Graft buster blasts attorney-general

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

-- Thai PBS 2014-09-07

" If the AG sees what the NACC has ' in hands ' it would shock him ".

So why has he not seen it ? To get a prosecution authorised it would be usual to forwarded the strongest possible case not hold evidence back for a rainy day or does the NACC not trust the AG so are keeping something in case they have to take the case to court themselves ?

This is becoming a messwhich may end up with YL walking, or is that the plan anyway ?

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

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.

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

What a savage indictment of this country.

We are saying if officials aren't swayed by bribes they are by fear of actually doing their job depending on who they are dealing with.

Shows again how much all aspects of governance in Thailand need completely overhauled and reformed when these two (NACC and AG) are having spates in public and neither of them seems to be communicating clearly to the other.

The problem I see here is that the AG is over stepping its mandate acting more like a court, if there is a case to answer then let it be heard in a court were Yingluc can call all the witnesses she likes, what is needed here is a preliminary hearing in a court and let a judge or panel of judges decide whether the case should proceed instead of leaving the burden on the AG

The problem I see here is that the AG is over stepping its mandate acting more like a court, if there is a case to answer then let it be heard in a court were Yingluc can call all the witnesses she likes, what is needed here is a preliminary hearing in a court and let a judge or panel of judges decide whether the case should proceed instead of leaving the burden on the AG

It would seem in this instance that because the case is of a political nature and to be heard in a court for political office holders that the OAG is put in the position of being the prosecutor.

Whereas in a normal criminal case the police would take a case to court through a public prosecutor.

Here the NACC have done the job of the police in gathering evidence which they have handed over to the OAG as the prosecutor.

Said prosecutor is it seems unhappy that they can get a conviction with the evidence they have in hand and are going back to the investigating authority for more evidence.

All this should have been done behind the scenes without the public hooha, but I suppose in such a high profile case........................................

It should be noted that persons or groups associated with the accused In this case have in the past issued threats and intimidation against judges and those in authority as well as refusing to accept the decisions of courts.

Perhaps reason for caution on the part of those charged with any decisions in this case.

Some info need to be retained for sales to the highest bidder.

Well the NACC does seem to be saying if you want to see the evidence... it's here. Perhaps the AG doesn't want the see the evidence and particular names associated with the scheme.

A bit like "I didn't see it so it doesn't exist"

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

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

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

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 September 7, 201411 yr by Local Drunk

Has graft permeated the OAG? Time to find out.

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"

Well the NACC does seem to be saying if you want to see the evidence... it's here. Perhaps the AG doesn't want the see the evidence and particular names associated with the scheme.

A bit like "I didn't see it so it doesn't exist"

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

"I didn't see it, so it doesn't exist". Soon to be known as "The Yingluck defense gambit".

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.

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.

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.

I wonder what the good general thinks of two high profile depts squabbling in public and playing pass the parcel ?

This case is of major significance to the nation and it's international standing. Maybe he should step in bang heads together and tell them to get on with what they're paid to do or will it be proved paid not to do ?

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?

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.

They expect the OAG to decide to prosecute without submitting all the evidence?

Don't these guys watch LA Law?

What type of numptiish nonsense is this?

champagne for everyone involved... and a few acres of land, houses, new benzes

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?

Why would they not submit complete evidence? And why block witnesses? I support good decisions and question weird ones....both of these are weird.

An ancient song comes to mind "They came from Planet Claire..."

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

According to the BP today, a poll showed that about 20% of Thais surveyed wanted an immediate indictment of YS, whereas about 45% of TVF posters are wanting the same (I only counted 100 posts). 20% is not anywhere near a simple majority. According to the poll, 32% of Thai people wanted clear evidence and supporting documentation, whereas 45% of TVF posters have already found her guilty.

The public overall is not convinced. Indicting her will make her a martyr -- and that';s the last thing anyone should wish for. If you really want peace in this country, then the last thing you should want is to light a firecracker inside a half-full petrol tank. Oops, I forgot. This isn't a discussion -- it's a political religion and the devils are the Shins.

It seems clear that what Thai people want and think is very different than the posters here. Yeah they think the government was corrupt. Yeah, they think all the governments they have had since 1970 were corrupt. Trying to convince them, or me, that, somehow, these bad dogs are worse than the last ten litters is a joke. A self-serving megalomaniacal cyber joke.

The poll, strangely, is at the bottom of the article titled "Most want education problems solved."

They're all dirty -- picking a side is like saying you prefer one form of dirt over another.

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.

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.

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.