• 
• 

Odds are not in Thaksin's favour if he tries to regain wealth deemed by the state to be ill-gotten. In two of three past cases, prime ministers linked to corruption lost their jobs and their assets.

In 1964 the Thanom Kittikachorn government seized about Bt600 million of the Bt2-billion estate of the late prime minister Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, who had died the year before.

Strongman Sarit was hugely popular and ran his administration with an iron fist. But, following a bitter feud over his estate, people were shocked to learn of massive corruption, the proceeds of which financed his hundreds of mistresses.

To this day die-hard supporters continue to defend Sarit's plunder, arguing he "just" skimmed foreign aid and did not touch state coffers.

In 1974, Thanom got a taste of his own medicine. In the wake of the October 1973 uprising, the Sanya Dharmasakti government confiscated Bt400 million from Thanom and his cohorts.

Thanom and family fought long, unsuccessful legal battles all the way to the Supreme Court.

The seizures employed a sweeping executive power - known as Article 17 - which was sanctioned by the 1959 interim charter. The Sanya government introduced additional legislation on top of this decree to seize Thanom's assets.

The iron-clad provision was revoked upon the introduction of the 1974 Constitution.

In 1991, the National Peace-Keeping Council froze the assets of 35 ousted government leaders, including the then prime minister Chatichai Choonhavan.

Following intense lobbying, the council eventually seized assets of 10 politicians worth about Bt1.6 billion. Although it held absolute power, the council enacted a clause permitting judicial appeals.

The 10 duly did, and the Supreme Court ruled in their favour, allowing that the charter did not sanction the seizures.

Following the 2006 coup, the Council for Democratic Reform went the extra mile and legalised and gave immunity to the Assets Examination Committee and its procedures.

There are foolproof provisions sanctioning anti-graft measures used against Thaksin in the 2006 interim constitution and the 2007 Constitution.

It is evident why Thaksin supporters are relentlessly pushing the amendment of Article 309 of the Constitution, the legal cornerstone targeting Thaksin for his alleged abuse of power.

As long as this remains, Thaksin and his cohorts face an uphill task to clear their names. The legal loophole of the unconstitutionality of coup-leaders actions has been closed to them.

Based on graft allegations, public prosecutors have mounted a sturdy case for the seizure of Thaksin's wealth. The prosecution writ is 124-pages long. The associated evidence required 180 boxes and needed to be transported to the court in a large lorry.

The AEC was mandated by the coup to freeze assets suspected of being ill-gotten. The Supreme Court must decide on confiscation.

The assets frozen total about Bt69 billion. And judging from the writ lodged yesterday, the prosecution will try to seize unaccounted-for funds, too.

Should the court proceed to trial, it may be heard in the absence of Thaksin. It is considered a civil proceeding.

Under money-laundering law, the defence bears the burden of proving the assets legitimate.

Although Thaksin's frozen funds are reportedly revenue from the 2006 sale of his family's shares in Shin Corp, his defence may find it difficult to justify the giant leap in his wealth from when he was not prime minister.