hello2

[webfact]

Apiradee to officially demand 20,000 million baht compensation from six former officials

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwan assured this morning that the commerce minister would sign in the administrative order to demand compensation from six former commerce ministry officials involving in the fake government-to-government (G2G) today.

 

Gen Prawit said Mrs Apiradi Tantraporn would surely sign the order to demand compensation.

 

The deputy prime minister’s affirmation came as the commerce minister remained hesitant as there is no law allowing the ministry to seize assets.

 

Gen Prawit said Mrs Apiradi would sign the order to demand 20,000 million baht in compensation for damages  caused to the state in the fake G-to-G sale of 6.2 million tons of rice to China.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/apiradee-to-officially-demand-20000-million-baht-compensation-from-six-former-officials/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-19

[canopus1969]

Oops  

[Basil B]

And what action against China for it's involvement in this...

 

China the "Land of Fake"...

[craigt3365]

How much is 20,000 million baht?

[augustwest]

How much is 20,000 million baht?

I think it's 20 billion

[Cuchulainn]

Not enough!!  Multiply by 10 and they're still getting off lightly.

[mtls2005]

Very interesting that the Generals have delegated the signing of this order to the Commerce Minister. She is scheduled to leave the cabinet, and has been reluctant to sign these orders. She has said her successor could complete this "mission"; however her successor is on record as saying that they aren't familiar with the "case". Hot potato, it's all legal though. 

 

 

[pookiki]

And what happens if they don't have the money to pay?

[Brer Fox]

This issue requiring a signature is going to be passed around like a grenade with the pin taken out. 

Later on when the dust settles a list of names will be required for whom the cheques totalling 20m baht are to be issued to. Cheques need to be made out to "cash". 

Still plenty of time left before PM Prayuth says corruption has to finish by; 7292 days to be exact.

[wprime]

6 hours ago, Basil B said:

And what action against China for it's involvement in this...

 

China the "Land of Fake"...

 

The Chinese involved have already been executed.

[worgeordie]

You can demand,but I think by now they will have moved their

assets far from the reach of the Government,so they can expect

to get nowt!

regards worgeordie

[sharecropper]

5 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Very interesting that the Generals have delegated the signing of this order to the Commerce Minister. She is scheduled to leave the cabinet, and has been reluctant to sign these orders. She has said her successor could complete this "mission"; however her successor is on record as saying that they aren't familiar with the "case". Hot potato, it's all legal though. 

 

 

 

Hopefully they'll all face appropriate repercussions down the line - the fake bomb detectors, airship blimp etc etc. It's coming for them too now they want to rightly clamp down on corruption -- Oh wait. no it's not...

[webfact]

Commerce minister signs administrative order to recoup G-to-G rice deal loss

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Commerce Minister Apiradee Tantraporn on Monday signed an administrative order to demand compensation for the loss incurred from the fake government-to-government rice deals from former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyaphirom, his deputy Poom Saraphol and four other senior commerce officials.

 

She explained that the order had to be signed by two persons in order to become effective, saying she signed on behalf of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha and assigned commerce permanent secretary Ms Chutima Bunyaprapat to sign on her behalf.

 

It was reported that Ms Chutima signed the order last week.

 

After this, Minister Apiradee said former commerce minister Boonsong and his five associates implicated in the fake rice deals would be notified of the order so that they could respond in 30 days.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/commerce-minister-signs-administrative-order-recoup-g-g-rice-deal-loss/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-20

[webfact]

RICE-PLEDGING SCHEME

Bt20 bn damages sought

PETCHANET PRATRUANGKRAI
THE NATION 

 

Civil liability case against former minister Boonsong and five others gets go-ahead in 'fake' rice deal case

 

BANGKOK: -- THE GOVERNMENT will seek massive compensation totalling Bt20 billion from former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and five others in a major civil-liability case concerning alleged fake government-to-government deals to sell 6.2 million tonnes of rice to China.

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Bt20-bn-damages-sought-30295739.html

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-09-20

[Eric Loh]

  This signing on behalf wIll be interesting to follow on its legality. If not acted on good faith but by coercion, it can be illegal. Maybe some legal experts here can comment.

[klauskunkel]

Deputy PM General Prawit: "Sign the order."

Commerce Minister Apiradee : "I'm not so sure about my department's legal standing on this issue..."

Deputy PM Prawit: "Sign the order..."

So she signed on behalf of the PM, and her deputy signed on behalf of her...

Now, I'm no expert in the "behalf of" procedures, but it seems to me that a deputy PM should sign when the PM is unavailable. But, that would mean a general's signature on a potentially volatile document and this was clearly designed to be fallout-free for the good old boys. Sorry, lady, but then again you made the bed you're sleeping in.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

the order had to be signed by two persons in order to become effective

How effective when .....

22 hours ago, webfact said:

there is no law allowing the ministry to seize assets.

Sign all you want, it's legally meaningless.

That's why Apiradee wanted Prayut to invoke Article 44 to seize assets as it stands as law. But Prayut refused, now having Apiradee sign on his behalf changes anything?

Junta's judicial reform has been replaced by judicial arrogance.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

  This signing on behalf wIll be interesting to follow on its legality. If not acted on good faith but by coercion, it can be illegal. Maybe some legal experts here can comment.

 

It's not a contract where duress could invalidate an agreement (under some laws).

 

In this case she is signing in an official capacity and his responsible for that signature (unless Thai law says something different). 

No here likes to accept responsibility and worry that those being punished might be in a position to retaliate one day, So they make a song and dance about it, try to avoid it, push it on to someone else. Remember the dithering about who should sign the order removing Thaksin's police rank? Same sort of thing here only more individuals, not so powerful though, and the most important of all aspect money involved.

Whether any future government of a different persuasion might chose to return the seized assets and persecute those who seized them is the worry for those involved. And one they want to avoid if possible. 

 

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

How effective when .....

Sign all you want, it's legally meaningless.

That's why Apiradee wanted Prayut to invoke Article 44 to seize assets as it stands as law. But Prayut refused, now having Apiradee sign on his behalf changes anything?

Junta's judicial reform has been replaced by judicial arrogance.

 

Why is it legally meaningless?

[soalbundy]

21 hours ago, Cuchulainn said:

Not enough!!  Multiply by 10 and they're still getting off lightly.

errr, how are they going to pay it ? might just as well ask for 20 trillion

[elgordo38]

23 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

How much is 20,000 million baht?

Just a second I will get my abacus out. I will huff and I will puff and I will blow your house down. Go get em chubby cheeks. 

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Why is it legally meaningless?

From 1^st article, "there is no law allowing the ministry to seize assets."

[Alive]

If they have to pay the gov't for an unsuccessful program, I think these guys should pay back the government in rice or 25 satang coins.

[khunken]

35 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

From 1^st article, "there is no law allowing the ministry to seize assets."

But they're not seizing assets (yet anyway).

This is a civil case where the Commerce Ministry (hence the signatures) are suing the ex-Commerce minister & his cronies for the sum mentioned.

Anyone, including an arm of the government can file a civil case and will have to win it in court to be successful.

That is my interpretation of all the events in this case.

[Alive]

The woman in the story looks so familiar. She could be the sister of the the general's wife running the main office where I work.

[Wilsonandson]

20 billion baht losses from the PTP party and what about the PDRC shutdown of Bangkok  January 2014 which I quote:-

Based on the assessment that the shutdown may last two weeks, Mr Thanawat said the loss to the consumption sector would be between 10-20 billion baht or 0.1-0.2 percent of the GDP. He, however, added that the centre would have to assess the situation again and make forecast of the economic loss.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/study-says-thailand-stands-lose-one-billion-baht-day-shutdown/

One sided politics rules the day, doesn't it just. Just ice-ing on the cake.

[kannot]

load of crap no one will get anything back

[khunken]

5 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

20 billion baht losses from the PTP party and what about the PDRC shutdown of Bangkok  January 2014 which I quote:-

Based on the assessment that the shutdown may last two weeks, Mr Thanawat said the loss to the consumption sector would be between 10-20 billion baht or 0.1-0.2 percent of the GDP. He, however, added that the centre would have to assess the situation again and make forecast of the economic loss.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/study-says-thailand-stands-lose-one-billion-baht-day-shutdown/

One sided politics rules the day, doesn't it just. Just ice-ing on the cake.

Nor do one-sided posts cut it.

You 'forget' to mention the major human, economic and arson losses of the red shirt riots in 2006. Probably a lot more.

 

[Srikcir]

42 minutes ago, khunken said:

This is a civil case

No it is not.

If it were a civil case, it would go through the court system. Which Prayut does not and probably cannot legally have any grounds to do so. That's probably why he is treating it as an internal government administrative case.

[khunken]

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

No it is not.

If it were a civil case, it would go through the court system. Which Prayut does not and probably cannot legally have any grounds to do so. That's probably why he is treating it as an internal government administrative case.

You may well be right but as the Nation article mentions a civil case and there's no mention of what type of response the accused have at their disposal, it's unclear how this will play out.

I can't overcome the full page add to read the Nation's take.