PM clarifies S44 was not used to seize ill-gotten assets from those implicated in fake rice deals

[webfact]

PM clarifies S44 was not used to seize ill-gotten assets from those implicated in fake rice deals

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha defended that he did not invoke Section 44 of the interim constitution to issue an administrative order of the NCPO to seize the ill-gotten assets of politicians, officials and businessmen involved in the fake government-to-government rice deal controversy.

 

In fact, he said the administrative order was intended to pave the way for the Legal Execution Department to make the seizure by giving them legal protection from being prosecuted or sued later on.

 

He said the Commerce Ministry itself is not legally capable of seizing the assets to repay the loss from the fake rice deals estimated at about 20 billion baht.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/pm-clarifies-s44-not-used-seize-ill-gotten-assets-implicated-fake-rice-deals/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-15

[ChrisY1]

Using Section 44 is the way to seize assets without proceeding through the quagmire of Thailand' legal system.......and of course it makes it a simple and effective method of attacking their "enemies"

[sharecropper]

Someone who has extraordinary wealth himself, and who heads a group (the army/Services now in power) notorious for gross procurement irregularities and a massive reluctance to investigate them (bomb detectors, airship blimps), and who was not elected, cannot morally do this.

 

It's as simple as that.

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, sharecropper said:

Someone who has extraordinary wealth himself, and who heads a group (the army/Services now in power) notorious for gross procurement irregularities and a massive reluctance to investigate them (bomb detectors, airship blimps), and who was not elected, cannot morally do this.

 

But goes ahead and does so anyway. Then there is today's report about the new cyber crime laws. Really, it's enough to make you weep.

[sharecropper]

29 minutes ago, baboon said:

But goes ahead and does so anyway. Then there is today's report about the new cyber crime laws. Really, it's enough to make you weep.

 

Add to that the 'amnesty' granted for wrongdoing by state officials in the tapioca and maize schemes/scams announced today, confirmation the other day that small State fish won't be prosecuted if they were acting corruptly "under orders" from the untouchable bigger fish, and you really have to wonder how much more one-sided the place can get.

Edited September 15, 2016 by sharecropper

[waldroj]

"...he said the administrative order was intended to pave the way for the Legal Execution Department to make the seizure by giving them legal protection from being prosecuted or sued later on..."!

 

You see - this is the problem with the junta and it's cronies. If they are truly doing things "for the benefit" of the country, then why are they so paranoid about covering their asses?

 

[maoro2013]

What's the difference. Making the people responsible for seizing assets free from possible prosecution, they will go ahead anyway I assume.

 

Mere BS

[mtls2005]

Sounds like a 'trade' will be made, stay out of politics and keep your assets.

[adhd]

mr THAI trump has spoken ...

[halloween]

2 hours ago, sharecropper said:

Someone who has extraordinary wealth himself, and who heads a group (the army/Services now in power) notorious for gross procurement irregularities and a massive reluctance to investigate them (bomb detectors, airship blimps), and who was not elected, cannot morally do this.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

Sure, no right to go after those who caused hundreds of billions of baht in losses to the state, now left with huge stockpiles of rotting cereals and a B557 million/month storage bill. 

Because THOSE criminals were elected. 

[lucky11]

5 hours ago, ChrisY1 said:

Using Section 44 is the way to seize assets without proceeding through the quagmire of Thailand' legal system.......and of course it makes it a simple and effective method of attacking their "enemies"

 

 No!! Thailands enemies.

[tbthailand]

5 hours ago, sharecropper said:

Someone who has extraordinary wealth himself, and who heads a group (the army/Services now in power) notorious for gross procurement irregularities and a massive reluctance to investigate them (bomb detectors, airship blimps), and who was not elected, cannot morally do this.

 

It's as simple as that.

yes, but we all know who we are dealing with. 

 

Thailand will never be free until the Army has been neutered.... 

[lucky11]

Just now, tbthailand said:

yes, but we all know who we are dealing with. 

 

Thailand will never be free until the Army has been neutered.... 

 Are you calling for self neutering? Have you forgotten who runs the show? remarkably well may I add!!

[SOTIRIOS]

...wow...

 

....good is bad and bad is good....???

 

***

 

...so....then .....crime pays....???

 

..so why would anyone not be corrupt...???

[lucky11]

3 minutes ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...wow...

 

....good is bad and bad is good....???

 

***

 

...so....then .....crime pays....???

 

..so why would anyone not be corrupt...???

 

 Ask Thaksin!!

[Baerboxer]

10 hours ago, sharecropper said:

Someone who has extraordinary wealth himself, and who heads a group (the army/Services now in power) notorious for gross procurement irregularities and a massive reluctance to investigate them (bomb detectors, airship blimps), and who was not elected, cannot morally do this.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

Politicians around the world shouldn't lie, cheat and steal - morally or legally. But they do, whether elected or not.

Thaksin wasn't morally entitled to dictate to the last government - but he did. Simple as that.

[sharecropper]

57 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Politicians around the world shouldn't lie, cheat and steal - morally or legally. But they do, whether elected or not.

Thaksin wasn't morally entitled to dictate to the last government - but he did. Simple as that.

But aren't 'this lot' supposed to be 'better' than him? More honest, 'democratic' and whatever? Why bring up ancient history?