How the NACC overcame obstacles in rice-pledging case scam

[rooster59]

How the NACC overcame obstacles in rice-pledging case scam

By THE SUNDAY NATION

 

 

THE MAN in charge of the anti-graft agency’s investigation that finally led to the Supreme Court case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra has recounted a mission fraught with obstacles and difficulties.

Vicha Mahakun, formerly a member of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), said the investigators had to put a great deal of effort into their work before they could gain cooperation from key witnesses and convince public prosecutors to bring the case to court.

 

“I don’t know if it’s because of our luck that we could conclude the investigation and come up with an indictment. But criminals often leave traces. We focused on the suspicious facts that often exist in big projects such as this,” Vicha said in a recent interview with Nation Group reporters.

 

He said the NACC had discovered massive irregularities stemming from the Yingluck government’s rice-pledging scheme and warned her administration in writing twice to discontinue the policy. The Auditor General’s Office sent four similar warnings to that government, saying that most farmers had not benefitted from the policy. 

 

However, the government at that time ignored the warnings, arguing that it was a policy and election campaign promise to implement a rice-pledging scheme.

 

That was before the NACC received a complaint asking it to investigate Yingluck for alleged negligence, because she was in charge of a policy that was allegedly plagued with graft, said Vicha, who served on the NACC from 2006 to 2015.

 

The complaint came after Yingluck’s commerce minister, Boonsong Teriyapirom, and other government officials were accused of malfeasance over supposed government-to-government (G-to-G) deals to sell rice from state stockpiles to China.

 

Vicha said investigators were initially unsure if Yingluck should be charged with negligence, so they spent a lot to time looking into the details. The investigators later concluded that there were irregularities in the rice-pledging project and the sale of pledged rice through G-to-G deals.

 

“It was the responsibility of the government head to stop the project. The ministers responsible could not do so because they were frequently replaced,” he said.

 

Vicha said that, at that time, he discussed the case only with people he trusted. “Walls have ears. I had to keep our findings secret,” he added.

 

A former judge who is now dean of Law Faculty at Rangsit University, Vicha said that as chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee, Yingluck could not claim that she was unaware of the massive loss of state funds in the graft-plagued project.

 

He pointed out that the project’s audit subcommittee reported to then-prime minister Yingluck three times about the increasing accumulative loss – Bt32.2 billion as of October 2012, Bt200-plus billion as of May 2013, and Bt332.3 billion as of October 2013.

 

In its reports, the subcommittee noted that the debt burden would become uncontrollable for the government and the cost of managing the rice in state stockpiles would be huge, according to Vicha.

 

He said a key to solving the G-to-G puzzle was the discovery that the supposed deals to sell rice to the Chinese government were not done through China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Corporation. The state-owned holding company is empowered to represent the central Chinese government in the international purchase and sale of agricultural products.

 

According to Vicha, the G-to-G deals were found to be “fake” as the rice sold had never been exported. He said it was found that people claiming to represent Chinese state companies in the deals in fact worked for wealthy businessman Apichart Chansakulporn, better known as “Sia Piang”.

 

On Friday, Boonsong and Apichart were found guilty by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, which sentenced them to 42 years and 48 years in jail, respectively. They were among 20 people jailed in connection with the G-to-G rice scandal.

 

Vicha also said that before the investigators could crack the G-to-G code, they had to get information from some key rice traders who were part of the graft scandal. Those people agreed to become NACC witnesses on condition that they were given protection from prosecution.

“They were the last piece of the jigsaw. Without their cooperation, the NACC probe would have been more difficult and have taken a longer time,” Vicha said.

 

The last obstacle, he said, was with public prosecutors who repeatedly refused to bring the case to court. Vicha said that even after the NACC resolved to charge Yingluck with negligence, it took a long time before it could convince the Attorney General’s Office that a case should be filed against her with the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30324987

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-27

[Samui Bodoh]

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

“I don’t know if it’s because of our luck that we could conclude the investigation and come up with an indictment.

 

I see.

 

So, all the cases you haven't brought against the Yellows and Greens have been... er... ahem..."unlucky"?

 

 

[than]

Very nice demonstration on the part of Vicha (based on facts and evidence) on the real implication of the fugitive YL

[sjaak327]

7 minutes ago, than said:

Very nice demonstration on the part of Vicha (based on facts and evidence) on the real implication of the fugitive YL

Actually the conclusion that Yingluck as PM should have stopped the scheme, is not a conclusion I share. She had every right to continue the project, despite the huge loses. It's called a mandate. I know, something very alien to the current lot, but alas, she did have an undisputed mandate. 

 

If this is their case, I expect a full acquittal,

[than]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Actually the conclusion that Yingluck as PM should have stopped the scheme, is not a conclusion I share. She had every right to continue the project, despite the huge loses. It's called a mandate. I know, something very alien to the current lot, but alas, she did have an undisputed mandate. 

 

If this is their case, I expect a full acquittal,

YL was not pursue as PM but chairman of the rice committee. She was aware of corruption and damage of her scheme, she do nothing, she has been negligent to resolve these problems which cost Billion baht to taxpayer.

[sjaak327]

14 minutes ago, than said:

YL was not pursue as PM but chairman of the rice committee. She was aware of corruption and damage of her scheme, she do nothing, she has been negligent to resolve these problems which cost Billion baht to taxpayer.

How do you know she did nothing ? Yes she did not stop the scheme, that much is certain, and again that is a political decision she was fully entitled to take. However where is the evidence she did absolutely nothing ? Me thinks that to be almost impossible to prove, but this is the Thai justice system, so in that case, even if there is no proof, she could still be found guilty of negligence. 

 

The rest of the world recognizes this for what it is, a witch hunt. used to ensure Yingluck cannot play a role in politics anymore. After all, her five year ban from politics does not run very long anymore. 

 

 

Oh and just so we are clear:

 

"Vicha said investigators were initially unsure if Yingluck should be charged with negligence, so they spent a lot to time looking into the details. The investigators later concluded that there were irregularities in the rice-pledging project and the sale of pledged rice through G-to-G deals.

 

“It was the responsibility of the government head to stop the project. The ministers responsible could not do so because they were frequently replaced,” he said."

 

Straight from the OP.

Edited August 27, 2017 by sjaak327

[Gunna]

8 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

How do you know she did nothing ? Yes she did not stop the scheme, that much is certain, and again that is a political decision she was fully entitled to take. However where is the evidence she did absolutely nothing ? Me thinks that to be almost impossible to prove, but this is the Thai justice system, so in that case, even if there is no proof, she could still be found guilty of negligence. 

 

The rest of the world recognizes this for what it is, a witch hunt. used to ensure Yingluck cannot play a role in politics anymore. After all, her five year ban from politics does not run very long anymore. 

 

 

Oh and just so we are clear:

 

"Vicha said investigators were initially unsure if Yingluck should be charged with negligence, so they spent a lot to time looking into the details. The investigators later concluded that there were irregularities in the rice-pledging project and the sale of pledged rice through G-to-G deals.

 

“It was the responsibility of the government head to stop the project. The ministers responsible could not do so because they were frequently replaced,” he said."

 

Straight from the OP.

"However where is the evidence she did absolutely nothing ? "

She never attended any of the rice committee meetings even though she was the chairperson, so how could she have done anything. 

"Me thinks that to be almost impossible to prove,"

Very easy to prove by checking the minutes of the meetings - I think it is now on public record that she was always unable to attend.

 

It is my belief that Takhsin ordered Yingluck not to attend any of the meeting so she could later on deny any knowledge or involvement in the rampant corruption that was taking place  

 

[ovi1kanobi]

34 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

How do you know she did nothing ? Yes she did not stop the scheme, that much is certain, and again that is a political decision she was fully entitled to take. However where is the evidence she did absolutely nothing ? Me thinks that to be almost impossible to prove, but this is the Thai justice system, so in that case, even if there is no proof, she could still be found guilty of negligence. 

 

The rest of the world recognizes this for what it is, a witch hunt. used to ensure Yingluck cannot play a role in politics anymore. After all, her five year ban from politics does not run very long anymore. 

 

 

Oh and just so we are clear:

 

"Vicha said investigators were initially unsure if Yingluck should be charged with negligence, so they spent a lot to time looking into the details. The investigators later concluded that there were irregularities in the rice-pledging project and the sale of pledged rice through G-to-G deals.

 

“It was the responsibility of the government head to stop the project. The ministers responsible could not do so because they were frequently replaced,” he said."

 

Straight from the OP.

It was a planed scam,designed by big brother thaksin. To steal money from Thailand and deposit straight into his bank accounts. pay back for being exiled.

[ovi1kanobi]

52 minutes ago, Gunna said:

"However where is the evidence she did absolutely nothing ? "

She never attended any of the rice committee meetings even though she was the chairperson, so how could she have done anything. 

"Me thinks that to be almost impossible to prove,"

Very easy to prove by checking the minutes of the meetings - I think it is now on public record that she was always unable to attend.

 

It is my belief that Takhsin ordered Yingluck not to attend any of the meeting so she could later on deny any knowledge or involvement in the rampant corruption that was taking place  

 

This post is spot on.  "She was ordered not to attend" Her father gave that order, from Dubai. Via skype.

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, ovi1kanobi said:

This post is spot on.  "She was ordered not to attend" Her father gave that order, from Dubai. Via skype.

Hmm, so that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she did nothing, just because she did not attend any of the meetings ? 

 

I think a guilty verdict would be utterly impossible based upon this "evidence " .

[robblok]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm, so that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she did nothing, just because she did not attend any of the meetings ? 

 

I think a guilty verdict would be utterly impossible based upon this "evidence " .

By not going while she was the chair she showed negligence. Just allowing corruption of fake G2G deals and ignoring warnings should be enough for the negligence. Must be a real cold shower for those defending the Shins all the time that all that pesky evidence was collected. 

[halloween]

5 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Actually the conclusion that Yingluck as PM should have stopped the scheme, is not a conclusion I share. She had every right to continue the project, despite the huge loses. It's called a mandate. I know, something very alien to the current lot, but alas, she did have an undisputed mandate. 

 

If this is their case, I expect a full acquittal,

if a bridge is out, do you expect the bus driver to keep going because you have bought a ticket?

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

if a bridge is out, do you expect the bus driver to keep going because you have bought a ticket?

Nope but that anology is flawed. What happened with the rice scheme in Thailand is happening all over the world. Including in my own country. It's called democracy.

[halloween]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

Nope but that anology is flawed. What happened with the rice scheme in Thailand is happening all over the world. Including in my own country. It's called democracy.

Which of your government's policy was continued despite huge losses? The analogy is spot on, it is an expectation to continue despite observed risk after a promise to proceed.

[halloween]

5 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

How do you know she did nothing ? Yes she did not stop the scheme, that much is certain, and again that is a political decision she was fully entitled to take. However where is the evidence she did absolutely nothing ? Me thinks that to be almost impossible to prove, but this is the Thai justice system, so in that case, even if there is no proof, she could still be found guilty of negligence. 

 

The rest of the world recognizes this for what it is, a witch hunt. used to ensure Yingluck cannot play a role in politics anymore. After all, her five year ban from politics does not run very long anymore. 

 

 

Oh and just so we are clear:

 

"Vicha said investigators were initially unsure if Yingluck should be charged with negligence, so they spent a lot to time looking into the details. The investigators later concluded that there were irregularities in the rice-pledging project and the sale of pledged rice through G-to-G deals.

 

“It was the responsibility of the government head to stop the project. The ministers responsible could not do so because they were frequently replaced,” he said."

 

Straight from the OP.

How do we know she did nothing? Quite simply by the fact that no changes were implemented. That is her job, to take due diligence in the management of government policy and taxpayer's funds.

If any changes to reduce the losses had been taken, she had a defence, rather than the claptrap you and her supporters throw up.

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, halloween said:

How do we know she did nothing? Quite simply by the fact that no changes were implemented. That is her job, to take due diligence in the management of government policy and taxpayer's funds.

If any changes to reduce the losses had been taken, she had a defence, rather than the claptrap you and her supporters throw up.

How do you know no changes have been implemented  to reduce loses ? I need evidence, not your word.

[halloween]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

How do you know no changes have been implemented  to reduce loses ? I need evidence, not your word.

Evidence of something that didn't happen? Did she bring up the changes she made in her defence statement? Do you know of any? Or am I supposed to believe, like fairies at the bottom of the garden, that they exist, not because of any evidence, but because somebody assures me they do?

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

Evidence of something that didn't happen? Did she bring up the changes she made in her defence statement? Do you know of any? Or am I supposed to believe, like fairies at the bottom of the garden, that they exist, not because of any evidence, but because somebody assures me they do?

The evidence should be that nothing happened, which is almost impossible to prove. Rest assured, she will be found guilty, in good Thai justice system tradition, ask the two lads from Myamar if you cannot grasp what I am talking about. Tired of this bullshit. 

 

why do you think the rest of the world already knows this is nothing but a political witchhunt ? Maybe you should go back to your home country and reflect on reality a bit.

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by sjaak327

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

The evidence should be that nothing happened, which is almost impossible to prove. Rest assured, she will be found guilty, in good Thai justice system tradition, ask the two lads from Myamar if you cannot grasp what I am talking about. Tired of this bullshit. 

 

why do you think the rest of the world already knows this is nothing but a political witchhunt ? Maybe you should go back to your home country and reflect on reality a bit.

 

Nothing happened? B500 billion went down the gurgler on her watch. The evidence missing is her stopping or reducing the mounting losses, or even making an attempt to do so.