• 
• 

Published on March 15, 2008

As a result, the former premier, accused by the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) of abuse of power while in office for helping his wife purchase the Bt772-million plot of land from a government auction in 2003, shouldn't be held legally responsible.

The legal team appointed by Thaksin and Khunying Pojaman on Wednesday presented a 121-page defence to the Supreme Court for Political Offences along with 15 items of documentary evidence.

The defence will also present 56 witnesses to the court, including MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, the former governor of the Bank of Thailand, and Varathep Ratanakorn, the deputy finance minister.

At the time, Pridiyathorn was the central bank's chief while the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) was the seller.

Other witnesses will also come from the FIDF, the central bank, the Comptroller-General's Office and the Budget Bureau.

Originally, this prime piece of land situated next to Ratchadaphisek Road, Bangkok's new business and entertainment district, was owned by the now-defunct Erawan Trust, which acquired it at a cost of only Bt103 million a long time ago.

The defence will also argue that the former premier's wife had offered the highest bid for the land, an amount higher than the seller's reference price.

Still, the AEC charges that the former premier, who signed a document giving consent to his spouse purchasing the property, violated Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) law, which bars holders of public office and spouses from having business transactions with the state.

On this point, the defence team concluded that the legal status of the FIDF, the land-seller, is similar to that of the War Veterans Organisation, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Government Pension Fund.

These organisations do not receive any of state budget, as shown by the government's annual budget bill. As a result, the argument goes, they are not under direct supervision of the prime minister.

The defence team will also argue that FIDF staff members at the time were not subject to the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission and thus were not state employees.

On the other hand, the AEC charges that, as premier, Thaksin did have executive power over all government and related entities, so he should be held responsible for violating the NCCC law.

Thaksin and his legal team will also argue that there was no government intervention with regard to the change of land-title-deed numbers as the AEC alleges.

As a result, the defence team will present documentary evidence to the court to make its point that title-deed numbers were in fact changed by the land authority due to technical reasons.

 The next court hearings on this case are scheduled for April 29 and 30, when officials will verify evidence and witnesses from both sides.

Afterwards, the court will announce the rules and procedures for trials as well as the schedules for the AEC and the accused to present their evidence and witnesses.

Given that the case is in the hands of the Supreme Court for Political Offences, the highest court, a verdict is expected by the end of this year.

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

nop1122@yahoo.com