Court summons more witnesses in rice corruption case

Surapan Laotharanarit

BANGKOK, 26 February 2016 (NNT) – Additional witnesses have been summoned by the Court in the latest hearing of the rice fraud case against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

During the deliberation of the rice corruption case, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions called in three more witnesses on the plaintiff’s side. The three consisted of Mr Vichai Sriprasert, Honorary President of the Thai Rice Exporters Association; Mr Rawee Rungruang, leader of the Thai Farmers Network; and Pol Lt Gen Yutthana Thaipakdee, former chairman of the Senate subcommittee overseeing the examination of rice trade.

In his testimony, Mr Vichai stated that the Yingluck administration’s claim to have made a government-to-government (G2G) agreement on rice trade with China was entirely fabricated. He said no representatives from the Chinese government had ever signed such a deal, suggesting it had been signed by an imposter. It also appeared that China had never purchased 2 million tons of rice from Thailand’s old stocks as reported.

Mr Vichai also disclosed that even though the Director-General of the Department of Foreign Trade conducted the signing on behalf of the Thai government, the move had been directly ordered by the then-Prime Minister.

-- NNT 2016-02-27

Meanwhile "look at our nice 7 kings statues" how's all that going......gone?

This whole saga is a verminating hole

The only thing that the present government is doing by pursuing this is driving more people to support the Shinawatras.

People in and around my village think the Shinawatras are wonderful.

Keep this up and you are going to see them back in power, destroying Thailand for their own purposes.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

I wonder if she ever met Hillary Clinton,because they sure sound a lot alike.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

wow you must have some real insight there! maybe you know them? or you understand what's happened in this melodrama? your post certainly shows niiiiid noi bias

anyway, as expected, the witnesses for the prosecution cannot deliver the final blow and so let's CALL MORE!!! but, no, you Khun Defendant cannot call more as we are afraid what they might tell us and we don't want the good Thai people knowing everything do we?

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

"...court witnesses will have some meaningful input..."

And what do you base that outlandish statement on? The unbiased nature of the Thai judiciary system??

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

"...court witnesses will have some meaningful input..."

And what do you base that outlandish statement on? The unbiased nature of the Thai judiciary system??

Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence by the likes of YL & the paid rabble supporters.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

Some of you guys really need to read up and find the truth before posting these lies, otherwise you look really stupid, biased and naive

October 2015

Court allows

14 of 17 submitted prosecution witnesses on 5 hearing days ( incl 26 Feb )

42 of 43 submitted defence witnesses on 16 hearing days

So these aren't new witnesses as they are on the original lists - when it says summons new witnesses, it means they haven't testified before, eg 15 Jan or 17 Feb.

Also I would say the court is being extremely fair allowing 3 times as many witnesses and hearing days for YL's defence compared to the prosecution.

The defence case will be pretty lame once the prosecutor asks the every defence witness why YL as chairperson never attended any of the rice committee meetings and as she didn't isn't that negligence - they will all have to purger themselves with lies, or end up convicting her.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

Some of you guys really need to read up and find the truth before posting these lies, otherwise you look really stupid, biased and naive

October 2015

Court allows

14 of 17 submitted prosecution witnesses on 5 hearing days ( incl 26 Feb )

42 of 43 submitted defence witnesses on 16 hearing days

So these aren't new witnesses as they are on the original lists - when it says summons new witnesses, it means they haven't testified before, eg 15 Jan or 17 Feb.

Also I would say the court is being extremely fair allowing 3 times as many witnesses and hearing days for YL's defence compared to the prosecution.

The defence case will be pretty lame once the prosecutor asks the every defence witness why YL as chairperson never attended any of the rice committee meetings and as she didn't isn't that negligence - they will all have to purger themselves with lies, or end up convicting her.

Now that is not very nice, the YL lovers will now hate and attack you.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

Some of you guys really need to read up and find the truth before posting these lies, otherwise you look really stupid, biased and naive

October 2015

Court allows

14 of 17 submitted prosecution witnesses on 5 hearing days ( incl 26 Feb )

42 of 43 submitted defence witnesses on 16 hearing days

So these aren't new witnesses as they are on the original lists - when it says summons new witnesses, it means they haven't testified before, eg 15 Jan or 17 Feb.

Also I would say the court is being extremely fair allowing 3 times as many witnesses and hearing days for YL's defence compared to the prosecution.

The defence case will be pretty lame once the prosecutor asks the every defence witness why YL as chairperson never attended any of the rice committee meetings and as she didn't isn't that negligence - they will all have to purger themselves with lies, or end up convicting her.

Now that is not very nice, the YL lovers will now hate and attack you.

Not the point but just wondering if they have all practiced their main and probably only defense response:

"But she's really a nice girl, and beautiful..."

Yawn...

Meanwhile "look at our nice 7 kings statues" how's all that going......gone?

Having problems staying on topic?

Have any comments about the fictitious and possible fraudulent G2G deals?

Better to try and divert the thread.

Can't have anyone discussing the Shins.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

wow you must have some real insight there! maybe you know them? or you understand what's happened in this melodrama? your post certainly shows niiiiid noi bias

anyway, as expected, the witnesses for the prosecution cannot deliver the final blow and so let's CALL MORE!!! but, no, you Khun Defendant cannot call more as we are afraid what they might tell us and we don't want the good Thai people knowing everything do we?

Refer to the excellent post #11 from Khun Gunna.

As he advises, you really should check your facts. Oh, but that's not necessary when simply posting anything to support the Shins of course.

So YL gets allowed considerable more witnesses and days for them to be heard. Can't wait to hear their explanations.

no representatives from the Chinese government had ever signed such a deal, suggesting it had been signed by an imposter.

Presentation of balanced evidence has been lacking in this trial. It seems odd that all the Honorary President of the Thai Rice Exporters Association can offer in testomony is a suggestion. That means no first hand knowledge, no proof and only conjecture. I'd expect better testimony from such an esteemed person.

There is a saying that half a truth is greater than a complete lie. And frankly that what Vichai's statement seems.

China typically owns companies that do G-2-G deals because national security in terms of economic information is involved. When one makes a deal with a Chinese-owned company, one is essentially making a deal with the Chinese government. So it would be plausible that a company official who is not an employee of the Chinese government could sign a deal as a representative of the Chinese government without being a Chinese government official.

But that's just my suggestion.

no representatives from the Chinese government had ever signed such a deal, suggesting it had been signed by an imposter.

Presentation of balanced evidence has been lacking in this trial. It seems odd that all the Honorary President of the Thai Rice Exporters Association can offer in testomony is a suggestion. That means no first hand knowledge, no proof and only conjecture. I'd expect better testimony from such an esteemed person.

There is a saying that half a truth is greater than a complete lie. And frankly that what Vichai's statement seems.

China typically owns companies that do G-2-G deals because national security in terms of economic information is involved. When one makes a deal with a Chinese-owned company, one is essentially making a deal with the Chinese government. So it would be plausible that a company official who is not an employee of the Chinese government could sign a deal as a representative of the Chinese government without being a Chinese government official.

But that's just my suggestion.

Well let's be more specific, your suggestion is really your attempt at a diversion.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

wow you must have some real insight there! maybe you know them? or you understand what's happened in this melodrama? your post certainly shows niiiiid noi bias

anyway, as expected, the witnesses for the prosecution cannot deliver the final blow and so let's CALL MORE!!! but, no, you Khun Defendant cannot call more as we are afraid what they might tell us and we don't want the good Thai people knowing everything do we?

Refer to the excellent post #11 from Khun Gunna.

As he advises, you really should check your facts. Oh, but that's not necessary when simply posting anything to support the Shins of course.

So YL gets allowed considerable more witnesses and days for them to be heard. Can't wait to hear their explanations.

nice try... and, as you are well aware, I am no fan of the 'Shins' but I am a fan of JUSTICE and a fan of FAIRNESS and hounding Thailand's ex-PM for something she did while in elected office is a charade and you know it but your deep hatred of this family blinds you to the obvious

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

"...court witnesses will have some meaningful input..."

And what do you base that outlandish statement on? The unbiased nature of the Thai judiciary system??

Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence by the likes of YL & the paid rabble supporters.

"Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence....."

OK, so it's OK to counter what you describe as tripe with more tripe?

".... the paid rabble supporters."

What a wonderfully simplistic view. Must be easy to live in your black/white world. Good on you!

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

"...court witnesses will have some meaningful input..."

And what do you base that outlandish statement on? The unbiased nature of the Thai judiciary system??

Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence by the likes of YL & the paid rabble supporters.

"Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence....."

OK, so it's OK to counter what you describe as tripe with more tripe?

".... the paid rabble supporters."

What a wonderfully simplistic view. Must be easy to live in your black/white world. Good on you!

Yes it is, no deep conspiracy theories or the love of criminal elements who ruled and wish to rule Thailand again.

Edited February 27, 201610 yr by Artisi

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

wow you must have some real insight there! maybe you know them? or you understand what's happened in this melodrama? your post certainly shows niiiiid noi bias

anyway, as expected, the witnesses for the prosecution cannot deliver the final blow and so let's CALL MORE!!! but, no, you Khun Defendant cannot call more as we are afraid what they might tell us and we don't want the good Thai people knowing everything do we?

Refer to the excellent post #11 from Khun Gunna.

As he advises, you really should check your facts. Oh, but that's not necessary when simply posting anything to support the Shins of course.

So YL gets allowed considerable more witnesses and days for them to be heard. Can't wait to hear their explanations.

nice try... and, as you are well aware, I am no fan of the 'Shins' but I am a fan of JUSTICE and a fan of FAIRNESS and hounding Thailand's ex-PM for something she did while in elected office is a charade and you know it but your deep hatred of this family blinds you to the obvious

Why shouldn't she be hounded for the complete stuff up and the criminal activities going on during her reign, but then of course she knew nothing about it nor cared less.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

"...court witnesses will have some meaningful input..."

And what do you base that outlandish statement on? The unbiased nature of the Thai judiciary system??

Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence by the likes of YL & the paid rabble supporters.

"Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence....."

OK, so it's OK to counter what you describe as tripe with more tripe?

".... the paid rabble supporters."

What a wonderfully simplistic view. Must be easy to live in your black/white world. Good on you!

Yes it is, no deep conspiracy theories or the love of criminal elements who ruled and wish to rule Thailand again.

And what about the present rulers? Sorry, forgot. Gave themselves the mother of all amnesties and threatened anyone who wanted to ask awkward questions about conspicuous wealth. Priceless!

no representatives from the Chinese government had ever signed such a deal, suggesting it had been signed by an imposter.

Presentation of balanced evidence has been lacking in this trial. It seems odd that all the Honorary President of the Thai Rice Exporters Association can offer in testomony is a suggestion. That means no first hand knowledge, no proof and only conjecture. I'd expect better testimony from such an esteemed person.

There is a saying that half a truth is greater than a complete lie. And frankly that what Vichai's statement seems.

China typically owns companies that do G-2-G deals because national security in terms of economic information is involved. When one makes a deal with a Chinese-owned company, one is essentially making a deal with the Chinese government. So it would be plausible that a company official who is not an employee of the Chinese government could sign a deal as a representative of the Chinese government without being a Chinese government official.

But that's just my suggestion.

You are overthinking this - I'm sure the defense could easily obtain a formal declaration from the Chinese government to confirm that said government did indeed purchase the rice in the quantities and through the channels claimed by the YL government. Absent such proof, it just didn't happen.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

"...court witnesses will have some meaningful input..."

And what do you base that outlandish statement on? The unbiased nature of the Thai judiciary system??

Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence by the likes of YL & the paid rabble supporters.

"Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence....."

OK, so it's OK to counter what you describe as tripe with more tripe?

".... the paid rabble supporters."

What a wonderfully simplistic view. Must be easy to live in your black/white world. Good on you!

Yes it is, no deep conspiracy theories or the love of criminal elements who ruled and wish to rule Thailand again.

And what about the present rulers? Sorry, forgot. Gave themselves the mother of all amnesties and threatened anyone who wanted to ask awkward questions about conspicuous wealth. Priceless!

As for priceless, you would need to apply that to the criminal activities under the YL reign with the total price to Thailand forever unknown as it wouldn't be calculatable in terms of money syphoned off, lost, stolen and you have the audacity to compare the present with the previous, who by the way tried by devious means to grant THEMSELVES an amnesty and always ensured any awkward questions or people asking them were silenced.

Edited February 27, 201610 yr by Artisi

The prosecution is in serious trouble if this is their star witness. They are putting up a witness who has the most to lose with any G to G rice deal being Honorary President of the Thai Rice Exporters Association. According to their official description they are: To uphold the benefits of rice trading business for members. The thai government was not a member. Vichai Sriprasert represents the association with rice purchases made to middle men. They might as well have put up Suthep on the witness stand. I mean how stupid do they think people are?

Also how would he have any first hand knowledge of it as he would have never been a representative involved in procuring a deal like this.

I'm not taking the side of YL but there would have to be someone in her administration testify who was in her administration testify this is not true or someone representing the company that china used to buy the rice. And yes all the deals i have read about that the Chinese government make go through companies that the government are majority share holders.

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

The difference being that the court witnesses will have some meaningful input whereas the defendant "witnesses" will be all waffle, crap, and but but we are blameless..

"...court witnesses will have some meaningful input..."

And what do you base that outlandish statement on? The unbiased nature of the Thai judiciary system??

Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence by the likes of YL & the paid rabble supporters.

"Well you need something to counter the tripe that is spouted as defence....."

OK, so it's OK to counter what you describe as tripe with more tripe?

".... the paid rabble supporters."

What a wonderfully simplistic view. Must be easy to live in your black/white world. Good on you!

Yes it is, no deep conspiracy theories or the love of criminal elements who ruled and wish to rule Thailand again.

And what about the present rulers? Sorry, forgot. Gave themselves the mother of all amnesties and threatened anyone who wanted to ask awkward questions about conspicuous wealth. Priceless!

As for priceless, you would need to apply that to the criminal activities under the YL reign with the total price to Thailand forever unknown as it wouldn't be calculatable in terms of money syphoned off, lost, stolen and you have the audacity to compare the present with the previous, who by the way tried by devious means to grant THEMSELVES an amnesty and always ensured any awkward questions or people asking them were silenced.

"...tried by devious means to grant THEMSELVES an amnesty"

Yes, they tried to give themselves an amnesty, but failed. Unlike the junta who actually gave THEMSELVES an amnesty for all past, present and future crimes.

You junta supporter never sound more silly than when you harp on about the amnesty attempt.

Does anyone sense Ole Whats-Her-Face kind of edging out the door to visit her brother soon. " Judge I request a days recess in the trial please" Now cue Archie Campbell and Roy Clark on Hee-Haw singing " Where oh where are you tonight"

So the court can call more witnesses, but the defendent cannot.......sound pretty just!

Some of you guys really need to read up and find the truth before posting these lies, otherwise you look really stupid, biased and naive

October 2015

Court allows

14 of 17 submitted prosecution witnesses on 5 hearing days ( incl 26 Feb )

42 of 43 submitted defence witnesses on 16 hearing days

So these aren't new witnesses as they are on the original lists - when it says summons new witnesses, it means they haven't testified before, eg 15 Jan or 17 Feb.

Also I would say the court is being extremely fair allowing 3 times as many witnesses and hearing days for YL's defence compared to the prosecution.

The defence case will be pretty lame once the prosecutor asks the every defence witness why YL as chairperson never attended any of the rice committee meetings and as she didn't isn't that negligence - they will all have to purger themselves with lies, or end up convicting her.

Ah! why not, they have already decided that she is guilty, because she is a redshirt, simple as that !

All this beats me. She just might have made some mistakes, everyone does. However there was no proof of her doing anything for her own personal gain. Yet that other guy, the one who led the illegal street marches and money collecting racket, advising the General at the same time on a daily basis, actually gave away government land to Hi-so friends when he was a minister, also taking govt land to join his family property on Koh Samui. Is in the eyes of certain falang supporters here "quite innocent" of any wrong doing. Bloody crims the lot of you.

no representatives from the Chinese government had ever signed such a deal, suggesting it had been signed by an imposter.

Presentation of balanced evidence has been lacking in this trial. It seems odd that all the Honorary President of the Thai Rice Exporters Association can offer in testomony is a suggestion. That means no first hand knowledge, no proof and only conjecture. I'd expect better testimony from such an esteemed person.

There is a saying that half a truth is greater than a complete lie. And frankly that what Vichai's statement seems.

China typically owns companies that do G-2-G deals because national security in terms of economic information is involved. When one makes a deal with a Chinese-owned company, one is essentially making a deal with the Chinese government. So it would be plausible that a company official who is not an employee of the Chinese government could sign a deal as a representative of the Chinese government without being a Chinese government official.

But that's just my suggestion.

Great little nit-pick over the choice of a word by a ESL speaker. Would you have preferred "indicating"?

But I'm confused about how some company official, not an employee of the Chinese government, and not a government official, gets to be a government representative, when the Chinese government denies this. Can they appoint themselves, like Thaksin taking the Pm position back?