The Ratchada-Phisek land Scandal

In 2003, Pojaman Shinawatra, won a sealed bid auction for 33 rai (13.17 acres) of land in central Bangkok. At the time of the auction, her husband, Thaksin Shinawatra was the Prime Minister of Thailand. Critics argued that corruption was involved.





Three years later following a coup d'etat, a newly created panel, The Assets Examination Committee (AEC) was formed. Their job was to investigate all actions of Thaksin Shinawatra, his family and the political party which ran the country for the previous 6 years. One of their first actions was to launch a full investigation into the auction, which finally resulted in The Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Persons holding Political positions, finding Thaksin Shinawatra guilty of Conflict of Interest. Thaksin was sentenced in absentia to 2 years in prison.

Whilst the case has been over for several years, and the sentence still hasn't been served, it is still playing a part in the current political crisis in Thailand. With a country deeply divided into those that admire and those that detest the former Prime Minister; who is currently living in exile. Critics of the former Prime Minister feel that the verdict is deserved, whilst his supporters feel that the verdict is unfair and unjustified.

Most of the information surrounding this particular case is scattered, and the purpose of this blog is to try and bring it all together in one place.

The land in question

This is the Land which was auctioned by the Bank of Thailand subsidiary, The Financial Institute Development fund (FIDF).The auction consisted of 4 land Plots. This land, was originally the property of Erawan Trust, and was purchased from the indebted finance company in 1995 for 2,140,357,500 baht.


Google Earth reference:
13 45 55 87N : 100 34 37 18E




As the photo's show, the land itself is located within a triangular area. In the top left of this triangle is the Thailand Cultural Centre. Immediately below is a SRT shunting yard, the actual plot has access to Thiam Ruam Mit road both at the northern and southern boundaries with the klong (canal) as the right boundary, and an access soi being the left boundary. The size of the 4 plots comes to 33 rai, 0 ngam, 78.9 sq wah (53,115.6 sq meters or 13.12 acres).

The earlier auctions for the land were actually slightly larger measuring 35 rai, 2 ngam, 69 sq wah (57,076 sq meters). Just over two rai was withheld for the later auction as the land would be used for road widening, additionally in earlier auctions the land was divided into 13 plots (1877, 1878, 30645, 30646, 30647, 30648, 30649, 30650, 30651 30652, 30653, 30654 and 114949).

The remaining land after the two rai was removed was incorporated into 4 plots by the land office on instructions from the FIDF and new deeds (2298, 2299, 2300, 2301) were issued.

At the time of the auctions, all areas of Bangkok operated under a single Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which governed the maximum height and minimum open space allowed for each building. The Ministry of Culture wanted to preserve the area around the Thailand Cultural Centre. In order to enforce this, a Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) rule on the maximum height of any building close to the Thai Culture Centre was introduced,(The Ministerial Regulation No. 414, BE 2542). This limited the height of any building to no more than 23 meters and also imposed some restrictions on development, and alteration of nearby properties.

On May 17th 2006 a new building regulation code was introduced into Bangkok, splitting the City into various zones, (Residential, Commercial and Industrial) with reduced Floor area ratios for much of metropolitan Bangkok. Previous restrictions, such as that applied to areas around the Thai cultural centre were effectively cancelled. Whilst the zoning regulations were the brainchild of the BMA, before introduction they required and received cabinet approval. Critics have highlighted the fact that this approval increased the value of the land purchased by Pojaman Shinawatra.

On 9th June 2001 an executive decree came into force establishing the Thai Asset Management Company (TAMC), with this new organization, large parcels of land became entrusted to this new company. Whilst the company itself was labeled a "Public Company" it was, and still is 100% owned by the FIDF. The purpose behind the new TAMC was to purchase Non performing Loans (NPL's) from the various State and Private banking institutes in order for the banks to clean up their balance sheets and hopefully start lending money again. It was at this time that the FIDF decided to follow the TAMC guidelines and re-classify its own assets. The criteria was that doubtful loans or land values would have 50% written off, as a result of this the 35 rai Ratchada Phisek land value was reduced from it's original value of 2,140,357,500 baht to what was considered by the FIDF to be a more realistic value of 1,310,100,000 baht.

Erawan Trust

The Ratchada-Phisek land which Pojaman Shinawatra purchased at auction in December 2003 was part of a series of assets bought by the FIDF from Erawan Trust.

Erawan Trust had acquired the deeds to the land when a former borrower defaulted on a 103 million baht loan and the land was then seized by the finance company.

According to Shale Asher Horowitz in his book, "The political economy of international financial crisis: interest groups" the company had been founded by former Prime Minister, Major General Chatichai Choonhavan, who was also the largest shareholder. The company eventually went bankrupt and a few days after Chatichai's death the company was formally taken over by the Bank of Thailand and became one of the founding blocks of what today is known as Bank Thai, with The FIDF then being a major shareholder (42.13 %). In 2008, they sold their stake to the Malaysian bank CIMB for 5.9 Billion baht.

Like Thaksin Shinawatra, Chatichai Choonhavan was ousted in a bloodless coup d’etat; the reason given for the coup was the alleged rampant corruption, although unlike Thaksin Shinawatra, neither Chatichai nor any of his fellow Ministers were ever brought to court over these allegations.

Erawan Trust was established on 4th October 1974, whilst Chatichai was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of Prime Minister Sanya Dharmasakti.

It first came to international attention when it was named as one of the financial institutions which helped create the financial crisis in Thailand in 1983, because it was not in a position to repay maturing promissory notes, this was amidst allegations that many of the loans made by the company were to the executives of the financial institution.

It became known in Asia when the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) did a 2 page article on Chatichai and Erawan trust whilst Chatichai was Prime Minister in September 1988 (The publication was banned in Thailand).

Erawan Trust was named as one of the top 7,500 largest companies in Asia By Asia Pacific Marketing Services(1990)

According to official records from the Bank of Thailand the only troubled financial institute which was allowed to sell assets in return for the FIDF providing sufficient liquidity was Erawan Trust, and they went through this process on 4 separate occasions.

31st July 1995 - US$ 45,000,000 (Prime Minister Banharn Sipha-Archa)
30th November 1996 - US$ 170,000,000 (Prime Minister Banharn Silpa-Archa)
14th November 1997 - US$ 169,000,000 (Prime Minister Chuan leekpai)
19th February 1998 - US$ 169,000,000 (Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai)

Original source: Bank of Thailand.

Quoted in, "EADN Regional Project on the Social Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis" by Adis Israngkura (2002)

The first selling of assets to the FIDF which occurred less than two weeks after Banharn Silpa-Archa formed his cabinet. It was this purchase which gave the FIDF the land close to Ratchada Phisek Road which was eventually auctioned off to Pojaman. The Finance Minister at the time was Surakiart Sathirathai, who was the former Policy Advisor for trade negotiations to Chatichai Choonhavan. In addition, Thaksin Shinawatra was also the Deputy Prime Minister. At the time, all actions by the FIDF had to have approval from the cabinet.

The second selling of assets to the FIDF actually occurred whilst the government was dissolved and a few days prior to Chavalit taking office.

The third selling of assets to the FIDF actually occurred on the day Chuan took office

The final selling of assets to the FIDF occurred 3 months prior to Chatichai dying of lung cancer, and included a write-down of the companies assets, and a total change in the executive board.

The deal to finally liquidate the company and use it's assets as the basis of Bank Thai was made public on the 18th May 1998, 6 days after Chatichai's death. By this time US$ 553 million had been spent on assets of Erawan Trust by the FIDF.



The FIDF spent a total of 1.4 Trillion baht in supporting and purchasing of assets from financial institutions as a direct result of the Asian Crisis in 1995 - 1998.

In October 2010, the Ministry of Finance revealed that the outstanding debt of the FIDF was still 1.1 Trillion baht, with yearly interest payments totaling 65 Billion baht. It's total assets were just 200 Billion baht.

The 2004 Censure debate

On the 19th December 2003, The FIDF announced the results of an auction for a 33 rai plot of land near to the Thailand Culture Center. Bank of Thailand assistant Governor, Sawangjit Jaiyawat (นางสว่างจิตต์ จัยวัฒน์) announced that three groups had put in bids for the plots, Land and House Plc, Noble Development Plc and Pojaman Shinawatra.



Their bids were:

Pojaman Shinawatra - 772,000,000 baht
Land & Houses Plc - 730,000,000 baht
Noble Development - 750,000,000 baht


After the announcement, Sawangjit had to defend the FIDF over the price of the sale, however she stated that the price was higher than the Land department estimate by 5%, and she also stated that holding the land did nothing for the fund.


It was not for a further 5 months, that opposition politicians decided to use the purchase as an attack on the government. Constitutional requirements meant that the opposition didn't have sufficient numbers to directly censure the Prime Minister; however they did have sufficent numbers to censure any other Cabinet Minister. As a result of this they censured the newly installed Finance Minister, Somkid Jatusripitak (สมคิด จาตุศรีพิทักษ์), the Minister who now indirectly oversaw the FIDF.

On the 2nd day of a censure debate, Democrat MP, Arkom Engchuan (อาคม เอ่งฉ้วน) took centre stage at the censure debate alleging that Pojaman Shinawatra benefited from the allegedly non-transparent sale of 13 prime land plots on Thiemruammitr Road by the Financial Institutions Development Fund the previous year. Arkom alleged that ambiguous procedures in the FIDF's land sale, with the alleged sole intention to sell the plum site - close to the Thailand Cultural Centre and a new subway station - to Khunying Pojaman.

The FIDF was questioned about its rush to sell the land plots, and the irregular conditions of the auction.

Somkid hit back, saying there was no irregularity."Khunying Pojaman joined the auction on her own to show her sincerity. She has the right, as a Thai national".

Arkom questioned:

- Why there was no minimum price set ?
- Why 2 rai, or 1,013 square wah, was cut off when the site was put for a second bid ?
- Why Pojaman Shinawatra was the only bidder ?
- Why a 100 million baht deposit was required for the second bid, yet only 10,000 baht was required for the previous e-auction ?
- Why the Land department didn't hold onto the land for a further month, which would ensure a higher Land department valuation of 20 per cent ?
- Why the FIDF didn't wait for a further month to sell the land when the transfer fee would be restored back to the 2 per cent fee ?
- Why the FIDF sold the land at a considerable discount compared to the market value ?

Once Arkom was completed with his allegations, Somkid read a statement from the FIDF Manager, Sawangjit Chaiyawat to try and clarify the points raised.

Later that day, Bank of Thailand Governor, MR Pridiyathorn Devakula (ม.ร.ว.ปรีดิยาธร เทวกุล) also defended the sale, stating that the FIDF had not set a minimum price, as all of the previous bidders for the plots had complained about the high price asked, and stated that Pojaman won the bid, because she put in the highest bid.

However Arkom insisted that there were irregularities, "Due to (former) Minister Suchart's neglect, the FIDF sold the land at a cheaper-than-usual price. The bidding procedures were also carried out in a way to benefit connected parties," he said.” Minister Somkid was not the finance minister while this land was sold. But as the finance minister now, he should have spotted these irregularities and corrected them".

A few days following the censure debate, Senator Chirmsak Pinthong announced that he was planning to file a complaint with the NCCC. Chirmsak stated that in his opinion, the purchase violated the NCCC Act article 100. Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation, however former NCCC member, Sawat Orrungroj said the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. This was also the opinion of Somchainuk Engtrakul, permanent secretary for finance, who said the FIDF had examined all related laws before the auction and not found any prohibition.


No further reports are available to show whether the complaint was ever filed.

FIDF Land Sales

Whilst the FIDF acquired a significant amount of land which it has tried to sell by auction, 3 sales are of particular interest, which include the plot sold to Pojaman Shinawatra in December 2003. All were sold within a relatively short period of time by the FIDF, all are located very close to the Thai Cultural Centre and all were purchased from Erawan Trust by the FIDF.






18th August 2003
35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:
538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003
33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:
772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah)


25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:
1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)


Thailand uses it's own measurement for land. The measurements used are:

Square wah (1 sq.wah = 4 sq Metres)
Ngan (100 sq.wah = 1 ngan)
Rai (4 Ngan = 1 Rai)

For imperial measurements: 10 Rai = 4 acres.


In total The FIDF purchased 2 blocks of land on 24th August 1995. The largest measuring a total of 85 Rai, 3 ngan & 65 Sq Wah (85-3-65) was divided into 18 plots. This was converted into 2 land sales The first for 35 Rai, 2 ngan 35 Sq Wah (35-2-35) which was purchased by the Ministry of Culture, and the second 50 Rai, 1 ngan, 30 Sq Wah (50-1-30) was purchased by the MCOT Corporation.

The second and smaller Block measured a total 35 Rai, 2 Ngan & 69 Sq Wah (35-2-69) was divided into 13 plots. After failure to sell this block of land, 2 Rai was removed from the block and a new block measuring 33 Rai, 0 Ngan & 78.9 Sq Wah (33-0-78.9)was purchased by Pojaman Shinawatra.

Property Development company, Land and houses Public Company Limited, put bids in for both the 33 rai plot which was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra and the 50 rai plot which was sold to MCOT Public Company Limited.

On the 24th September 2010, the Civil court ruled to invalidate the sale; citing the Supreme Court ruling. The court ordered Pojaman to return the deeds to the land, and in return was repaid the full purchase price plus interest, for a total of 823 Million baht. The FIDF decided not to appeal.

On the 17th August 2011, Sopon Pornchokchai(โสภณ พรโชคชัย), the FIDF executive chairman for real estate affairs announced that the four plots of land had been auctioned. The winning bid was from real estate developer, Supalai PLC at a price of Baht 1,815,000,000.

Asset Examination Committee

On 19th September 2006, a military junta under the leadership of General Sonthi Boonyaratglin took control of the Kingdom of Thailand in a bloodless coup d'etat. One of the major reasons for justifying the coup, was said to be corruption on an unprecedented scale by Thaksin Shinawatra and other politicians of the Thai Rak Thai party.





On the 23rd September, the newly named Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM); issued their 23rd announcement, which set up a special assets investigation panel to review all projects approved by the Thaksin government. The Panel was chaired by Supreme Court Justice and former Chairman of the Election Commission, Sawat Chotephanich and included seven other members; the auditor-general, the attorney-general, the secretary-general of the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC), the secretary-general of the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO), the secretary-general of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the governor of the central Bank (BoT) and the judge advocate-general.

Within days, problems started to be heard regarding conflicts between Sawat and the Auditor General, Jaruvan Maintaka. On the 30th September after an hour long meeting between General Sonthi and Jaruvan, the CDRM issued it's 30th announcement which cancelled the previous 23rd announcement and named a new Asset Examination Committee,(sometimes referred to as the Asset Scrutiny Committee (ASC) which comprised 12 members:

1. Nam Yimyaem (นาม ยิ้มแย้ม), (chairperson)
2. Kaewsan Atibhoti (แก้วสรรค์ อติโพธิ), (secretary)
3. Sak Kosaengrueang (สัก กอแสงเรือง), (spokesman)
4. Klanarong Chanthik (กล้านรงค์ จันทิก)
5. Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka (จารุวรรณ เมณฑกา)
6. Chiranit Hawanon (จิรนิติ หะวานนท์)
7. Assoc Prof Banjerd Singkaneti (บรรเจิด สิงคะเนติ)
8. Prof Wirot Laohaphan (วิโรจน์ เลาหะพันธุ์)
9. Sawat Chotiphanit (สวัสดิ์ โชติพานิช)
10. Prof Saowani Atsawarot (เสาวนีย์ อัศวโรจน์)
11. Udom Fueangfung (อุดม เฟื่องฟุ้ง)
12. Amnuai Thanthara (อำนวย ธันธรา)

By the 30th October the AEC had started to look into the Ratchada-Phisek land deal, and had already questioned whether or not Pojaman Shinawatra was eligible to bid for the land. The AEC was of the opinion that the Organic law on Counter corruption may have been violated, and in particular Article 100, which forbids high ranking officials (and their wives) from entering into contracts with the departments which they are in charge of.

There were also questions regarding the price, which provoked the Bank of Thailand to issue a statement confirming that the price paid was above the land department estimate.

The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100.

On November 7th 2006, Weera Somkwamkid, secretary-general of the People's Network against Corruption presented the AEC with a copy of a letter of consent from Thaksin Shinawatra, which was a legally required document before the land could be transferred; this he stated proved that Thaksin was fully aware of his wife’s involvement in the auction. He also formally petitioned the AEC to set up a full investigation into the land auction.

By the 19th November the AEC had formally requested an opinion from the Council of State, over the official status of the FIDF. They replied that although the FIDF was a separate juristic entity, it was still considered a State Agency, as it is directly under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand.

AEC chairman, Nam Yimyaem stated that he had asked the National Counter-Corruption Commission (NCCC) whether in future investigations it would follow the previous commission's interpretation of Article 100. Under the previous Commission it was decided that only in the case of suspected corruption or irregularities, would an investigation be carried out. The reasoning behind this was the wording of the Organic law; which was so broad as to prohibit senior bureaucrats and Government officials from having even basic services such as banking, telephones, electricity etc

By the 20th December, the AEC had still not formed a committee to investigate the land scandal, as there were still a large number of technical and legal questions left to be answered as the issue was quite complex, the AEC also stated that they may need the FIDF to file an official complaint before an investigation could be undertaken, as this was a legal requirement under the NCCC Act.

By early January the AEC filed a complaint with the military Junta stating that the FIDF had still not filed a complaint with the AEC, even though they had been requested to do so. In an official press release the spokesman for the AEC stated that if they continued to refuse to file the complaint then AEC would file charges of malfeasance.

On the 9th January 2007, the Ministry of Finance finally submitted a complaint to the AEC. The complaint neither mentioned Thaksin or Pojaman Shinawatra nor the amount of damage that the deal had done to the state. On the 16th January, a further complaint was filed, this time having been drafted by the AEC, and was signed on behalf of the FIDF, which named Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra as the accused.

After receiving this complaint the AEC finally had the authority to form a committee to investigate the auction deal, which would have the same legal powers as the NCCC, which could legally summon and question witnesses, and additionally demand any documents they wished in order to conclude the investigation. Once completed the case would be submitted to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).

As with the NCCC, should the OAG decide that there was insufficient evidence to go to the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders, then the AEC was empowered to file the case directly with the court. Under these circumstances, the NCCC is obliged to prosecute the case with their own lawyers.

By the 20th January 2007, whilst they had formed a committee to start the investigation, the FIDF had still not included any details about damages to the state, and as a result the AEC again formally submitted a complaint, this time to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont about state agencies not co-operating with the AEC.

The FIDF replied, that they were unaware of any damage, as the price paid was actually higher than the appraisal price; however they stated that should the AEC come up with a figure, and then they would include it in a new complaint. "We're ready to follow the AEC, but the committee will have to prove the loss in the court, because the fund will only report facts. I do not know whether the court will agree with the committee" stated Chanchai Boonritchaisri, a senior director of the central bank's Legal and Litigation Department.

On the 29th January, the AEC announced that they had requested a written statement from Pojaman Shinawatra for her defence, and had announced that they were looking into confiscating the land in question.

On the 27th February 2007 the AEC announced that they were including a criminal Charge of Article 152 of the criminal code, for allegedly exploiting Thaksins position for personal gain. The criminal offence carries a penalty of up to 10 years in jail and a maximum fine of 20,000 baht; it would also give the AEC grounds for formally requesting the Confiscation of the land according to Article 33 of the criminal code.

Documents obtained by the AEC led it to believe that a number of Land Department officials were also involved in the alleged irregularities surrounding the land purchase from the government's Financial Institutions Development Fund. However, the AEC had found no proof against those officials.

On the 4th April 2007, Lawyer Pichit Chuenban submitted a 63-page statement of defence. Pichit explained later the couple asked the AEC to consider statements about the controversial land sale. They requested it admit declarations from ex-finance minister Somkid Jatusripitak, his former deputy Varathep Rattana-korn, Bank of Thailand (BOT) legal director Chanchai Boonrit-chaisri and MR Pridiyathorn Devakula.

The AEC allowed only Pridiyathorn to deliver additional testimony. For this the AEC issued a summons, and added that should the Former BOT Governor fail to attend the hearing without a valid reason then he could face a jail sentence. The AEC also stated, "By law, the lawyer for Thaksin Shinawatra will not be allowed to be present during the testimony of the witness. The lawyer can however submit questions for Pridiyathorn to the AEC providing that they are received within a day prior to the hearing".

Pridiyathorn asked for and received permission to delay the testimony until April 25th 2007.

At the same time, it was being proposed that the one year term of the AEC be extended.

In early May 2007, Pojaman Shinawatra had filed a slander lawsuit against AEC Chairman Nam Nimyaem after he said that she and Thaksin had violated the anti-graft law by purchasing land illegally. (The court later dismissed the charge as they viewed that the Nam's statement was a personal opinion, rather than a statement of fact on behalf of the AEC).

At the same time the AEC's sub-committee chairman, Udom Fuangfung, said that if the case is finally accepted by the Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders, then a summons will be issued for Thaksin Shinawatra to defend himself against the charges. "Thaksin will have to appear before the court, and the Council for National Security and the government will have to decide whether to allow Thaksin back into the country" he said.

On the 16th May 2007, the Government and the Council for National Security state that they would have no objection if deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra is required by a court to return to Thailand to fight corruption charges against him. The government and the CNS have not explicitly banned Thaksin from returning, but they have earlier given clear signals that his presence in the country would not be welcome until after the general election expected in December or early next year.

On the 4th June 2007, the AEC summoned former Prime Minister's Chuan Leekpai and Banharn Slpha-Archa to give testimony about the Prime Ministers role over the FIDF. According to witnesses, the two concluded that Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had broken political ethics by entering into contracts with a state agency he oversaw.

A few days’ later AEC members Jaruvan Maintaka and Udom Fuangfung, chairman of AEC's subcommittee probing the land deal, met with officials from the Office of the Attorney General. According to reports from the meeting, the OAG requested that the AEC obtain additional documents in order to strengthen the case against Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra, particularly highlighted were documents about the issuance of bonds by the Financial Institutions Development Fund to show a clear link between the FIDF and the Government.

On the 20th June 2007, The Office of the Attorney General filed charges with the Supreme Court for Political Office holders. The primary charges were that Thaksin Shinawatra had breeched Article 100 and 122 of the NCCC Act which forbids the Spouse of an individual who has direct supervision of a state Agency from entering into a contract with that Agency, and Criminal Charges 152 and 157 for malfeasance in office. The Court announced that they would decide by the 10th July 2007, whether to accept the Charges.

On the 10th July 2007, The Supreme Court for Political Office holders announced that they accepted the case against Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra, and that the couple was obliged to formally hear the charges and enter a plea on the 14th August 2007.

Having failed to attend the hearing on the 14th August, the Supreme Court for Political Office holders issued arrest warrants for Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra. "This court finds cause to suspect the two defendants of trying to flee. Therefore, arrest warrants are deemed necessary," presiding judge Thong-or Choam-ngam said in his ruling. Thonglor dismissed a defence argument citing safety concerns as the reason for the no-show by Thaksin and Pojaman.

Prosecutors said they would start extradition proceedings if the Shinawatra's failed to turn up for the new Supreme Court hearing on September 25.

The Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for holders of Political Office


The Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for holders of Political office is a unique judicial body. Formed in accordance with the 1997 Constitution it came into operation on the 4th September 1999 with the passage of The Organic Act on criminal procedure for holders of Political office B.E 2542 (1999).







The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E 2540 (1997)

Section 272   There shall be in the Supreme Court of Justice a Criminal Division for Persons holding Political Positions the quorum of which consists of nine judges in the Supreme Court of Justice holding a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice or senior judges having held a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice and elected at the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice by secret ballot and on a case-by-case basis. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions and the criminal procedure for such persons shall be as provided by this Constitution and the Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions.

This has now been transposed into Section 219 of the current 2007 Constitution.

Unlike all other departments in the Supreme Court, it does not have a full time bench of Justices, and for each case, a chamber of nine Justices must be selected by secret ballot from the Grand Senate of the Supreme Court, which at the time of the Ratchada-Phisek land Trial comprised 84 Justices. Section 13 of the organic Act also allows either the Prosecution or defence to challenge the inclusion of any particular justice on the grounds of prejudice or conflict of interest. Should a motion be accepted then replacements will be selected. The original selection was made on 22nd June 2007, and each of the nine selected obtained votes ranging from 72 to 47. The defence did object to Juvenile and Family Courts chairman Wasant Soipisut (วสันต์ สร้อยพิสุทธิ์) and Environment Litigation Division chairman Surachart Bunsiripan (สุรชาติ บุญศิริพันธ์), and they were replaced on January 15th 2008 by Supreme Court deputy chairman Wattanachai Chotchutrakul and the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders chairman Kriangchai Jungjaturapit, who were again selected by the full bench of 84 Supreme Court Justices.


Jurisdiction Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions

Section 9 The court shall be competent to address the followings: (1) A case the cause of action of which involves an accusation that the Prime Minister, Minister, Member of the House of Representatives, Senator or other political officer possesses unusual wealth, commits an offence against public office under the criminal code or commits an offence against office or corruption in office under other laws (2) A case the cause of action of which involves an accusation that the person under (1) or other person is a principal, abettor or aider in the commission of the offence mentioned in (1)

Section 24 If a criminal case is instituted on one act violating several laws, and one of them falls within the jurisdiction of the court, the court will also accept to deal with the others

What this means is that although Pojaman Shinawatra was not a political office holder, because her husband was, and he was one of the accused, the court had full jurisdiction over every aspect of the criminal case against her over these particular accusations.


Basic Principle of the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for holders of political office. The consideration of a case by the Supreme Courts (Criminal Division) for holders of political office is conducted on the basis of the Inquisitorial system under the civil legal system not the adversarial system where the role of the court is solely that of an impartial referee between parties as in other regular cases. It is not unusual for the bench to ask as many questions of a witness as either the Prosecutor or defence lawyers in order to get a clear understanding of what has taken place.


Judges for the Ratchada – Phisek land trial

Wattanachai Chotchutrakul. (วัฒนชัย โชติชูตระกูล) He served as the Supreme Court’s secretary when the late Pramarn Chansue was its president. He was a key player in the 1991 judiciary crisis. He has served as director-general of the Legal Execution Department and a member of the judiciary’s committee studying the draft 2007 constitution.

Somsak Netramai. (สมศักดิ์ เนตรมัย) He chaired a committee investigating members of the National Counter Corruption Commission, with Pol General Wuthichai Sriratanawut as their chairman, for allegedly committing malfeasance by giving themselves a salary raise. The Supreme Court handed the nine NCCC members a suspended jail sentence. He later went onto being the presiding judge in assets case of Thaksin Shinawatra in 2010.

Suwat Watthanahathai. (สุวัฒน์ วรรธนะหทัย) He was one of the three minority judges in the NCCC case. However, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office voted 6-3 to find the NCCC members guilty

Somchai Pongsatha. (สมชาย พงษธา) He was one of the Constitution Tribunal judges who favoured dissolving the Thai Rak Thai Party in the election fraud case.

Thonglo Chom-ngam. (ทองหล่อ โฉมงาม) The presiding judge. He was on a committee investigating an alleged attempt to bribe Constitution Tribunal judges in the election fraud case against the Thai Rak Thai Party.

Prapan Sapsang. (ประพันธ์ ทรัพย์แสง) Former head of the Supreme Court’s (Criminal Division) for Holders of Political Office. He was on the judiciary committee that sentenced former public health minister Rakkiat Sukthana to 15 years in prison for corruption and on the panel that handed down a suspended jail term to the NCCC members. He once said ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra must be extradited to face trial in the Ratchada Phisek case.

Pichit Kamfang. (พิชิต คำแฝง) When the Supreme Court’s general meeting voted to select five of its judges to sit on the Constitution Tribunal, Pichit tied with Nurak Mapraneet as fifth in the number of votes. Lots were drawn and Pichit failed to become the last nominee from the Supreme Court.

Thirawat Pattaranawat. (ธีระวัฒน์ ภัทรานวัช) He served as a judge in regional courts, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. His positions included director-general of regional courts and chief justice of Region 5 of the Court of Appeals

Kriangchai Juengchaturapit. (เกรียงชัย จึงจตุรพิธ) The head of the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Holders of Political Office. He warned Thaksin supporters that greeting him with raucous cheers and flowers in the court compound could be regarded as contempt of court.

Source: The Nation newspaper



Appeal

Unlike the 1997 Constitution, the new 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand includes the provision for an appeal

Section 278 An adjudication of a case shall be made by a majority of votes; provided that every judge constituting the quorum shall prepare his or her written opinion and make oral statements to the meeting prior to the passing of a resolution. An order and a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions shall be disclosed and be final, except it is the case under paragraph three. In the case where the person on whom a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions has been given has found fresh evidence likely to result in a material alteration of facts, such person may appeal to the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice within thirty days as from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions. The submission of an appeal and the hearing as well as the adjudication of the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice shall be in accordance with the Rule prescribed by the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice

When an appeal has been lodged, a general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justices will meet and select five Justices, (none of whom must have sat on the original trial) who will decide whether the evidence presented meets the criteria under section 278 of the Constitution. .

To date No Appeal has ever got beyond the screening committee For the Ratchada-Phisek land case, no appeal was lodged