5 replies to this topic

[Sexpat]

"Only one of the criminal cases against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra will proceed in his absence while he is a fugitive abroad, a source at the Supreme Court said Wednesday.

Under the rules governing the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions, defendants must be present at the first hearing, where they must formally acknowledge the proceedings after hearing the court read out the charges.

Of the cases against Mr Thaksin, who on Monday skipped bail and announced he was staying in London, only the Ratchadapisek land case will proceed, and a verdict be issued, if Mr Thaksin does not return to Thailand, the source said.

"So if he does not appear in court at the first hearing after the court accepts a lawsuit against him, that case would be suspended. "The court may also issue a warrant for his arrest," said the source.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions initially suspended the hearing of the Ratchadapisek land case, in which Mr Thaksin is charged with using his authority as prime minister to wrongfully influence the purchase of land by his wife, Khunying Potjaman, from the Financial Institutions Development Fund in 2003. The trial resumed after Khunying Potjaman returned to Thailand early this year.

Warrants have now been issued for the couple's arrest and the forfeiture of their bail."

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129594

[Hedda]

I wonder what the statute of limitations is, if any, on these cases as long as Thaksin stays out of Thailand ? How long they can continue to freeze Thaksin's bank accounts if no trials are held ? Some of these events are already five years old and counting.

Could this decision not to start any new cases against Thaksin while he is out of Thailand be part of a secret deal that he gets back all the money eventually if he stays away long enough ?

And what happens to all those other cases where dozens of politicians and the entire cabinet were charged along with Thaksin with corruption. Do all these cases in which Thaksin is a party get mothballed forever ? Does that mean that all these other alleged corrupt officials who supposedly pocketed millions in things like the airport scanner scam will also not face trials as long as "the boss" stays away ?

If all of this sounds impossible or implausible, remember: TIT

[Bob]

Most countries (and even states within the US) have laws that toll the statutes of limitation when somebody has left the jurisdiction. I would guess Thailand might have a similar law.

I'd guess it won't matter as either he'll be convicted in absentia (but never serve a day) and they'll end up grabbing his Thailand funds or, alternatively, maybe he'll be pardoned or obtain amnesty through the legislature.

Although Richard Nixon was guilty of serious offenses (especially given he ran his obstruction/perjury from the oval office), it was in the best interest of the US that he be pardoned. Maybe the same logic ought to apply to Shinawatra.

[Snowy]

Although Richard Nixon was guilty of serious offenses (especially given he ran his obstruction/perjury from the oval office), it was in the best interest of the US that he be pardoned. Maybe the same logic ought to apply to Shinawatra.

What a load of bollocks! It is NEVER in the best interests of any country or people that any crook (and especially a high level one like the head of a country or Government) be pardoned. All that does is send entirely the wrong signal to others who are then encouraged to commit similar crimes.

Corruption of the sort that the Thaksin family indulged in is endemic in Thailand and until those who commit it can be certain that they will be made to pay for their crimes it will continue.

[Bob]

What a load of bollocks! It is NEVER in the best interests of any country or people that any crook (and especially a high level one like the head of a country or Government) be pardoned.

A majority of Americans disagreed with Ford immediately after Ford's decision to pardon Nixon. Later, however (allowing for some reflection and intelligent thought), the vast majority agreed with Ford's action and rightfully so in my opinion. A long and drawn out trial for Nixon would only have continued the constitutional crisis we had at the time and the country needed to move on (Nixon left in disgrace anyway).
Given the huge popularity of Shinawatra in Thailand, it's my opinion that Thailand may be better off giving him amnesty and moving on to other matters. But that's for the Thais to sort out.

[As you'll note, Snowy, the above reply presents a calm argument (with which you certainly are free to disagree with) and doesn't load any personal words. Had I chosen the "Snowy" method of a response, it might have gone something like this: "Snowy, you're comments are a load of bollocks! And you NEVER have a clue what is in the best interest of any country let alone one that isn't yours." However, I usually try to avoid your method of discourse as it tends to undermine whatever point I was trying to make.]

[Snowy]

However, I usually try to avoid your method of discourse as it tends to undermine whatever point I was trying to make.]

It doesn't matter how you say it Bob, you do at times spout a load of hot air and often jingoistic crap.

Nixon may have left in disgrace but he also left without any financial penalty or loss of personal freedom for his crimes, in the meantime he was quite happy to see his minions do jail time for them as a result of his criminal action. I fail to see how that benefited the USA. On the contrary, all it did was to make the country and Ford look like losers and comparable to any third-world country where position, power and influence prevail over justice.