Jump to content

Graft buster blasts attorney-general


Lite Beer

Recommended Posts

Graft buster blasts attorney-general

9-5-2014-9-30-07-PM-wpcf_728x413.jpg

BANGKOK: -- The graft buster yesterday strongly blasted the attorney-general when he stopped short of prosecuting the former prime minister with reason of insufficient evidence involving the controversial rice pledging scheme that incurred over 500 billion baht the country.

National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) spokesman and commission Vicha Mahakun said it was not surprised when the attorney-general claimed that evidence was insufficient to proceed the prosecution, because they have not seen what the NACC has in hands to implicate her in the charge.

But he said he was sympathetic with the attorney-general because his position now is very shaky, citing the former attorney when he was removed unexpectedly on a 8 p.m. live TV broadcast.

As the NACC and the Office of the Attorney-General are state organisations in the justice system, therefore people should show him some mercy to as it was understandable of what has happened, he said.

However he insisted that the NACC did not give weak evidence to the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) to prosecute former Yingluck Shinawatra.

The attorney-general has pinpointed three issues which he said lacking substantial evidence, Vicha said.

But he said one issue was not new while another seeking questioning of more witnesses by her lawyer which the NACC has made clear it was unnecessary and had insufficient reasons to back more questioning.

However Mr Vicha affirmed that the evidence that it has in hands and would forward to the OAG would shock the attorney-general if it sees it, and he may even give up handling the case.

He also said the third issue relevant to the TDRI research on rice-pledging scheme which the OAG said has carried no details but mere a book cover, was in fact has been among evidence displayed during the testimony process.

He said the NACC forwarded the cover of the research just to confirm that we have details and all are authentic.

He said the NACC has earlier told the OAG that it could ask for full details if it was sceptical about anything and there was no need for a joint committee to investigate.

Mr Vicha said he was very sympathetic with the attorney-general who has to take on the task unexpectedly as the former attorney-general was also unexpectedly removed in the air.

He said, “I can frankly said that all of us in the NACC has prayed almost daily that he escapes this case unscathed and would like the OAG handle the prosecution smoothly.”

However if the OAG does not carry on, then the NACC would do the job as the law allows it to do so, he added.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/graft-buster-blasts-attorney-general/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=graft-buster-blasts-attorney-general

thaipbs_logo.jpg
-- Thai PBS 2014-09-07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you want to be the man to decide to prosecute one of the most powerful and influental families in thailand? These AG must be looking into their futures and the chances for a long life.

Surely if i was the AG i would want to make certain a conviction would be made before i would take the case and prosecute. Even then i know i would want some protection for my family against the chance her followers attacked.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there could be a trust issue going on here also, the NACC may have something of a sensitive nature and want to keep it under covers

But I agree with those that have already said - this should not be in the public domain

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all a bit weird, is there a competence issue with the AG - is that what the NACC is actually getting at, it's hard to read beneath the surface and of course the could be something lost in translation

Thais don't seem to speak directly and to the point as we do. It's more to do with reading between the lines of what someone is saying which makes a mess of trying to understand a translation.

Edited by Local Drunk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has graft permeated the OAG? Time to find out.

It's a bit more like a game of hot potato in my most humble opinion. The AG has said insufficient evidence, but we can form a committee so that my hands aren't the only ones burned and has cleverly and quickly tossed it back to the NACC because the AG knows that the case can proceed without him.

Both sides seem to want the other "to do the deed"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have evidence that would shock the OAD why haven't you submitted it Khun Mahakun,, what is your game, trying to point score and get more gold stars on your resume, as a graft buster your duty is to reveal all corruption and all the facts , just on that comment alone I would sack you all immediately and get a new image.bah.gif

Totally agree.

Duty seems to be the farthest item on his list.

Secrecy, hiding evidence is unwarranted if the case has been honestly built on factual evidence.

This is the same body that forbade YS to present more witnesses in her defense arguing that they already had enough evidence to convict her.

Guilty before a trial and without the opportunity of a good defense?

Fellow Farangs, hope and wish hard that we will never have to endure this type of "justice" in LOS.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has graft permeated the OAG? Time to find out.

It's a bit more like a game of hot potato in my most humble opinion. The AG has said insufficient evidence, but we can form a committee so that my hands aren't the only ones burned and has cleverly and quickly tossed it back to the NACC because the AG knows that the case can proceed without him.

Both sides seem to want the other "to do the deed"

Oh so Thai as it's a nasty situation.

If there was glory to be had they be scrapping over it like dogs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the NACC won't just go ahead with the case, they have been charged with collecting the evidence. My impression, from this article, suggests that they have jurisdiction. Maybe they don't want the responsibility or the possible repercussion when a decision is reached. I still don't know that Yingluck participated in graft, but she was responsible for the administration of the scheme. How can she not be guilty of negligence, the only possible excuse would be stupidity, and no Thai, especially a Hi-So is going to admit that. So, negligent, crooked or stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the NACC won't just go ahead with the case, they have been charged with collecting the evidence. My impression, from this article, suggests that they have jurisdiction. Maybe they don't want the responsibility or the possible repercussion when a decision is reached. I still don't know that Yingluck participated in graft, but she was responsible for the administration of the scheme. How can she not be guilty of negligence, the only possible excuse would be stupidity, and no Thai, especially a Hi-So is going to admit that. So, negligent, crooked or stupid?

They have to go through the OAG first. If not accepted by the OAG, there has to be a period (2 weeks extendable AFAIK) of joint tightening of the case. Then, if the OAG still refuses to prosecute, The NACC can do it themselves.

It seems to me that the NACC's nose has been put out of joint because the OAG didn't accept the case as is (face loss & all that). So, blame the other side. He'd be better off getting on with the joint NACC-OAG review etc and keeping his mouth shut.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the NACC won't just go ahead with the case, they have been charged with collecting the evidence. My impression, from this article, suggests that they have jurisdiction. Maybe they don't want the responsibility or the possible repercussion when a decision is reached. I still don't know that Yingluck participated in graft, but she was responsible for the administration of the scheme. How can she not be guilty of negligence, the only possible excuse would be stupidity, and no Thai, especially a Hi-So is going to admit that. So, negligent, crooked or stupid?

They have to go through the OAG first. If not accepted by the OAG, there has to be a period (2 weeks extendable AFAIK) of joint tightening of the case. Then, if the OAG still refuses to prosecute, The NACC can do it themselves.

It seems to me that the NACC's nose has been put out of joint because the OAG didn't accept the case as is (face loss & all that). So, blame the other side. He'd be better off getting on with the joint NACC-OAG review etc and keeping his mouth shut.

What IS clear from this mess is that the NACC did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG. It's utter nonsense. The NACC has a duty to submit all relevant and pertinent evidence to the OAG. It should be submitted to the OAG with a memorandum summarizing all the findings with references to the relevant exhibits, statements, etc. that support the findings. It's simple and there's certainly no reason to be hiding anything. How can their be justice in Thailand when those responsible for dispensing it can't even work together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is mad. NACC criticizing the AG for not doing his job saying "if he saw the evidence we have he wouldn't have let her go" So who is incompetent? I'd have to say the NACC... Unless of course (horror) there is no evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the NACC won't just go ahead with the case, they have been charged with collecting the evidence. My impression, from this article, suggests that they have jurisdiction. Maybe they don't want the responsibility or the possible repercussion when a decision is reached. I still don't know that Yingluck participated in graft, but she was responsible for the administration of the scheme. How can she not be guilty of negligence, the only possible excuse would be stupidity, and no Thai, especially a Hi-So is going to admit that. So, negligent, crooked or stupid?

They have to go through the OAG first. If not accepted by the OAG, there has to be a period (2 weeks extendable AFAIK) of joint tightening of the case. Then, if the OAG still refuses to prosecute, The NACC can do it themselves.

It seems to me that the NACC's nose has been put out of joint because the OAG didn't accept the case as is (face loss & all that). So, blame the other side. He'd be better off getting on with the joint NACC-OAG review etc and keeping his mouth shut.

What IS clear from this mess is that the NACC did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG. It's utter nonsense. The NACC has a duty to submit all relevant and pertinent evidence to the OAG. It should be submitted to the OAG with a memorandum summarizing all the findings with references to the relevant exhibits, statements, etc. that support the findings. It's simple and there's certainly no reason to be hiding anything. How can their be justice in Thailand when those responsible for dispensing it can't even work together?

Nothing is clear and you are just jumping to conclusions. You are also telling them how it should be done which I am not so arrogant to say.

Nothing to do with any doubt about justice just because of a loss of face but then I would expect you to exaggerate a rather minor event.

BTW the NACC and the OAG seemed to iron out any defects in the current case against Khunying Jaruvan without any public spat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give the OAG the benefit of the doubt and just assume that the Boss made a substantial donation to his financial future. I will not however, assume that the OAG or any other career state official is above corruption. TIT says it all. Now I'm going to slap myself for ever thinking justice would knock on a Shin door.

It's next to impossible to believe the OAG's office is doing this because they have been payed off though. If for no other reason than because they couldn't possibly expect to get away with it at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...
""