OAG decision on Thai rice-scheme case may prove to be fair

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
OAG decision on rice-scheme case may prove to be fair
Jintana Panyaarvudh

BANGKOK: -- The Office of the Attorney-General (OAG)'s decision to put former PM Yingluck Shinawatra's prosecution on hold has raised much criticism. Yingluck is facing charges of dereliction of duty for failing to act on corruption in her government's rice-pledging scheme.

There have been questions that maybe the OAG does not want to prosecute Yingluck, though by law the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is in its right to take the case to court.

Many political observers, however, agree with the OAG's decision as it has revealed some flaws in the case file submitted by the NACC.

Citing incomplete evidence and details, the OAG decided to set up a joint committee comprised of public prosecutors and NACC official to conduct further investigation into the case.

Wanchai Rujanawong, OAG spokesman, said the setting up of the joint committee was aimed at strengthening and plugging all loopholes in the case so it is "perfect" before public prosecutors bring Yingluck before the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

The OAG pinpointed three points in NACC's case that need more investigation:

First, the OAG wants the NACC to produce evidence that clearly shows that Yingluck had the power to scrap the rice-pledging scheme, which was part of her government's policy announced to the Parliament.

Second, the NACC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Yingluck failed to prevent corruption in the scheme even after being notified of it by the NACC and the Office of the Auditor-General.

Third, the NACC must present detailed evidence of the corruption and the stages at which it occurred.

The weakest point in the case is why the NACC cited corruption in the scheme using just the cover page of Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)'s report as evidence.

Also, why did the NACC not present its own evidence or offer better, more solid proof?

Somkiat Tangkitvanich, TDRI president, posted a comment on Facebook on Monday saying the NACC should not refer to TDRI's report on the rice-pledging scheme as evidence to incriminate anybody because evidence used in an academic sense is different to evidence used in a criminal or political case.

When launching an investigation into the rice-pledging scheme, the NACC first focused on the "fake" government-to-government deals with China in which it found 15 people allegedly involved, including former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his deputy, Poom Sarapol.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if the NACC first concluded this case and submitted this "fake" deal as evidence on Yingluck's alleged negligence.

On the one hand, the OAG's decision could weaken the NACC or discredit it further, especially since it was accused of being unusually hasty in launching an investigation and drawing a conclusion on the case against Yingluck.

On the other hand, OAG's decision could silence critics when better evidence is submitted and the attorney-general finally decides to prosecute the former PM.

Once the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders hands down a verdict, the defendant cannot appeal unless he or she has sufficient new evidence for the court to overturn its previous verdict.

Hence, getting the NACC to make its case against Yingluck stronger would be the best and the fairest for all sides.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/OAG-decision-on-rice-scheme-case-may-prove-to-be-f-30242935.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-10

[EricBerg]

"There have been questions that maybe the OAG does not want to prosecute Yingluck,"...

There still are.

"First, the OAG wants the NACC to produce evidence that clearly shows that Yingluck had the power to scrap the rice-pledging scheme, which was part of her government's policy announced to the Parliament." >>> She was acting president of the committee and she was acting PM. How much power does one need? Or perhaps her brother was stronger?

"Second, the NACC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Yingluck failed to prevent corruption in the scheme even after being notified of it by the NACC and the Office of the Auditor-General." Isn't her doing absolutely nothing proof? Let her proof otherwise. Let her state what she did after being notified? Shopping doesn't count I hope.

[ChrisY1]

Seems as the days pass, this case doesn't appear to be going anywhere.....

No-one seems overjoyed in trying to take YL down

[NongKhaiKid]

Seems as the days pass, this case doesn't appear to be going anywhere.....

No-one seems overjoyed in trying to take YL down

Will this prove to be another example of people in authority shying away from prosecuting a VIP, Hi-So, connected, rich and so on because of potential implications for themselves in the future ?

Let's form another committee but a committee is,

' A group of people who, as individuals, can decide nothing and who together can only decide that nothing can be done '.

[Robby nz]

Seems as the days pass, this case doesn't appear to be going anywhere.....

No-one seems overjoyed in trying to take YL down

What do you mean not going anywhere ?

If you keep up with things you will see that the NACC and OAG have both put together teams of 10 people for an investigative committee and have set a date for their first meeting.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if the NACC first concluded this case and submitted this "fake" deal as evidence on Yingluck's alleged negligence.

The case has proceeded on the fake rice deals to the stage where former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his deputy, Poom Sarapol, 13 others and their former secretary have all been charged.

To wait till those charges were heard and guilt or otherwise was determined could take years, not an option to wait that long to include their absolute guilt as evidence.

[CiaranO]

"There have been questions that maybe the OAG does not want to prosecute Yingluck,"...

There still are.

"First, the OAG wants the NACC to produce evidence that clearly shows that Yingluck had the power to scrap the rice-pledging scheme, which was part of her government's policy announced to the Parliament." >>> She was acting president of the committee and she was acting PM. How much power does one need? Or perhaps her brother was stronger?

"Second, the NACC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Yingluck failed to prevent corruption in the scheme even after being notified of it by the NACC and the Office of the Auditor-General." Isn't her doing absolutely nothing proof? Let her proof otherwise. Let her state what she did after being notified? Shopping doesn't count I hope.

I am no supporter of YS however your thoughts are completely flawed.

It is up to OAG to prove her guilt not the other way around.

[ChrisY1]

Seems as the days pass, this case doesn't appear to be going anywhere.....

No-one seems overjoyed in trying to take YL down

What do you mean not going anywhere ?

If you keep up with things you will see that the NACC and OAG have both put together teams of 10 people for an investigative committee and have set a date for their first meeting.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if the NACC first concluded this case and submitted this "fake" deal as evidence on Yingluck's alleged negligence.

The case has proceeded on the fake rice deals to the stage where former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his deputy, Poom Sarapol, 13 others and their former secretary have all been charged.

To wait till those charges were heard and guilt or otherwise was determined could take years, not an option to wait that long to include their absolute guilt as evidence.

I did say "doesn't appear to be going anywhere"

Yes...of course I understand that committees have been put together....

It's a matter now for us to wait and see.......

[pookiki]

Quote from the article: "The weakest point in the case is why the NACC cited corruption in the scheme using just the cover page of Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)'s report as evidence."

If this is true and properly translated, it shows that the NACC was incompetent in not doing its own investigation into the alleged corruption. You can't go into court using 'hearsay' evidence. I would also assert that if the NACC has not done a thorough investigation, then it has also denied YL due process in not allowing her to call additional witnesses as requested.

I also fail to see how GTG rice sales, even though bogus as alleged, has anything to do with the alleged corruption in the rice pledging scheme itself.

Since this is a court of final resort, the need for adequate due process is essential.

Edited September 10, 2014 by pookiki

[chotthee]

PM Prayuth should arrest the big person who rob tax payer dry in the name of rice farmers.

Regardless if he or SHE.

[rickirs]

There are a couple odd bits:

- “by law the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is in its right to take the case to court.”

Then why is the NACC even wasting its time trying to convince the OAG to try the case and being asked to get involved in a joint committee to refine its evidence? The NACC says its evidence is perfect, spot on, ironclad; so go try the case. Instead the NACC and OAG are playing “ring-around-the-rosie,” who will fall down? Maybe the NACC doubts its own trial capabilities so that it really has no alternative to rejection by the OAG. While the NACC has nothing to lose trying the case if it loses, the OAG apparently feels it does if it loses. The OAG isn't saying that if it loses because of inadequate evidence, it can still come back to the court with new evidence later and re-open the decision. This all detracts from the seriousness of the charge and makes a mockery of judicial efficiency.

- “Once the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders hands down a verdict, the defendant cannot appeal unless he or she has sufficient new evidence for the court to overturn its previous verdict.”

The Supreme Court is the final court to try and ajudicate a case. That means that the orders and decisions made by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Positions are final. "Final" as in "the end." It would seem that neither the prosecution with regard to a not guilty verdict nor the defense with regard to a guilty verdict could further appeal the decision for a claim of new evidence.

[airconsult]

There are a couple odd bits:

- “by law the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is in its right to take the case to court.”

Then why is the NACC even wasting its time trying to convince the OAG to try the case and being asked to get involved in a joint committee to refine its evidence? The NACC says its evidence is perfect, spot on, ironclad; so go try the case. Instead the NACC and OAG are playing “ring-around-the-rosie,” who will fall down? Maybe the NACC doubts its own trial capabilities so that it really has no alternative to rejection by the OAG. While the NACC has nothing to lose trying the case if it loses, the OAG apparently feels it does if it loses. The OAG isn't saying that if it loses because of inadequate evidence, it can still come back to the court with new evidence later and re-open the decision. This all detracts from the seriousness of the charge and makes a mockery of judicial efficiency.

- “Once the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders hands down a verdict, the defendant cannot appeal unless he or she has sufficient new evidence for the court to overturn its previous verdict.”

The Supreme Court is the final court to try and ajudicate a case. That means that the orders and decisions made by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Positions are final. "Final" as in "the end." It would seem that neither the prosecution with regard to a not guilty verdict nor the defense with regard to a guilty verdict could further appeal the decision for a claim of new evidence.

You're right of course.

The NACC doesn't want to try the case on it's own as it believes the evidence is weak. (and it doesn't want people to blame it when the case collapses).

So they tried to sucker the OAG into trying it - believing that the OAG would be "ordered" to try the case. However their review shows the evidence is shaky and incomplete - they don't want to take any blame for incompetence either.

Now if all the democrats who shouted so loudly about their "evidence" brought it forward right now for review - we might know if it's real or imaginary.

[smutcakes]

I would of thought a body like the NACC whose sole job is to investigate and gather evidence of corruption would know what can and cannot be used as evidence.

Given their incompetence i would not mind betting they come out swinging this week with their new evidence in the Democrat book.

Given all the protests about how corrupt the regime is by the PDRC/ Democrats etc i would of thought they could be furnished with evidence easily, unless of course all the 'intelligent' Bangkok elite and middle class have been duped like the buffalo red shirts into believing this was even about corruption.

[ramrod711]

First, the OAG wants the NACC to produce evidence that clearly shows that Yingluck had the power to scrap the rice-pledging scheme, which was part of her government's policy announced to the Parliament.

This would be impossible to prove, Thaksin would never testify against his sister. Any power she had was bestowed on her by her brother, she had the power to act as a rubber stamp for him, period.

[airconsult]

I would of thought a body like the NACC whose sole job is to investigate and gather evidence of corruption would know what can and cannot be used as evidence.

Given their incompetence i would not mind betting they come out swinging this week with their new evidence in the Democrat book.

Given all the protests about how corrupt the regime is by the PDRC/ Democrats etc i would of thought they could be furnished with evidence easily, unless of course all the 'intelligent' Bangkok elite and middle class have been duped like the buffalo red shirts into believing this was even about corruption.

Given the above - I think this case will drag very slowly out for about 5-7 years - and then be dropped. That's the traditional way of handling these problems.

Just like when the Party Chairman of TRT was acquitted (2013) of all charges of electoral fraud - the same charges that were used as a reason to dissolve and ban TRT after the 2006 coup.

Nobody (in charge anyway) actually wants it to come out right now that there was no evidence and that a lot of people were just making up stories.

[kimamey]

There are a couple odd bits:

- “by law the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is in its right to take the case to court.”

Then why is the NACC even wasting its time trying to convince the OAG to try the case and being asked to get involved in a joint committee to refine its evidence? The NACC says its evidence is perfect, spot on, ironclad; so go try the case. Instead the NACC and OAG are playing “ring-around-the-rosie,” who will fall down? Maybe the NACC doubts its own trial capabilities so that it really has no alternative to rejection by the OAG. While the NACC has nothing to lose trying the case if it loses, the OAG apparently feels it does if it loses. The OAG isn't saying that if it loses because of inadequate evidence, it can still come back to the court with new evidence later and re-open the decision. This all detracts from the seriousness of the charge and makes a mockery of judicial efficiency.

- “Once the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders hands down a verdict, the defendant cannot appeal unless he or she has sufficient new evidence for the court to overturn its previous verdict.”

The Supreme Court is the final court to try and ajudicate a case. That means that the orders and decisions made by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Positions are final. "Final" as in "the end." It would seem that neither the prosecution with regard to a not guilty verdict nor the defense with regard to a guilty verdict could further appeal the decision for a claim of new evidence.

Does the NACC have to offer the case to the OAG first who can take it to court and only if it doesn't the NACC can take it itself.

I don't know just wondering if that's the explanation.

[joebrown]

The opinion of the OAG is that the TDRI's report is insufficient to prove YL's part in corruption or that she acted negligently. So, here we have a government (taxpayer) funded quango producing a report citing corruption, but on what evidence? Surely, in a country where 'DEFAMATION' is a mortal sin, TDRI would not have relesed this report without having substantive evidence? The OAG should subpoena TDRI to submit such evidence. If there is no evidence why hasn't YL already cried "FOUL" and started a Defamation/Libel lawsuit against TDRI?

Edited September 10, 2014 by joebrown

[chotthee]

OAG paid by tax payers or Yingluck?

I wonder.

[waza]

"On the one hand, the OAG's decision could weaken the NACC or discredit it further, especially since it was accused of being unusually hasty in launching an investigation and drawing a conclusion on the case against Yingluck."

I believe it was the defendant and her legal team that made this claim so one would assume it hasn't discredited the case at all.

[EricBerg]

"There have been questions that maybe the OAG does not want to prosecute Yingluck,"...

There still are.

"First, the OAG wants the NACC to produce evidence that clearly shows that Yingluck had the power to scrap the rice-pledging scheme, which was part of her government's policy announced to the Parliament." >>> She was acting president of the committee and she was acting PM. How much power does one need? Or perhaps her brother was stronger?

"Second, the NACC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Yingluck failed to prevent corruption in the scheme even after being notified of it by the NACC and the Office of the Auditor-General." Isn't her doing absolutely nothing proof? Let her proof otherwise. Let her state what she did after being notified? Shopping doesn't count I hope.

I am no supporter of YS however your thoughts are completely flawed.

It is up to OAG to prove her guilt not the other way around.

Guilty because doing nothing. If no activity by YL can be discovered as reaction to repeated warnings the conclusion must be she did nothing against the corruption. Not even check the allegations. Then she is guilty. Up to her then to prove otherwise. In Dutch law it is called "nalatigheid", in German law "Fahrlässigkeit". Dunno the name in English and Thai law, but it will be there for sure.

[Old Man River]

There are a couple odd bits:

- “by law the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is in its right to take the case to court.”

Then why is the NACC even wasting its time trying to convince the OAG to try the case and being asked to get involved in a joint committee to refine its evidence? The NACC says its evidence is perfect, spot on, ironclad; so go try the case. Instead the NACC and OAG are playing “ring-around-the-rosie,” who will fall down? Maybe the NACC doubts its own trial capabilities so that it really has no alternative to rejection by the OAG. While the NACC has nothing to lose trying the case if it loses, the OAG apparently feels it does if it loses. The OAG isn't saying that if it loses because of inadequate evidence, it can still come back to the court with new evidence later and re-open the decision. This all detracts from the seriousness of the charge and makes a mockery of judicial efficiency.

- “Once the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders hands down a verdict, the defendant cannot appeal unless he or she has sufficient new evidence for the court to overturn its previous verdict.”

The Supreme Court is the final court to try and ajudicate a case. That means that the orders and decisions made by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Positions are final. "Final" as in "the end." It would seem that neither the prosecution with regard to a not guilty verdict nor the defense with regard to a guilty verdict could further appeal the decision for a claim of new evidence.

As I understand it, If new evidence is presented it then becomes a different case and reverts back to a lower court.

[Baerboxer]

I would of thought a body like the NACC whose sole job is to investigate and gather evidence of corruption would know what can and cannot be used as evidence.

Given their incompetence i would not mind betting they come out swinging this week with their new evidence in the Democrat book.

Given all the protests about how corrupt the regime is by the PDRC/ Democrats etc i would of thought they could be furnished with evidence easily, unless of course all the 'intelligent' Bangkok elite and middle class have been duped like the buffalo red shirts into believing this was even about corruption.

Cheating bills through parliament, well trying to, voting after telling the opposition to go home, bills voted through at 4.00 am, members illegally voting for missing colleagues (defense being Alzheimers), repeated lying, admitting lying, refusing to divulge real figures, different ministries issuing different figures and illegally issuing a new passport to a convicted fugitive criminal and then refusing to answer the Ombudsman's question about it.

Ring any bells? Sure was about much more than the rice scheme and more than the above.

All the Thais I know who protested were highly motivated to do so by what they saw as the obscene and totally unacceptable amnesty being crafted for Thaksin and his clan, absolving them of any kind of crime of whatever nature; the constant lying and ridiculous comments coming from Yingluck and the attempted use of one purports to be the justice system as a tool for control and intimidation of PTP's political opponents through spurious law suits and actions.

My wife, like many of her university friends and professional colleagues voted for PTP and were bitterly disappointed by what they got. And, listening to them now, they do all think they were duped by Thaksin, Yingluck and their gang. Lessons have been learnt.