order.

This is more then only a case of dereliction of duty!

Negligent supervision duty injury with concealment in office.

The culprits have contributed absolutely nothing to clarify and limit the damage,

on the contrary, the damage was through the denial and passivity far from larger.

Everyone knows that the G-to-G deals were very high placed in the hierarchy.

Control mechanisms could be bypassed.

Or how else a 500 million baht check could be once issued?

Or how else somebody can provide and cash out a 500 million check at a bank without examination?

Or how else can 1 million tonnes of rice just got out of warehouses and disappear?

Those are more signs of organized economic crime, nothing less.

Then why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption? Generally the courts prefer some more substantial arguments and evidence than just "everyone knows". What it haste on NACC's part? They were an integral part of the planned series of steps to justify the overthrow of the government. Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability as a major reason.

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Yep. Taken from the playbook of Thaksin who twice (second time through his puppet, Yingluck.) dissolved Parliament and both times leading to illegitimate governments.

why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption?

Really, you have no idea what detail was presented to the OAG so, why make wild suppositions? I've just read that the NACC sent more than 4,000 pages of evidence to the OAG.

Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability

If Ms Yingluck had stayed within the law, she would not have been impeached. Unfortunately, for her and for Thailand, she relied totally on advise from her 'caddy' and blindly broke many more laws that we are even of aware of, yet.

Yep. Taken from the playbook of Thaksin who twice (second time through his puppet, Yingluck.) dissolved Parliament and both times leading to illegitimate governments.

I will agree on this point that events in 2006 and 2014 (street protests, etc) led to illegitimate governments, but you should be careful about calling the current government illegitimate in this current political climate.

Really, you have no idea what detail was presented to the OAG so, why make wild suppositions? I've just read that the NACC sent more than 4,000 pages of evidence to the OAG.

There are many articles that make this "wild supposition": http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nacc-case-former-prime-minister-yingluck-water-tight/ is one of them. Check BP from 3 days ago for another example.

The case was rejected because there was no detail on the actual corruption and additional witnesses were required. Also, the TDRI report used to detail the corruption was the cover sheet only.

If Ms Yingluck had stayed within the law, she would not have been impeached. Unfortunately, for her and for Thailand, she relied totally on advise from her 'caddy' and blindly broke many more laws that we are even of aware of, yet.

Even with the current loss of many rights in Thiland, there is still the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The NACC indicted, and imposed punishment, for a case that the OAG stated is not strong enough to obtain a criminal indictment. Yet you are so biased that you have found her guilty of things that we are not even aware of yet!

[jaidam]

There is an incremental, 'moving the goal posts' approach here that won't help intermational credibility - if at first you do not succeed change the rules and the personnel involved until you get the desired result. As Eric says above, the same thing happened in the Thaksin land deal case (doubtlessly he was a shady character, but that too failed to meet the test of due process). Things like this make it easy for critics to say that Thai law is shaped by Thai politics.

P.S. The suggestion in the land deal case is not so much that the law was changed, but that the established understandings about the rules on Ministers and public auctions were set aside, even when official advice was to the contrary.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.co.uk/

Is it really necessary to post that utter BS propaganda link yet again?

You would have thought such an impartial and intensely researched document would cover one of the more staggering aspects of the case, that instead of try to defend himself using law, he chose to bribe the court with a pastry box containing 2 million baht. Is this how an innocent man behaves? Did Slimdog not consider this important enough to include? That Thaksin had the power to fire the head of FIDF, indisputable.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Shinawatra propaganda is way too clunky for my liking. To apply rational thought process to the propaganda just goes to show what it is. Nonsense, prepared for fools to digest and froth over.