Theories rife over 'gift'

Was it the smartest of scams? Or the most stupid? One thing is for sure about the reported attempt on Tuesday to offer a "gift" at the heart of the country's highest legal institution, the Supreme Court: this is a scandal that is deeply linked to the on-going political crisis and could turn out to be one of its biggest twists ever.

This much can be said for now: On Tuesday, a group of people - generally reported as a team of lawyers representing a politician fighting a case in the court's special section for political office holders - came along with a proclaimed "dessert" box. They left the box with some court officials, indicating that they hoped the recipients would enjoy its contents.

When the box was opened after they had left and Bt2 million in cash was found, high-ranking court authorities were alerted. The "evidence" was documented but the money was, inexplicably, returned to the one who gave it. Yesterday the court announced an investigation was underway and that the key questions, such as who left the cash-filled box and for whom was it intended, will be answered once the probe is completed.

The scandal has left the court in a precarious position, particularly after the apparently sloppy handling of the "evidence". Court officials said the money was returned after all details had been documented and photos taken, but the public pressure for the Supreme Court to come clean will only grow. Why such key evidence, which could yield clues to the mastermind of this alleged attempt at bribery, was so readily returned will be one of the toughest questions to answer.

At least three possible theories for the scandal have been proffered. The first one has it that it was an attempt to discredit a team of judges involved in a high-profile political case. A scandal of this kind, so goes the theory, could force a change in the bench handling the case, making it easier for a high-profile defendant to escape justice.

The theory contains a major weak point: it carries an enormous risk of backfiring on the defendant himself. Most of all, the identities of those who left the box with court officials shouldn't be too hard to pinpoint.

The second theory rests simply on stupid and desperate people doing stupid and desperate things. The high-profile defendant's representatives wanted to "test the water" with an "initial" offer of money, sending a big signal as to what can be expected should there be an acquittal in the case. As to the question of why wasn't the money dispersed a little less blatantly, say in the form of a money transfer or a cheque, a possible answer is that it is preferable to carry out such transactions more informally.

This theory's weak point is that, of course, it still sounds stupid no matter the explanation given. But then again, advocates of the theory insist desperate people can do very stupid things.

The third theory is pretty much that advanced by Thaksin Shinawatra's personal spokesman Pongthep Thepkanchana when addressing the widely-asked question of whether the whole thing had anything to do with his boss. "It was a joke," he said. "Only insane persons would have done anything like that."

His suggestion is that it could be a conspiracy against Thaksin. "A lot of things are being said and done with attempts to link them to" the former prime minister, Pongthep said. When asked if Thaksin would send his lawyers forward to distance themselves from the scandal, he said: "You'd better seek the truth from the court. As for me, it's nothing but a joke."

Whether it's a smear campaign against the court, a ploy to discredit a political suspect, or a real but stupid bribery attempt, justice should prevail when the truth comes out. And whatever the truth is, this scandal can be a banana skin that could serve the conspirators right.