Supreme Court decides today on hearing Yingluck rice case

[webfact]

RICE-PLEDGING SCHEME
Supreme Court decides today on hearing Yingluck rice case
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders will today decide whether to accept the case filed against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for negligence by failing to stop corruption and mismanagement in the rice-pledging scheme that inflicted a loss of Bt600 billion to the national coffers and the rice trade.

Thanarerk Nitiseranee, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said a panel of nine judges selected to hear the case would meet today to decide whether to accept the case and select a presiding judge for the case.

He said Yingluck has not filed an objection against any of the judges selected to hear the case. She has time until the first hearing day to object to the appointment of any judge.

Norawit Lalang, Yingluck's lawyer, said the former premier would not be present in the court when the judges announce their decision today.

Surasak Trirattrakul, deputy chief prosecutor in charge of the case, said six prosecutors would go to the court to hear the decision.

If found guilty after being tried, Yingluck could face one to 10 years in prison or a fine of between Bt2,000 and Bt20,000 or both.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Office of the Attorney-General have agreed to indict Yingluck on a long-standing criminal case in which she has been accused of dereliction of duty in violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Code and in violation of the NACC Act of 1999 for doing or not doing something that caused damage, or being negligent.

She is accused of intentional exercise of power contrary to Article 178 of the Constitution which stipulates that the prime minister shall carry out the administration of state affairs in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, laws and the policies stated before Parliament.

Yingluck is not legally required to be present at the court today.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Supreme-Court-decides-today-on-hearing-Yingluck-ri-30256309.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-19

[jdinasia]

Any sentence of 2 years or longer means a lifetime ban from politics

[JOC]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

[LuckyLew]

a maximum fine of 20 000 baht ... 555

I they accept the case and it goes to trial ... my money is on her lawyers objecting to one of the judges they day before the trial starts

delay delay dealy

[trogers]

Maximum fine is Bt20,000. How much has it cost the country so far to investigate and bring forth charges? How much more would it cost to let justice take its course? Bt20,000?

[greenchair]

Is that a misprint?

20,000 baht fine.

How much will it cost for all these judges, prosecutor and court hearings? All that to give a 20,000 baht fine ??

[ezzra]

Is that a misprint?

20,000 baht fine.

How much will it cost for all these judges, prosecutor and court hearings? All that to give a 20,000 baht fine ??

Please don't forget, these are poor public servants on a paltry government salary,

so pity them please....

[Ricardo]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

Unlike the original rice-scheme, then, which was totally political ?

If only there had been some meaningful benefit, to the poorest of the rice-farmers, then she might have a leg to stand on, but she doesn't IMO.

Shameful how she was used by her brother & his friends, but also very wrong how she continued to deny the reality of corruption & misdirection, long after it was very plain to see.

She deserves a political-ban, but not so sure about criminal-charges, is being naive a crime or merely a personality-fault ?

[lucky11]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

No it's not!! and neither was Thaksin's fraud, corruption and abuse of position charges.

If an MP is dishonest and commits a crime then why is charging them politically motivated?

If that was the case then charging ANY politician committing any crime....murder, armed robbery, terrorism etc: could be deemed politically motivated!!!

Edited March 19, 2015 by lucky11

[Docno]

Everything so dodgy about how this is being handled. She is impeached after being removed from office (look up the definition of ''impeachment'). The impeachment happens without her admitting guilt or being found guilty of anything. And now we have potentially two parallel/redundant cases against her.

Now, I have no problem with her 'paying the price' if she was criminally negligent in the sense that she knew--or should have known--that there was large scale corruption and did nothing to address it. But that needs to be proven in a court of law and with full public scrutiny. The problem is that with the (lack of) freedom of the press under the current regime, that second requirement is very unlikely ... we will simply never know what evidence there might be to exonerate YL because the coup makers have already made it clear that media should not be 'stirring up things'.

[trogers]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

Unlike the original rice-scheme, then, which was totally political ?

If only there had been some meaningful benefit, to the poorest of the rice-farmers, then she might have a leg to stand on, but she doesn't IMO.

Shameful how she was used by her brother & his friends, but also very wrong how she continued to deny the reality of corruption & misdirection, long after it was very plain to see.

She deserves a political-ban, but not so sure about criminal-charges, is being naive a crime or merely a personality-fault ?

Using the same arguments like 'just an honest mistake'?

[webfact]

Thai court to decide on trial of ex-PM Yingluck
AFP

BANGKOK: -- Thailand's Supreme Court was Thursday set to decide whether to proceed with the prosecution of former premier Yingluck Shinawatra over a bungled rice subsidy that could see her jailed for up to a decade.

It is the latest legal move against Thailand's first female prime minister and sister of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra that could spell the end of her family's political dominance.

The Shinawatras, or parties allied to them, have won every Thai election since 2001.

In February Thailand's attorney general filed criminal charges against Yingluck, accusing her of "dereliction of duty" in relation to the economically disastrous rice scheme, which paid farmers in the rural Shinawatra heartland twice the market rate for their crops.

The programme cost billions of dollars and inspired the protests that eventually felled Yingluck's elected government and led to May's military coup.

The court decision due at around 10:00 am (0300 GMT) comes less than two months after the retroactive impeachment of the former premier by an assembly appointed by the ruling generals -- a move that carries an automatic five-year ban from politics.

Yingluck is not expected to attend the Bangkok court on Thursday.

The army takeover last year was the latest twist in Thailand's turbulent political landscape, at the heart of which sits Thaksin, who was toppled by a previous coup in 2006 and now lives in self-exile to avoid jail on a corruption charge.

Yet his influence persists in Thai politics with Shinawatra allied parties drawing the loyalty of the rural north as well as urban working-class voters for their populist policies.

But Thaksin is loathed by much of the country's royalist elite, backed by parts of the military and judiciary, and experts say the impeachment and charges against Yingluck is their latest attempt to extinguish the political prowess of the Shinawatras.

The junta has said it will hold fresh elections in early 2016 once reforms to tackle corruption and curb the power of political parties are codified in a new constitution.

But the draft charter has already raised deep concerns in the kingdom, and critics doubt whether it will bridge Thailand's deep political divisions.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2015-03-19

[Ricardo]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

Unlike the original rice-scheme, then, which was totally political ?

If only there had been some meaningful benefit, to the poorest of the rice-farmers, then she might have a leg to stand on, but she doesn't IMO.

Shameful how she was used by her brother & his friends, but also very wrong how she continued to deny the reality of corruption & misdirection, long after it was very plain to see.

She deserves a political-ban, but not so sure about criminal-charges, is being naive a crime or merely a personality-fault ?

Using the same arguments like 'just an honest mistake'?

I'm sure that phrase seems familiar, could it perhaps be a family-motto, I wonder ?

[jdinasia]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

Agreed. It is not politically motivated. It is a result of corruption.

[jdinasia]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

Unlike the original rice-scheme, then, which was totally political ?

If only there had been some meaningful benefit, to the poorest of the rice-farmers, then she might have a leg to stand on, but she doesn't IMO.

Shameful how she was used by her brother & his friends, but also very wrong how she continued to deny the reality of corruption & misdirection, long after it was very plain to see.

She deserves a political-ban, but not so sure about criminal-charges, is being naive a crime or merely a personality-fault ?

Turning a blind eye to what was happening, while the self appointed head of the National Rice Policy Committee isn't naivete

[webfact]

Thai former PM Yingluck to face trial over rice scheme: court
AFP

BANGKOK: -- Thailand's former premier Yingluck Shinawatra was Thursday ordered to stand trial on charges of negligence over a bungled rice subsidy scheme in a case that could see her jailed for up to a decade.

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/810030-thai-former-pm-yingluck-to-face-trial-over-rice-scheme-court/

[Baerboxer]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

Ah the usual Shin mantra - we're all innocent, it's all political.

Just like Thaksin - all just honest mistakes, silly laws broken of no real consequence; and all those 15 outstanding cases he refuses to face, all no doubt politically motivated as he'd never lie or break the law. Just like when he promised to come back from the Olympic games; or to be here shoulder to shoulder on the front line in 2010 when the first shots are fired. Only "white lies" in his book and he had his fingers crossed behind his back.

Yingluck is from the same mold. She's continuously lied throughout her term and carries on with the same approach.

Why some farangs still support a family of proven liars and criminals who have become vastly wealthy at the expense of their country is incomprehensible. The Shins think they're untouchable - very rich, elites with their own regional power base. Like some medieval clan. Yingluck could have stopped all this by explaining her actions, what went wrong and where all the money has gone. She either can't, doesn't want to or has been stopped from doing so.

[Baerboxer]

Everything so dodgy about how this is being handled. She is impeached after being removed from office (look up the definition of ''impeachment'). The impeachment happens without her admitting guilt or being found guilty of anything. And now we have potentially two parallel/redundant cases against her.

Now, I have no problem with her 'paying the price' if she was criminally negligent in the sense that she knew--or should have known--that there was large scale corruption and did nothing to address it. But that needs to be proven in a court of law and with full public scrutiny. The problem is that with the (lack of) freedom of the press under the current regime, that second requirement is very unlikely ... we will simply never know what evidence there might be to exonerate YL because the coup makers have already made it clear that media should not be 'stirring up things'.

Yeah right.

Do some research. Start from when Yingluck took office until today. See how many comments she made confirming there were no problems, how she set up a committee under Chalerm to check and make sure, how she ignored warnings from international agencies, how she ignored warnings from internal people who were transferred for daring to speak out or warn about things etc etc etc. She never attended the meetings she was supposed to chair, having appointed herself to that position, dismissed all warnings, affirmed she was in charge and repeatedly stated there were no issues regarding cash flow, quality, fraud or inventory.

What do you think could exist and be submitted as evidence to exonerate Yingluck? The self proclaimed person in charge who still claims this helped poor people (not according to the World Bank), was not loss making (she measures things her way) and that there was no fraud? The same person who never actually turned up to the meetings? Ask the poor farmers if she lied when she vowed they'd be paid "next week".

The evidence that is in the public domain already looks pretty clear. Sweet smiles. plenty of pearls and designer clothes, some crocodile tears whilst lying through her teeth won't cut the mustard this time. Neither will squealing it's all politically motivated and a conspiracy against her family.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Baerboxer

[Wombat6]

And of course this is not at all politically motivated!!

No it's not !! have you been living under a rock and not following the events leading up to her facing Court. The previous possible Court Actions against Yingluck for insider trading and tax evasion that didn't happen were definitely politically motivated.

[Daniel Ingalls]

If I was Yingluck, I would just pay double the fine, 40,000 baht to each and every one of the judges. (behind closed doors to settle up and be done with it) then the country can move on under marshal law. This is dragging on too long. Lets be done with it.

[Docno]

Everything so dodgy about how this is being handled. She is impeached after being removed from office (look up the definition of ''impeachment'). The impeachment happens without her admitting guilt or being found guilty of anything. And now we have potentially two parallel/redundant cases against her.

Now, I have no problem with her 'paying the price' if she was criminally negligent in the sense that she knew--or should have known--that there was large scale corruption and did nothing to address it. But that needs to be proven in a court of law and with full public scrutiny. The problem is that with the (lack of) freedom of the press under the current regime, that second requirement is very unlikely ... we will simply never know what evidence there might be to exonerate YL because the coup makers have already made it clear that media should not be 'stirring up things'.

Yeah right.

Do some research. Start from when Yingluck took office until today. See how many comments she made confirming there were no problems, how she set up a committee under Chalerm to check and make sure, how she ignored warnings from international agencies, how she ignored warnings from internal people who were transferred for daring to speak out or warn about things etc etc etc. She never attended the meetings she was supposed to chair, having appointed herself to that position, dismissed all warnings, affirmed she was in charge and repeatedly stated there were no issues regarding cash flow, quality, fraud or inventory.

What do you think could exist and be submitted as evidence to exonerate Yingluck? The self proclaimed person in charge who still claims this helped poor people (not according to the World Bank), was not loss making (she measures things her way) and that there was no fraud? The same person who never actually turned up to the meetings? Ask the poor farmers if she lied when she vowed they'd be paid "next week".

The evidence that is in the public domain already looks pretty clear. Sweet smiles. plenty of pearls and designer clothes, some crocodile tears whilst lying through her teeth won't cut the mustard this time. Neither will squealing it's all politically motivated and a conspiracy against her family.

Please take your blinders off and re-read my post. I clearly stated that I have no problem with her being punished if she is found to be criminally negligent in a fair and transparent trial. What you are referring to is trial by media. I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Why bother with courts at all if we are going to find someone guilty on the basis of media reports? Please try again.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Docno

[jdinasia]

If I was Yingluck, I would just pay double the fine, 40,000 baht to each and every one of the judges. (behind closed doors to settle up and be done with it) then the country can move on under marshal law. This is dragging on too long. Lets be done with it.

You must not have been here very long. Thaksin's lawyers tried buying judges with much more $$ and it was reported. The lawyers went to jail.

The days of walking away from corruption charges appear to be over, and that is good.

Martial * law will end when it ends

[bander]

Time to pack the suitcase and join the brother in Dubai.

[Baerboxer]

Everything so dodgy about how this is being handled. She is impeached after being removed from office (look up the definition of ''impeachment'). The impeachment happens without her admitting guilt or being found guilty of anything. And now we have potentially two parallel/redundant cases against her.

Now, I have no problem with her 'paying the price' if she was criminally negligent in the sense that she knew--or should have known--that there was large scale corruption and did nothing to address it. But that needs to be proven in a court of law and with full public scrutiny. The problem is that with the (lack of) freedom of the press under the current regime, that second requirement is very unlikely ... we will simply never know what evidence there might be to exonerate YL because the coup makers have already made it clear that media should not be 'stirring up things'.

Yeah right.

Do some research. Start from when Yingluck took office until today. See how many comments she made confirming there were no problems, how she set up a committee under Chalerm to check and make sure, how she ignored warnings from international agencies, how she ignored warnings from internal people who were transferred for daring to speak out or warn about things etc etc etc. She never attended the meetings she was supposed to chair, having appointed herself to that position, dismissed all warnings, affirmed she was in charge and repeatedly stated there were no issues regarding cash flow, quality, fraud or inventory.

What do you think could exist and be submitted as evidence to exonerate Yingluck? The self proclaimed person in charge who still claims this helped poor people (not according to the World Bank), was not loss making (she measures things her way) and that there was no fraud? The same person who never actually turned up to the meetings? Ask the poor farmers if she lied when she vowed they'd be paid "next week".

The evidence that is in the public domain already looks pretty clear. Sweet smiles. plenty of pearls and designer clothes, some crocodile tears whilst lying through her teeth won't cut the mustard this time. Neither will squealing it's all politically motivated and a conspiracy against her family.

Please take your blinders off and re-read my post. I clearly stated that I have no problem with her being punished if she is found to be criminally negligent in a fair and transparent trial. What you are referring to is trial by media. I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Why bother with courts at all if we are going to find someone guilty on the basis of media reports? Please try again.

And take your tinted glasses off. Why are cases against her redundant?

The evidence has yet to be presented in court. But based on previous instances and her current comments Yingluck will stick to the same old dreary tactics - deny any wrong doing, claim to be honest, waffle about the true intentions of her policies, claim she served the Thai people, attack the justice process and claim it's all just political and a vendetta against her family. No attempt to actually provide meaningful information or answer questions to defend herself.

She could have presented a robust defense of her actions, the scheme, and the accounting at her impeachment hearing. She chose not too. Why do you think that was?