Is he a hypocrite or does he just expose hypocrisy in us? Or both? We have seen staunch defenders of the 2001 verdict performing an autopsy of Wednesday's ruling and declaring it a farce. Some have gone as far as saying Wednesday's decision was a declaration that the Thai poor are meaningless. Democratic "values" are coming into play, in spite of the deafening silence in 2001. And more oddly, judges' decisions on alleged political crimes committed to acquire power through a grand fraudulent scheme are seen as a stab through the heart of democracy.

When it comes to adherence to legal principles - as far as the electoral crimes go - Wednesday's verdict is solid. If we compared it with the acquittal ruling the Constitution Court issued on Thaksin's assets-concealment case in 2001, this party dissolution ruling is far more consistent and eloquent. But while it's tough for anyone to question legal principles applied by the judges on evidence of electoral fraud and cover-ups, the weak point of Wednesday's ruling is the punishment. The decision to apply a post-coup, military-enacted law against a crime committed earlier last year is controversial. The five-year ban is made possible only by the post-coup law, raising the question of whether criminal-justice principles, in which no law is supposed to be enacted against any particular group or with retroactive effects, have been disregarded. The logic for the argument is simple: You may defy the anti-littering law if you know the punishment is a Bt100 fine, but you will think twice if you have to pay Bt1,000. More intriguingly both verdicts revolve around one man. Thaksin was accused of breaching the law and the charter in both cases. He got away in 2001 but not this time. In 2001, it was "financial nominees" he was accused of hiding. This time it was essentially "political nominees" he was accused of creating in a bid to regain power. He didn't get off the hook.

We are at a strange juncture. In 2001 we eyed the judges with extreme suspicion because they found him innocent. Now, the tribunal is facing similar scepticism because he is ruled guilty. As for the neutrals, which is more acceptable? In 2001 it was a really murky and self-contradicting Constitution Court verdict that ignored constitutional essence when the country had democracy. This time we have a seemingly better verdict delivered under a military regime.

Evidence in both cases is damning. Thaksin's denial of knowledge in the hidden shares was made weaker when the contentious stocks were later used to dodge tax a few times, and they played a crucial part in the Temasek scandal that brought Thailand to this crisis. He dissolved Parliament to try to get away with it, but an election was boycotted and his party refused to face the consequences in a straightforward manner. "Nominee" candidates were hired to provide fake competition so Thai Rak Thai candidates did not have to run unchallenged in rival constituencies and be required to win at least 20 per cent of all eligible votes. There was proof of money transactions and doctoring of official data to allow otherwise unqualified candidates to compete against those of Thai Rak Thai.

It should have been so simple. Did Thaksin breach the law and the Constitution when he failed to disclose the shares in servants' accounts and Ample Rich? Yes. Did his party hire election nominees to try to regain political power that he was forced to concede because of his fishy manipulation of those shares? Evidence shown to the Tribunal was strong.

But with the man, simplicity ends there.