Former DSI director Tarit sentenced to two years in prison

[slapout]

Maybe he was let out on bail in order to give him enough time for him to pack his bags and depart the country.

It has been reported that hey also froze several million in assets in his and his wifes name. I do not care what charge works to get this piece of garbage put behind bars and hopefully he and wife lose all assets found here and those abroad. This man changed / switched partners in the political arena more time than a soi dog in season.

The scickle is swinging slow it seems, but it sure seems to be cutting through a lot of chaff to get those so deserving of being brought to justice. Keep after the lot of them and punish them as deemed fit by the toughest of standards

[EnglishJohn]

2 years in prison with no suspension then released on 200 000 baht jail. I thought the idea of no suspension was an inability to be released.

You don't believe in the fundamental right of appeal?

So you think everyone who found guilty and convicted should be allowed free until they get around to appealing ?.

What a load of nonsense. Once the guilty hammer comes down, he should be escorted to the cells.

This worm belongs behind bars for what he did in the DSI. Absolutely disgusting.

[chrisinth]

"The court ruled that Mr Tarit transfered his subordinate, Col Piyawat Kingket, to a lower position job in the DSI in March 30, 2012 was illegitimate and an act of power abuse, and stemmed from conflict in working."

I don't like tarit and do think he belongs in gaol but this hardly seems to be the sort of offence that should result in a 2 year sentence.

Still, at the end of the day, it didn't......................

[billd766]

2 years in prison with no suspension then released on 200 000 baht jail. I thought the idea of no suspension was an inability to be released.

You don't believe in the fundamental right of appeal?

You can appeal from inside a prison as they do in the west.

[halloween]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

Canada, USA, India. That was a 2 minute google search.

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

"Bail after conviction" is a simple search.

[Denim]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

More to the point, what countries will give out custodial sentences for transferring people you don't get along with to other positions?

28 years for article 112, 2 years for an abuse of power, what would a coup get you if it wasn't constantly given amnesties?

Sadly , people who hold coups don't need something as churlish as an amnesty ........... they grant themselves something a lot better............ immunity from prosecution..... which is always in the small print of every new constitution they bake up.

Half baked I should say.

[TVGerry]

I was expecting this snake to flip and join the new government and do their bidding. Guess he didn't flip fast enough.

Or the junta is just smart enough not to want him.

[Darkknight666]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

Canada, USA, India. That was a 2 minute google search.

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

Yes, he is wrong. In the states it would be called a furlough. You do not get bail after being sentenced, you only get bail until you've finished go your case... Then, Remand.

[Darkknight666]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

Canada, USA, India. That was a 2 minute google search.

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

"Bail after conviction" is a simple search.

Search better. Try this, "bail after sentencing"

You have it confused, yes you can get bail with a prior record, No you cannot be bailed out once you are sentenced.

[halloween]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

Canada, USA, India. That was a 2 minute google search.

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

Yes, he is wrong. In the states it would be called a furlough. You do not get bail after being sentenced, you only get bail until you've finished go your case... Then, Remand.

"Once someone is convicted of a crime, it’s more difficult to obtain bail. It’s not impossible, but bail requirements are tougher. The presumption of innocence no longer applies. It doesn’t matter if the conviction was in federal or state court." http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/obtaining-bail-after-a-conviction.htm

BTW Remand is being held in custody after being charged but before conviction.

Edited August 11, 2015 by halloween

[Nuddy]

Absolutely incredible

They guys in charge bother to take him to court over some Minor infraction, senate him for 2 years and then let him out

Why do him for this]s odd thing, he has been allegedly accused of more evil stuff than this?

Amazing Thailand

Regards

[Darkknight666]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

Canada, USA, India. That was a 2 minute google search.

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

Yes, he is wrong. In the states it would be called a furlough. You do not get bail after being sentenced, you only get bail until you've finished go your case... Then, Remand.

"Once someone is convicted of a crime, its more difficult to obtain bail. Its not impossible, but bail requirements are tougher. The presumption of innocence no longer applies. It doesnt matter if the conviction was in federal or state court." http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/obtaining-bail-after-a-conviction.htm

BTW Remand is being held in custody after being charged but before conviction.

I read the same article. Context matters. They're saying if you have a prior conviction you can still obtain bail in a new case.

Once you are sentenced for a crime you serve that time, no bail. Ever. You can get a furlough if a loved one dies, that's not bail. You can also in some cases be on bail during an appeal.

In the states, you do nothing t get bail once you're ordered to jail. You're either serving what was ordered or being released due to over crowding, possibly on electronic monitoring... But you don't get out on bail once you're doing your time.

Google more.

[peteregion]

Many jurisdictions have determined that bail should be available if a defendant's jail sentence is shorter than the amount of time it will likely take to resolve the appeal (oftentimes a year or more). Otherwise, a defendant could win an appeal after having already served an entire jail or prison sentence.

[peteregion]

Go read this. Even in the US, there is Bail after sentence pending appeal.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-bail-while-i-appeal-conviction.html

[Reigntax]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

More to the point, what countries will give out custodial sentences for transferring people you don't get along with to other positions?

28 years for article 112, 2 years for an abuse of power, what would a coup get you if it wasn't constantly given amnesties?

You get the opportunity to pretend to be PM.

Thai universities are introducing new courses where you can attain a bachelor of coups, master of coups, even professor. There is no difference in the study time only the amount you pay, in fact the less knowledge you have the more likely you are to succeed.

[chickenslegs]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

Canada, USA, India. That was a 2 minute google search.

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

Yes, he is wrong. In the states it would be called a furlough. You do not get bail after being sentenced, you only get bail until you've finished go your case... Then, Remand.

"Remand" can be custodial - but it can also be on bail (with or without conditions).

In the UK it is quite normal for a person to be allowed bail pending their appeal, especially if that person has been remanded on bail prior to the conviction/sentencing.

re·mand

rəˈmand/

Law

verb

1. 1.

   place (a defendant) on bail or in custody, especially when a trial is adjourned.

   "I had a seventeen-year-old son remanded to a drug-addiction program"

   • return (a case) to a lower court for reconsideration.

     "the Supreme Court summarily vacated the opinion and remanded the matter back to the California Court of Appeal"

noun

1. 1.

   a committal to custody.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-judgements/magistrate-court-appeals.htm

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/

[tomacht8]

2 years, then 200.000 bail.
The muppet show goes on.

[Darkknight666]

Go read this. Even in the US, there is Bail after sentence pending appeal.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-bail-while-i-appeal-conviction.html

Have a hard time reading? I already said bail happens on appeal, my point is NO BAIL once you're serving time.

[phoenixdoglover]

........

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

Yes, he is wrong. In the states it would be called a furlough. You do not get bail after being sentenced, you only get bail until you've finished go your case... Then, Remand.

"Once someone is convicted of a crime, its more difficult to obtain bail. Its not impossible, but bail requirements are tougher. The presumption of innocence no longer applies. It doesnt matter if the conviction was in federal or state court." http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/obtaining-bail-after-a-conviction.htm

BTW Remand is being held in custody after being charged but before conviction.

I read the same article. Context matters. They're saying if you have a prior conviction you can still obtain bail in a new case.

Once you are sentenced for a crime you serve that time, no bail. Ever. You can get a furlough if a loved one dies, that's not bail. You can also in some cases be on bail during an appeal.

In the states, you do nothing t get bail once you're ordered to jail. You're either serving what was ordered or being released due to over crowding, possibly on electronic monitoring... But you don't get out on bail once you're doing your time.

Google more.

You said...

No you cannot be bailed out once you are sentenced.

This is incorrect, at least with respect to the US.

First, the individual States vary. Some do not allow bail after sentencing. But most do.

Second, it is typically up to the Judge. In many States, Judges are given the discretion to permit bail after sentencing, provided of course the convicted person (their lawyer) declares intent to file an appeal.

Third, it depends on the crime. Bail after sentencing is not permitted for some types of crimes...every State is different.

Fourth, the time frame for appeal, versus the duration of the sentence, is a common factor. If the length of time for appeal is likely to exceed the length of the sentence, bail during the appeals process is more likely.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-bail-while-i-appeal-conviction.html

Edited August 11, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[Jonmarleesco]

B200,000 bail. Well, being a fraction of what he is supposedly worth, that is a drop in the ocean.

[SOTIRIOS]

...........'justice'.....

[yuv06]

"The court ruled that Mr Tarit transfered his subordinate, Col Piyawat Kingket, to a lower position job in the DSI in March 30, 2012 was illegitimate and an act of power abuse, and stemmed from conflict in working."

I don't like tarit and do think he belongs in gaol but this hardly seems to be the sort of offence that should result in a 2 year sentence.

I think you must understand that this is a government official moving another government official which could be used to manipulate power and control by placing his own people into those position. It seems he was removed when he was handling a case which Tarit may have wanted a different outcome or to stop the investigation.

Edited August 11, 2015 by yuv06

[halloween]

In what other country do those convicted of crimes and sentenced, then actually get bail? What a complete joke the legal system is in Thailand, it really is ripe for reform.

Canada, USA, India. That was a 2 minute google search.

I haven't done any google searches but are you quite sure they get bail after being sentenced, in the countries mentioned in your post.

Bail in most countries comes after being arrested and charged, and only if you fit certain guidelines.

Yes, he is wrong. In the states it would be called a furlough. You do not get bail after being sentenced, you only get bail until you've finished go your case... Then, Remand.

"Once someone is convicted of a crime, its more difficult to obtain bail. Its not impossible, but bail requirements are tougher. The presumption of innocence no longer applies. It doesnt matter if the conviction was in federal or state court." http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/obtaining-bail-after-a-conviction.htm

BTW Remand is being held in custody after being charged but before conviction.

I read the same article. Context matters. They're saying if you have a prior conviction you can still obtain bail in a new case.

Once you are sentenced for a crime you serve that time, no bail. Ever. You can get a furlough if a loved one dies, that's not bail. You can also in some cases be on bail during an appeal.

In the states, you do nothing t get bail once you're ordered to jail. You're either serving what was ordered or being released due to over crowding, possibly on electronic monitoring... But you don't get out on bail once you're doing your time.

Google more.

If you read the same article, which I very much doubt, how did you miss this

"Bail Pending Appeal

If a convicted defendant is sentenced to prison and seeks bail pending an appeal, the judge must also consider the merits of the appeal as well as the defendant’s risk of flight and dangerousness. Essentially, the judge must find by clear and convincing evidence that:

• The defendant isn’t likely to flee
• The defendant isn’t a danger to the community
• The appeal isn’t a delay tactic
• The appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, a reduced sentence or a sentence that doesn’t include a prison term"

[Srikcir]

Will the courts address every grievance government employees have?

In the case "after the colonel’s transfer, he petitioned to the Office of the Civil Service Commission’s Merit System Protection Committee which ruled the transfer was illegitimate. Besides, the permanent secretary of Justice had also scrapped the transfer order, and reinstated him back to the position with instruction that any transfer of senior official must be considered with caution."

So the complaint was accepted, processed and concluded by internal grievance procedures. The employee was reinstated. Perhaps the only thing missing is a letter from Tarit to the employee appologizing for the incident or a warning letter from Tarit's manager placed in the administrative file for Tarit's next performance evaluation. Why did this then have to go to the courts when it was resolved?

What this court has done is essentially micro-managed the employee-employer relationship irrespective of procedural safeguards to address employee grievances. The end result is that truly unfit and unprofessional employees will be untouched. It's not worth a manager's risk to their own security to take issue (in Thailand called "conflict") with any employee performance. So the Thai government is left with a broken chain of command and an unaccountable workforce.

[halloween]

Will the courts address every grievance government employees have?

In the case "after the colonel’s transfer, he petitioned to the Office of the Civil Service Commission’s Merit System Protection Committee which ruled the transfer was illegitimate. Besides, the permanent secretary of Justice had also scrapped the transfer order, and reinstated him back to the position with instruction that any transfer of senior official must be considered with caution."

So the complaint was accepted, processed and concluded by internal grievance procedures. The employee was reinstated. Perhaps the only thing missing is a letter from Tarit to the employee appologizing for the incident or a warning letter from Tarit's manager placed in the administrative file for Tarit's next performance evaluation. Why did this then have to go to the courts when it was resolved?

What this court has done is essentially micro-managed the employee-employer relationship irrespective of procedural safeguards to address employee grievances. The end result is that truly unfit and unprofessional employees will be untouched. It's not worth a manager's risk to their own security to take issue (in Thailand called "conflict") with any employee performance. So the Thai government is left with a broken chain of command and an unaccountable workforce.

As usual, biased and with no relation to the facts. There was no employer-employee relationship, they were both civil servants. The senior demoted the junior without justification as ruled by both the appeals panel and the departments oversight permanent secretary.

But, but, but just because a senior officer rides roughshod over a department's rules and regulations is no reason he should face the consequences. Well, not when he's the ruling party's lickspittle anyway.

[Fat Haggis]

What's the point in quoting items about criminal law from other countries regarding bail? Unless you're familiar with Thai Law, which seems to be anything but similar, it's a wasted point.

Tarit isn't in America, the UK or Australia, where lots of these links pertain to, the Thai justice and judicial system is far more complex than Quantum Physics!!

[robblok]

What's the point in quoting items about criminal law from other countries regarding bail? Unless you're familiar with Thai Law, which seems to be anything but similar, it's a wasted point.

Tarit isn't in America, the UK or Australia, where lots of these links pertain to, the Thai justice and judicial system is far more complex than Quantum Physics!!

Totally untrue.. its quite simple.. your poor you get shafted your rich you can stay out on bail for as long as you want unless you piss off someone who is more powerful than you.

Edited August 12, 2015 by robblok

[Bluespunk]

"The court ruled that Mr Tarit transfered his subordinate, Col Piyawat Kingket, to a lower position job in the DSI in March 30, 2012 was illegitimate and an act of power abuse, and stemmed from conflict in working."

I don't like tarit and do think he belongs in gaol but this hardly seems to be the sort of offence that should result in a 2 year sentence.

I think you must understand that this is a government official moving another government official which could be used to manipulate power and control by placing his own people into those position. It seems he was removed when he was handling a case which Tarit may have wanted a different outcome or to stop the investigation.

Then he should be charged and, if found guilty at trial, gaoled for corruption.

If someone is moved because their superior is unhappy with the job they are doing it shouldn't result in gaol time.

If they move an employee to allow a crime to happen/allow a criminal escape punishment, then the charge should centre around their complicity in the crime, not the moving of the employee.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Bluespunk

[nolabuff]

Some people seem to be having trouble interpreting U.S. law in this argument. Let me provide two high-profile anecdotes that prove that, federally, a person can remain free after conviction and sentencing, pending appeal.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/william_jefferson_reports_to.html

After sentencing Jefferson to 13 years in prison in November, 2009, Ellis, an appointee of the late President Ronald Reagan, allowed Jefferson to remain free, under electronic monitor, while his appeals process moved forward.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/mcdonnell-to-remain-free-pending-appeal/2015/01/26/6838ba5c-a58f-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html

[halloween]

"The court ruled that Mr Tarit transfered his subordinate, Col Piyawat Kingket, to a lower position job in the DSI in March 30, 2012 was illegitimate and an act of power abuse, and stemmed from conflict in working."

I don't like tarit and do think he belongs in gaol but this hardly seems to be the sort of offence that should result in a 2 year sentence.

I think you must understand that this is a government official moving another government official which could be used to manipulate power and control by placing his own people into those position. It seems he was removed when he was handling a case which Tarit may have wanted a different outcome or to stop the investigation.

Then he should be charged and, if found guilty at trial, gaoled for corruption.

If someone is moved because their superior is unhappy with the job they are doing it shouldn't result in gaol time.

If they move an employee to allow a crime to happen/allow a criminal escape punishment, then the charge should centre around their complicity in the crime, not the moving of the employee.

No evidence that he was complicit in the crime, though it appears he may have been part of an attempted cover-up. Again.