Supreme Court jails former police officer 2 years for bribing constitutional court judge

[billd766]

21 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

True - but he was just the errand boy making the delivery. Just following orders.

 

Just like lawyers delivering pastry boxes.

 

And those lawyers went to jail too.

[Smarter Than You]

18 hours ago, bangrak said:

'Somewhere else' I read that Pol Col Charnchai had 'confessed', ...that he had done it for a certain Khunyin, Pojaman as appeared to be, he 'owed a favour' to.

"Somewhere else" I read that Pol Col Charnchai had "confessed", ...that he had done it for a certain Kamnan Suthep as appeared to be, he "owed a favour" to.

My unsubstantiated nonsense is the equal of your unsubstantiated nonsense.

18 hours ago, bangrak said:

That while in this quoted, pretty un-detailed, article there is not any reference made to that person... Why would that be...?  

Unlike on forums, Newspaper can't just print lies and untruths.

18 hours ago, bangrak said:

At that time that lady was still the, later to become 'ex-', wife of a certain Thaksin Shinawatra, the 'owner' of the TRT party, when I'm correct.

Irrelevant.

18 hours ago, bangrak said:

One wonders why Ms Pojaman has not been charged with active corruption, masterminding this attempted bribing of an active Supreme Court Judge, for 30million Baht, ...and brought in front of a Court since.

There is likely two reason why Ms Pojaman has not been charged.

1 - There is no evidence (kind of important fact but this being Thailand it isn't  reason enough to prevent charges so there is reason 2)

2 - Ms Pojaman is not directly involved in politics so there is no need to manufacture a reason to bar her from politics.

18 hours ago, bangrak said:

That this case has taken over 10years to reach a final ruling, will probably have no link with some statue of limitation...

Uncomprehendable sentence.

18 hours ago, bangrak said:

N.B.: This case is not that of the attorneys caught taking donut boxes full of cash, it's another crime(!) though committed for a same 'master'...

 

Unsubstantiated speculation.

[owl sees all]

4 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Newspaper can't just print lies and untruths.

Of course they can!! And do.

 

The only thing I believe in newspapers is the date and I check that on the wall calendar.

Edited July 16, 2017 by owl sees all

[AGareth2]

On 7/14/2017 at 4:34 PM, rkidlad said:

If he'd been on the right side

they would have taken the money

[jaywalker]

On 7/14/2017 at 5:10 PM, MarkusAUST said:

Only ten years from start to finish. The wheels of justice are being turned by a sloth it would seem.

More like a snail.

 

Took 10 years to sentence the guy to 2 years.

 

If they weren't all grinning, and trying to not "defame" nor make someone "lose face" the justice system might work better?

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by metisdead
Off topic video removed.

[Smarter Than You]

On 7/14/2017 at 4:11 PM, than said:

Guess where the money comes from ?

Guess is all you can do.

Because you have absolutely no evidence.

Another unsubstantiated speculation post.

[Smarter Than You]

26 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Of course they can!! And do.

Have any example you'd be willing to share there old chum or are you one of those people who are quite content to believe their owns opinions are analogous to facts?

 

26 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

 

The only thing I believe in newspapers is the date and I check that on the wall calendar.

What makes you think the wall calendar isn't colluding with the newspapers to override the defensive powers of your tin foil hat?

[sandemara]

Political and social hypocrisy. I guess there's some amusement in watching members of the wolf pack turn on one of their own occasionally. The herd gets some relief.

[owl sees all]

2 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

What makes you think the wall calendar isn't colluding with the newspapers to override the defensive powers of your tin foil hat?

Cryptic post. Could be of course.

 

 

[than]

2 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Guess is all you can do.

Because you have absolutely no evidence.

Another unsubstantiated speculation post.

Oh, poor Boeotian, surely with all these roadside checks he had to amaze a real fortune 

[than]

3 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Guess is all you can do.

Because you have absolutely no evidence.

Another unsubstantiated speculation post.

 

 

Now it seems that Mr Charnchai has link with former TRT and Shin familly

 

Element in charge from the appeal court : 

Quote

The Appeal Court reconsidered evidence from Krairerk, who also said the defendant told him he owed a debt to Potjaman na Pombejra, ex-wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Thai Rak Thai leader. Charnchai also asked for a 5-per-cent share of the bribe when received, the judge said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Police-officers-jail-term-reduced-in-Thai-Rak-Thai-30279734.html

 

He admit he owed favor from convict Potjaman na Pombejra

Quote

In December 2014, the Criminal Court convicted and sentenced Charnchai to three years in prison without suspension. He took the case to the Appeal Court, which ruled in February last year that Charnchai also said he owed a favour to a Khunying Or and sought a 5% share of the bribe if it was accepted. "Or" is the nickname of Khunying Potjaman Na Pombejra, now the ex-wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai Rak Thai founder. 
 

 

Mr Charnchai is a classmate of Somchai Wongsawat (brother in law of fugitive Thaksin) too.

 

There are many presumptive beams

Edited July 16, 2017 by than

[Smarter Than You]

10 minutes ago, than said:

 

 

Now it seems that Mr Charnchai has link with former TRT and Shin familly

 

Element in charge from the appeal court : 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Police-officers-jail-term-reduced-in-Thai-Rak-Thai-30279734.html

 

He admit he owed favor from convict Potjaman na Pombejra

 

Mr Charnchai is a classmate of Somchai Wongsawat (brother in law of fugitive Thaksin) too.

 

There are many presumptive beams

A fine mixture of heresay, assumptions, rumour, propaganda and slander - well done.

Evidence is of course conspicuous due to its absence.

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

50 minutes ago, than said:

Oh, poor Boeotian, surely with all these roadside checks he had to amaze a real fortune 

I would reply, but this post makes no sense - it is incomprehensible.

[than]

22 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

A fine mixture of heresay, assumptions, rumour, propaganda and slander - well done.

Evidence is of course conspicuous due to its absence.

 

 

Mr Charnchai admit himself to the court he owed favor to convict Pomjaman. 

 

I jut report facts from great Thai newspaper group like the Nation. not some pseudo newspaper like red propaganda. 

 

Now like all redshirts you not like to see the true. If you have a bit of intelligence, you would have a little more lean on the subject

 

now please give us your "evidence" of your claim !!

Edited July 16, 2017 by than

[Smarter Than You]

27 minutes ago, than said:

Mr Charnchai admit himself to the court he owed favor to convict Pomjaman. 

 

I jut report facts from great Thai newspaper group like the Nation. not some pseudo newspaper like red propaganda. 

 

Better check up on your facts there buddy.

 

From your link :

 

"The Appeal Court reconsidered evidence from Krairerk, who also said the defendant told him he owed a debt to Potjaman na Pombejra, ex-wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Thai Rak Thai leader."

 

That's right - in your link Mr CharnChai doesn't say he owed Yingluck a favour, Mr Krairerk puts those words in Mr Charnchais mouth.

 

Let's add a bit more from your link:

 

"Despite being a lone eyewitness, the court said Krairerk is trustworthy as he was appointed to an important legal position."

 

A lone witness who should be trusted solely because he was appointed (presumably by the very judges who were assisting in the coup).

 

I certainly wouldn't like to be convicted by the unsupported lone accusations of another - would you?

 

 

Quote

 

Now like all redshirts you not like to see the true. If you have a bit of intelligence, you would have a little more lean on the subject

No, like a balanced, rational and intelligent person I require evidence - not misread nonsense.

Quote

 

now please give us your "evidence" of your claim !!

What did I claim?

Edited July 16, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[than]

9 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

 

 

That's right - in your link Mr CharnChai doesn't say he owed Yingluck a favour, Mr Krairerk puts those words in Mr Charnchais mouth.

 

Where I link YL to this ?????? Where please, reread all my threads about this subject, I quote : 

Quote

He admit he owed favor from convict Potjaman na Pombejra

  Quote

In December 2014, the Criminal Court convicted and sentenced Charnchai to three years in prison without suspension. He took the case to the Appeal Court, which ruled in February last year that Charnchai also said he owed a favour to a Khunying Or and sought a 5% share of the bribe if it was accepted. "Or" is the nickname of Khunying Potjaman Na Pombejra, now the ex-wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai Rak Thai founder. 

So that is your evidence that  you claim that all of this trial is a propaganda !!!!

 

Charnchai has been convict three times in 2013 during the first trial, 2014 during the appeal and 2017 under the supreme court.

 

All these trials took place in public. Many journalists and onlookers have been witnesses to the statements of some and the other.

 

Quote

"Despite being a lone eyewitness, the court said Krairerk is trustworthy as he was appointed to an important legal position."

 

A lone witness who should be trusted solely because he was appointed (presumably by the very judges who were assisting in the coup).

 

I certainly wouldn't like to be convicted by the unsupported lone accusations of another - would you?

And so what !

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

6 minutes ago, than said:

Where I link YL to this ?????? Where please, reread all my threads about this subject, I quote : 

Yes, I meant Pojaman.

Everything else stands as is.

6 minutes ago, than said:

So that is your evidence that  you claim that all of this trial is a propaganda !!!!

 

Charnchai has been convict three times in 2013 during the first trial, 2014 during the appeal and 2017 under the supreme court.

 

All these trials took place in public. Many journalists and onlookers have been witnesses to the statements of some and the other.

 

And so what !

 

 

The fact is that Charchai has never said that he owed anyone a favour nor has he admitted to attempting to bribe anyone. 

There is no evidence to prove either accusation.

There is the word of one individual - again unsubstantiated by any evidence that events occurred as he says they did.

The court ruled that Charnchai said he owed a favour and wanted 5% - Charnchai himself denies both accusations.

I would not like to be convicted on such flimsy (non-existent) evidence - would you?

[owl sees all]

2 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Evidence is of course conspicuous due to its absence.

Evidence is not so important in Thailand. Other things carry far more weight.

[than]

30 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Yes, I meant Pojaman.

Everything else stands as is.

The fact is that Charchai has never said that he owed anyone a favour nor has he admitted to attempting to bribe anyone. 

There is no evidence to prove either accusation.

There is the word of one individual - again unsubstantiated by any evidence that events occurred as he says they did.

The court ruled that Charnchai said he owed a favour and wanted 5% - Charnchai himself denies both accusations.

I would not like to be convicted on such flimsy (non-existent) evidence - would you?

 

 

like all culprit he denied charges without give evidence too 

[Smarter Than You]

9 minutes ago, than said:

 

 

like all culprit he denied charges without give evidence too 

It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

Anyway, it would be mighty hard to provide evidence of a conversation that never occurred.

 

Would you be happy to be convicted by nothing more the word of another man?

[Eric Loh]

19 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Evidence is not so important in Thailand. Other things carry far more weight.

Absolutely. The Dem Party was acquitted twice by the court that would have result in the dissolution of the party due to legal "technicality". Once for election fraud and acquitted due to technical flaw in the prosecution case. The other was for illegal party funds and as most predicted was thrown out because the paper works submitted late. Lol. 

[halloween]

6 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Looked at objectively, it is extremely unlikely that one side is full of criminals whilst the other contains nothing but angels.

It is, on the other hand, all but certain that the judicial system is thoroughly corrupted?

Question is, why can't you see the simple truth?

What motivates the blindness?

Well I saw a government full of MPs accepting payments from the owner of their party with the expectation that they will follow the party line, as decided by him of course. That would be a criminal conspiracy in my country, the acceptance by MPs of third party payments being illegal.

The same government allowed a fugitive criminal access to otherwise closed cabinet meetings, something known as insider trading (and apparently a Shinawatra habit) which is also illegal.

Are they not crimes where you come from?

No-one claimed the other side are complete angels, only a troll would suggest it. OTOH you claim the judicial system is thoroughly corrupted, but apparently not so thoroughly that they don't reject bribes on occasion.

What motivates you to turn a blind eye to the blatant criminality displayed by the Shinawatras? Does being elected, by whatever means and I can't remember an election where the Thaksinist party didn't break electoral laws, absolve corruption, abuse of office, bribery, negligence and their many other crimes?

[owl sees all]

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Absolutely. The Dem Party was acquitted twice by the court that would have result in the dissolution of the party due to legal "technicality". Once for election fraud and acquitted due to technical flaw in the prosecution case. The other was for illegal party funds and as most predicted was thrown out because the paper works submitted late. Lol. 

In the case of Johnathan Head against the lawyer. It could be that the lawyer gets found guilty of malpractice and get a 20k Bhat fine. J Head could get up to 5 years for defamation (or something similar).

 

Evidence/facts/truth just doesn't cut the mustard in the LOS. Who you know; how much money you have and your perceived status does it here. Unless of course the Junta is out to get you.

[than]

15 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

Anyway, it would be mighty hard to provide evidence of a conversation that never occurred.

 

Would you be happy to be convicted by nothing more the word of another man?

Well : 

Charnchai has recognize to have this conversation : 

Quote

The court said that Col Charnchai's claim that he was joking.....

This did not convince the court. He still tried to corrupt the judges twice.

 

Quote

The court said that Col Charnchai's claim that he was joking was not reasonable because he went to see ML Krairirk twice during this time period, despite having never previously visited the judge.

 

[Smarter Than You]

21 minutes ago, than said:

Well : 

Charnchai has recognize to have this conversation : 

This did not convince the court. He still tried to corrupt the judges twice.

 

 

The courts rulings are all based on heresay from ML Krairirk.

No jury would convict.

No impartial judge would convict.

 

To me this whole affair seems to be farcical.

No interest in justice, plenty of interest in politics.

 

Would you like to be convicted based solely upon the word of another?

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[Eric Loh]

32 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Unless of course the Junta is out to get you.

The institutionalised character of the anti-democratic alliance is best demonstrated by the recent use of courts to hamper the rise of electoral politics in a process called judicialisation of politics - Deep State explain.

[CutiePi]

But the Thai justice system can't bring a beer heir who mowed down a police officer to trial and the son of a politician who shot and killed a police officer in a pub brawl never spent a day in prison and is now a police colonel. Nice.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 7/14/2017 at 4:11 PM, than said:

Guess where the money comes from ?

Curious that the article makes absolutely no mention of where the money might have come from?

 

Or even, how a local police station superintendent would even be in a position to offer 30M baht.

 

If the judge was smarter, he would have agreed to actually accept the bribe (acting undercover), then have the guy arrested once he handed over the money, and then the authorities perhaps could have traced just where the police officer got his 30 million from.

 

That also would have eliminated the he said/he said argument from the case, as presumably the defendant would have been caught, so to speak, "red handed." Which probably is a good descriptive in this particular instance.

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Well I saw a government full of MPs accepting payments from the owner of their party with the expectation that they will follow the party line, as decided by him of course. That would be a criminal conspiracy in my country, the acceptance by MPs of third party payments being illegal.

No, you never saw anything. You read something and repeated it as fact because it played to your prejudices.

 

Quote

The same government allowed a fugitive criminal access to otherwise closed cabinet meetings, something known as insider trading (and apparently a Shinawatra habit) which is also illegal.

Are they not crimes where you come from?

Funny how those who don't like democracy always brand those who win elections as criminals.

Aung Suu Kyi

Anwar Ibrahim

Thaksin Shinawatra

 

Where I come from (which I believe also happens to be where you come from) the law is administered impartially and there are no coups.

 

Quote

No-one claimed the other side are complete angels, only a troll would suggest it. OTOH you claim the judicial system is thoroughly corrupted, but apparently not so thoroughly that they don't reject bribes on occasion.

Would you like a list of the worlds news media that has asserted that the Thai judiciary is a tad biased towards unelected rule?

 

"Most experts on Thailand say, the Thai justice system, where the constitutional court plays a key role in Thai politics, is the primary tool for the Bangkok Traditional Elite Establishment’s control of Thailand".

 

Seriously, how many links do you want?

Quote

What motivates you to turn a blind eye to the blatant criminality displayed by the Shinawatras? Does being elected, by whatever means and I can't remember an election where the Thaksinist party didn't break electoral laws, absolve corruption, abuse of office, bribery, negligence and their many other crimes?

What motivates me, is that I would like the country that I plan to spend 50% of my days in is a free and fair society that treats all of its citizens (and guests) equally. I would like to be able to visit websites without censorship, access Facebook with the fear of jail and gather with friends in public to talk politics, read 1984 and maybe even give the occasional three fingered mockingjay salute. I would like to be able to have faith the courts that I may one day find myself in. I would like to not have to read stories about people dying through lack of money to afford health care. I would like to know that the food and products I buy are safe and someone hasn't bribed officials and put my health at risk.I have never shied away from the fact that Thaksin and those who align with him are not perfect. That said they are, in all likelihood far less corrupt than those who keep ousting elected governments with illegal means. It is quite obvious that nearly all of the charges so far levelled at Thaksin have been, to say the least,  exaggerations or more often outright fabrications. I do not understand how it is certain people are so outraged by mostly made up crimes about Thaksin, so silly that even a child could see through and at the same time care not the least about the real crimes being committed by usurpers - the only explanation I have for this odd phenomenon is their timidity or shame in revealing what they really believe in. Democracy will lead to a brighter future for Thailand and its citizens (and guests). A period of Thaksin governments is by far and away a price worth paying for that future. Juntas on the other hand - all cost no reward.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[Smarter Than You]

14 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Curious that the article makes absolutely no mention of where the money might have come from?

 

Or even, how a local police station superintendent would even be in a position to offer 30M baht.

There was no money.

14 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

If the judge was smarter, he would have agreed to actually accept the bribe (acting undercover), then have the guy arrested once he handed over the money, and then the authorities perhaps could have traced just where the police officer got his 30 million from.

There was no bribe.

14 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That also would have eliminated the he said/he said argument from the case, as presumably the defendant would have been caught, so to speak, "red handed." Which probably is a good descriptive in this particular instance.

 

Again, there was no bribe.

If there were a bribe, the judge would have done exactly as you have mentioned and got some real evidence.