Criminal Court drops Yingluck's lawsuit against attorney-general

[ginjag]

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

I'm not sure what your nation or it's legal system is, but in most Rule of Law nations you don't monetarily punish heads of state for fiscal losses for failed policies. George W Bush comes to mind as a good counter example. Doing so is disproportionate and unjust, and discourages anyone from participating in the political system. This is exactly what the Junta wants, you do understand. By making any challenge to political dominance entail prohibitive risk is a big gain for outright authoritarian control.

According to the "Mob" in control right now, if your name is Shinawatra, you are guilty of everything, no proof needed.

What other government on this earth would not only allow, but would indeed organize for a convicted criminal to take part in high level government meetings via Skype when major decisions are being made?

You punish "heads of government" when they have been grossly incompetent, when literally hundreds of billions of Thai Baht have been siphoned off to the connected and quoted. This didn't happen by accident or by chance, this was an organized effort to take the money from the poor of this country and transfer it to the wealthy, for the ex PM to now plead ignorance and innocence is laughable.

As for "discourages anyone from participating in the political system" that is exactly what is required, if they are hell bent on plundering the national coffers, if their first priority is lining their own pockets then who needs them in office?

​It seems too many on this forum want to quote about democracy and legal procedures while conveniently forgetting what happened in this country, this country was headed for a financial precipice. It was being mismanaged by a corrupt and narcissistic government that cared not for the people who voted for them.

Drag them all through the courts and give them an opportunity to prove their "innocence" Maybe then the general masses who voted for them will see them as they truly are...

Bignose my friend---these agenda people on TVF are not interested what you posted, they do not like posts like this and bombard everyone with anti--PM material, or accuse the likes of you and me of having an agenda.

half of them when cornered will say "I do not like Thaksin to worm out the situation---and slag the army off. Near all do not want a memory.

[krdowney]

So, all you arm chair tacticians think that getting your favorite team to make a martyr out of Yingluk is a great idea?

For god's sake, read a history book. Better yet, make it a Thai history book edited by Rush Limbaugh and published by Fox News. I'm sure you like a lot of fiction with your fact.

I'm not trying to make Yingluck a martyr. She dug her grave. What I am saying is that vindictive court rulings do not promote anything but more trouble. Punish her for dereliction of duty, sure. But the disproportionality of the potential fine is not meant to serve justice, but to serve notice of subjugation. I don't think it's wise.

[Denim]

People keep referring to ' the rule of law ' when the term is not strictly relevant in Thailand. Thailand does not have a jury system and all decisions are handled by judges. In making their decisions they have carte blanche to interpret both the law and the alleged offence to such a degree that many of their decisions are so divorced from a strict and unbiased application of the written law that justice becomes a victim of political correctness and cliquey loyalties.

This is the Thainess which is not to be confused with civilized practices elsewhere.

[krdowney]

People keep referring to ' the rule of law ' when the term is not strictly relevant in Thailand. Thailand does not have a jury system and all decisions are handled by judges. In making their decisions they have carte blanche to interpret both the law and the alleged offence to such a degree that many of their decisions are so divorced from a strict and unbiased application of the written law that justice becomes a victim of political correctness and cliquey loyalties.

This is the Thainess which is not to be confused with civilized practices elsewhere.

I understand that, trials run very differently here. But 'rule of law' is not the same as trial by jury. A quick definition of rule of law (straight off the internet, so we know it's true) is, "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws." There are thousands of definitions, but this one works. How a society and it's system of justice chooses to restrict arbitrary power is it's own choice, however not restricting it causes substantial problems. I never ask Thais solve their problems of governance and justice by being Western, but I do suggest they solve their problems none the less.

[Eric Loh]

Criminal court dropping the lawsuit was expected and she said that. Smart that she able to highlight the irregularities of the court without being charge for contempt. Brilliant defiance which will see her as strong by her supporters.

[EnglishJohn]

People keep referring to ' the rule of law ' when the term is not strictly relevant in Thailand. Thailand does not have a jury system and all decisions are handled by judges. In making their decisions they have carte blanche to interpret both the law and the alleged offence to such a degree that many of their decisions are so divorced from a strict and unbiased application of the written law that justice becomes a victim of political correctness and cliquey loyalties.

This is the Thainess which is not to be confused with civilized practices elsewhere.

One can only imagine the extent of the 'jury nobbling' if it were.

People would start to look at jury service as another way to make some money through corruption. Just like joining the police.

The root of the problem is that the majority of Thais are corrupt and don't care. Justice would be worse in this country if they had a jury.

[Emster23]

Who says Thai "justice system" is slow? This must be some sort of record.

I think charge of negligence should include her not telling police "Ignore warning army gave you. Go arrest Suthep and protestors who are preventing elections, occupying government buildings illegally", and so on. By accommodating those treasonous behaviors in hope coup wouldn't happen clear she wasn't keeping her eye on the ball.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[easybullet3]

Yingluck is pretty much out of luck, now what? appeal? time will tell, we haven't heard and seen

the last of this story yet, not by a long shot....

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

She might as well face it, she is not facing the "law of the land" but of the military coup body and the Democrat party. Outside of these two identities, no one will have a chance of winning anything concerning politics in a court case. It is all predetermined in their favour.

As much as I know how corrupt she (and many of the elite) are,, isn't she still allowed to bring a case to court ?

Doesnt it seem equally corrupt that her case is denied a hearing ?

Surely, if she wants to bring someone to court, she can.

she will most likely lose the case, BUT its her right as a person to bring someone to court, no ?

is it legal for the criminal court to drop her case without hearing her accusations ?

i mean: What if she had undisputable evidence agsinst them, etc.

i assumed that one gets to 'voice' their claim in a court of law.. (even if she is wrong or right, I thought she gets her chance in court).

[lucky11]

That outcome was expected in this corrupt, ONE-SIDED system, but that's the way to fire back at 'em YL.

Fire back with what? It might help if she had lawyers that knew what they are doing and didn't have an elder brother that is as selfish as they come and is prepared to sacrifice his own kin in a vain mission to get his amnesty so that he can return to the land (that he will now clearly never see again)!!

She cocked up, cost her beloved country a fortune in the process and made the mistake of fighting her cowardly fugitive brother's lost cause and so she must pay for her failings and blind faith in her dastardly brother.

Her trying to sue her prosecutors was probably the dumbest thing she has ever done and she done her fair share of those in her short tenure!!

[krdowney]

Yingluck is pretty much out of luck, now what? appeal? time will tell, we haven't heard and seen

the last of this story yet, not by a long shot....

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

She might as well face it, she is not facing the "law of the land" but of the military coup body and the Democrat party. Outside of these two identities, no one will have a chance of winning anything concerning politics in a court case. It is all predetermined in their favour.

As much as I know how corrupt she (and many of the elite) are,, isn't she still allowed to bring a case to court ?

Doesnt it seem equally corrupt that her case is denied a hearing ?

Surely, if she wants to bring someone to court, she can.

she will most likely lose the case, BUT its her right as a person to bring someone to court, no ?

is it legal for the criminal court to drop her case without hearing her accusations ?

i mean: What if she had undisputable evidence agsinst them, etc.

i assumed that one gets to 'voice' their claim in a court of law.. (even if she is wrong or right, I thought she gets her chance in court).

Rights "as a person" is not part of the Thai social contract. You only have rights over those who are inferior to you. Those above you can abrogate your rights at any time, but typically choose not to in order to keep peace. THIS is the social contract in Thailand. This is why the PDRC (and a lot of the public) felt comfortable with telling the majority in Isan that they could no longer vote. In their eyes, Isan had acted foolishly and it was the ammat's place to deny them their rights. So there is no sense of absolute personhood here; Thailand has no Locke or Montesquieu in their cultural legacy. So she has no "right as a person" to fall back on as we would in the west. It just doesn't exist.

[Baerboxer]

Her enemies are so thick they cannot see that going after Yingluck is entrenching her support.

Yingluck has become far more than a proxy for her brother: she has a very different persona and where there is political support for Thaksin, there is a deep love for Yingluck.

"Deep love for Yingluck"

[lucky11]

Yingluck is pretty much out of luck, now what? appeal? time will tell, we haven't heard and seen

the last of this story yet, not by a long shot....

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

She might as well face it, she is not facing the "law of the land" but of the military coup body and the Democrat party. Outside of these two identities, no one will have a chance of winning anything concerning politics in a court case. It is all predetermined in their favour.

As much as I know how corrupt she (and many of the elite) are,, isn't she still allowed to bring a case to court ?

Doesnt it seem equally corrupt that her case is denied a hearing ?

Surely, if she wants to bring someone to court, she can.

she will most likely lose the case, BUT its her right as a person to bring someone to court, no ?

is it legal for the criminal court to drop her case without hearing her accusations ?

i mean: What if she had undisputable evidence agsinst them, etc.

i assumed that one gets to 'voice' their claim in a court of law.. (even if she is wrong or right, I thought she gets her chance in court).

The court decided that there wasn't a case to answer and it would just be wasting the court's valuable time - so there you go, never fear though, she will have her time in court in the not too distant future, unfortunately for her she is the rabbit in the headlights.

Edited October 6, 2015 by lucky11

[jesimps]

Her enemies are so thick they cannot see that going after Yingluck is entrenching her support.

Yingluck has become far more than a proxy for her brother: she has a very different persona and where there is political support for Thaksin, there is a deep love for Yingluck.

So, Squeegee, Yingluck should just get away with anything because she is a Shinawatra?

Or is it because her brother's rice scheme to enrich himself and his supporters backfired - and resulted in the suicides of several people?

I think the "deep love" for Yingluck is purchased.

The very word Shinawatra smells in the nostrils of all decent Thais.

So should be no problem for junta/PAD calling an early election then?

[ginjag]

It does not matter what she does, the new UNELECTED GOVERNMENT will find a way to turn down anything she does. Totally wrong - her requests should be the same as anyones. It should not matter who she is. The Electorate still voted her in, no one voted this current lot in. They just TOOK CONTR UNLAWFULLY.

Get the record straight again, OMG. Yingluck was NOT elected in by the Thai voters. She was placed in the PM position by her convicted brother to run the country under his distant control.

You said they took control unlawfully --?? from a government that were governing unlawfully.. as another newbie, you forgot to mention the things pointed out to you, so you must be another agenda poster. If not you would look at the whole picture.

[baboon]

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

She didn't personally steal the half a trillion baht and transfer it to her own personal account...

She is still guilty of gross negligence but not all of it

Apparently she didn't attend a single meeting when she was in charge of the rice scheme

It seems disproportionate that she gets 100% of the repayment debt but it would be impossible now to figure out who stole how much etc...

How many meetings of the immigration department did the junta head attend? Should he too not be on trial for his negligence in not preventing the Bangkok bomb? Was he busy shopping at the time maybe...?

[webfact]

POLITICS
Court rejects Yingluck suit against AG
THE NATION



BANGKOK -- EMBATTLED former PM Yingluck Shinawatra might consider appealing against the Criminal Court's rejection yesterday of her lawsuit against former attorney-general Trakul Winitnaiyapak and three prosecutors.

Her lawsuit claimed irregularities in her indictment by the Supreme Court in relation to the rice-pledging scheme, her attorney said.Yingluck argued that Trakul and the prosecutors had charged her with malfeasance over the rice-pledging scheme despite knowing that their case against her had loopholes that required more investigation.

The court ruled that Yingluck failed to show official proof that no meetings on her case were held by the joint panel of prosecutors and the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Her suit only cited interviews by the media, it said.

The Attorney-General's Office on January 20 declared that the joint panel had looked into evidence, which showed that before Trakul filed charges, the prosecutors and graft busters had worked together.

Yingluck also accused Trakul of harassment because he sought to indict her just an hour before the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) voted to impeach her.

The court found that the proceedings were launched because the NACC had petitioned the NLA to impeach her and had nothing to do with the criminal charges filed against Yingluck by prosecutors. The court said it was her impression that the accused had harassed her but she failed to show how the defendants intended to frame her.

Yingluck, however, accused Trakul of framing her because the NACC had not included corruption among her alleged offences but he had. The court pointed out that Trakul had filed charges with the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders that clearly stated that the NACC had determined that Yingluck had committed offences. The charges as stated in the writ filed by prosecutors were not false as Yingluck claimed.

Yingluck also accused Trakul of unlawfully filing over 60,000 pages of evidence even though these documents were not discussed during the joint investigation. The court ruled that though the law stipulates that the court conducts hearings according to the writ submitted by the NACC, the court reserves the right to summon additional evidence and witnesses. The defendant also has the right to counter the state's evidence and witnesses with her own evidence and witnesses.

The court found that Trakul did not commit any offence as Yingluck claimed.

Sommai Koosap, Yingluck's attorney, said that he believes Yingluck would appeal the ruling and that he would copy the court's decision and scrutinise it in detail.

The lawyer also rejected comments by legal specialists circulated on social media that Yingluck's criminal suit against Trakul could backfire if Trakul files a counter-suit against her for filing false charges against him and taking him to court.

Yingluck had taken legal action in accordance with the facts, and filing a suit and facing a counter-suit was normal, he said.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha said he would not exercise his powers under Article 44 of the provisional charter to seize the assets of anyone connected with the rice-pledging scheme, as that matter was up to the courts and judicial system.

"I do not want allegations of double standards. I treat everyone with the same standard to ensure justice and reduce disparity,'' he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Court-rejects-Yingluck-suit-against-AG-30270330.html

-- The Nation 2015-10-07

[sweatalot]

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

She didn't personally steal the half a trillion baht and transfer it to her own personal account...

She is still guilty of gross negligence but not all of it

Apparently she didn't attend a single meeting when she was in charge of the rice scheme

It seems disproportionate that she gets 100% of the repayment debt but it would be impossible now to figure out who stole how much etc...

It seems disproportionate that she gets 100% of the repayment debt but it would be impossible now to figure out who stole how much etc...

probably she knows who and can sue them to get her repayment back

[sweatalot]

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

I'm not sure what your nation or it's legal system is, but in most Rule of Law nations you don't monetarily punish heads of state for fiscal losses for failed policies. George W Bush comes to mind as a good counter example. Doing so is disproportionate and unjust, and discourages anyone from participating in the political system. This is exactly what the Junta wants, you do understand. By making any challenge to political dominance entail prohibitive risk is a big gain for outright authoritarian control.

According to the "Mob" in control right now, if your name is Shinawatra, you are guilty of everything, no proof needed.

proof enough if you look around

[sweatalot]

Since when are you required to have a passport to enter and leave Thailand? Did you miss the memo about the immigration officers on the Cambodian border?

If Yingluck is found guilty of criminal neglect with respect to corruption in her administration, she faces a 10 year prison sentence. I'm not sure why you think that is a waste of time, unless you support the PTP immunizing its party members from criminal charges when the party returns to power. So much for rule of law.

You don't seem to understand. The coup was and still is an illegal action and that this so called government really has no legal power, so how can they bring imaginary criminal charges and expect them to remain set in concrete

so what ..

The French revolution was an illegal action, too

The French king and nobility at those times

the shins and the ptp/red shirts now

[sweatalot]

That outcome was expected in this corrupt, ONE-SIDED system, but that's the way to fire back at 'em YL.

corrupt ONE-SIDED system

you mean the shin governing system, right

[krdowney]

Since when are you required to have a passport to enter and leave Thailand? Did you miss the memo about the immigration officers on the Cambodian border?

If Yingluck is found guilty of criminal neglect with respect to corruption in her administration, she faces a 10 year prison sentence. I'm not sure why you think that is a waste of time, unless you support the PTP immunizing its party members from criminal charges when the party returns to power. So much for rule of law.

You don't seem to understand. The coup was and still is an illegal action and that this so called government really has no legal power, so how can they bring imaginary criminal charges and expect them to remain set in concrete

so what ..

The French revolution was an illegal action, too

The French king and nobility at those times

the shins and the ptp/red shirts now

Well, in the French Revolution it was the populists offing the nobility and in Thailand right now it's the nobility offing the populists. The first is pretty exceptional, which is why it's taught in school. The second is pretty typical, which is why people want change. Now I don't want to argue who's right or wrong, because that is a very tricky issue. But I do want to point out that your historical analogy is completely shoddy...you have basically said that a circle is a square.

[hugh2121]

Poor lass must have forgotten the pastry box. Damned if you bring it, damned if you don't. Life is so unfair (when big bro is not in the hot seat).

but but but.....

Record stuck again.

[hugh2121]

Her enemies are so thick they cannot see that going after Yingluck is entrenching her support.

Yingluck has become far more than a proxy for her brother: she has a very different persona and where there is political support for Thaksin, there is a deep love for Yingluck.

So, Squeegee, Yingluck should just get away with anything because she is a Shinawatra?

Or is it because her brother's rice scheme to enrich himself and his supporters backfired - and resulted in the suicides of several people?

I think the "deep love" for Yingluck is purchased.

The very word Shinawatra smells in the nostrils of all decent Thais.

Stoffel waffle.

[hugh2121]

Aside from a few jaw droppingly bizarre rulings it seems like the courts in 2015 have started to rule pretty sensibly on a number of matters, this latest one in keeping with the trend. Yingluck is guilty as sin and all these detractions from the business at hand simply point even more clearly at her guilt.

The only wrong thing about this whole mess is that it'll take decades to play out. Criminal in itself really

She didn't personally steal the half a trillion baht and transfer it to her own personal account...

She is still guilty of gross negligence but not all of it

Apparently she didn't attend a single meeting when she was in charge of the rice scheme

It seems disproportionate that she gets 100% of the repayment debt but it would be impossible now to figure out who stole how much etc...

You said it yourself... 'she didn't attend a single meeting while in charge of the rice scheme.'... That more than anything else makes her liable, and how many people do you think Hitler actually killed by himself during WW2.

Do you REALLY think that any western government heads attend all parliamentary meetings. Their job is to appoint others to do so.

[mikemac]

I have gone past the stage of being shocked by just about anything I see or hear in Thailand. It took me a number of years and almost 100,000 km of driving around the country in my Isuzu pickup to get accustomed to the Thai way of life.

But I will be blowed if I can understand why anyone with half a brain and a decent heart would defend anyone associated with the Shins.

[Wombat6]

She might as well face it, she is not facing the "law of the land" but of the military coup body and the Democrat party. Outside of these two identities, no one will have a chance of winning anything concerning politics in a court case. It is all predetermined in their favour.

You and your mates are quite happy under the Thaksin style of Law.....at least now, the legal system is not being influenced by the Shins and Justice is at lest being open and honest. you can rant and rave about the Military Coup but the fact is, Thailand is getting better than it was in most ways.

[Wombat6]

The lawyers of Poo have had another nice pay day at her expense (Proceeds/profits of Mushroom crop will have been eaten up plus a bit more.) These guys must sit around working out ways to make more money out of her predicament and she seems too dumb to realise it.

[krdowney]

I have gone past the stage of being shocked by just about anything I see or hear in Thailand. It took me a number of years and almost 100,000 km of driving around the country in my Isuzu pickup to get accustomed to the Thai way of life.

But I will be blowed if I can understand why anyone with half a brain and a decent heart would defend anyone associated with the Shins.

You are blowed. Many of us that you label "Shin apologists" are no such thing. I certainly am not, nor am I a Junta apologist or a Abhijit apologist or a PDRC apologist. What I am trying to get across is that screwing over Yingluck doesn't help the country, nor does screwing over Abhijit or Suthep, or even the junta (in the event that they lose control of this deathwagon called Thailand barreling downhill). You see, smart political science governance types that I read and listen to (not claiming to be one myself) say that you have to stop the cycle in which one group captures the state and uses it to decimate the opposition, followed by a new group capturing the state and doing it to crush the previous group, and then a new group capturing the state..., and then one of the old groups recapturing the state and decimating everyone, and then.......

Have you ever read a political history of Thailand from 1932 on? You will notice that Thai ruling groups all do it, like the Burmese did it, or the Indonesians did it, like the Nicaraguans did it, like the Venezuelans did it, like the Greeks did it, like the Turks did it, and so forth. This is not a group I for one would like to be associated with. Thailand right now is doing it in spades, and if you bought property here during the good old days (under Prem maybe?) then you may have to consider divesting and going home if this political behavior continues. Siding with the yellows will not save you.

Edited October 7, 2015 by krdowney

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory posts also a personal attack has been removed