.jpg)
The second day of hearing testimony for the defence saw six witnesses called. Charnchai Boonwichaisilp (นายชาญชัย บุญฤทธิ์ไชยศรี)Law and Litigation division of the Bureau of Budget and FIDF, Suporn Meephan (นายสุภร ดีพันธ์) Senior litigation official for the Bank of Thailand, Sathorn To-uthai (นายสาธร โตโพธิ์ไทย) Official with the Bank of Thailand, Danucha Yindeepen (นางดนุชา ยินดีพิธ) Official with the Ministry of Finance, Panlop Saksoponkul (นายพัลลภ ศักดิ์โสภณกุล)Official with the Law and regulations division of the Ministry of Finance and Preecha Vajrabhaya (นายปรีชา วัชราภัย)Secretary General of the Civil Service Commission.Charnchai Boonwichaisilp testified that his earlier remark in 2003 to the media about the Ratchadaphisek land auction won by Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra not causing any damage or loss to the FIDF was his personal opinion and not necessarily a fact but he added that he believed the FIDF auction was handled "openly" and he still thought it shouldn't have caused any damage to the organisation. However, if the transaction was nullified, the FIDF would incur damage. "No cancellation of the deal has been made by the FIDF to date, however."
Suporn Meephan, another Bank of Thailand official sent to work with the FIDF to deal with its real estate, said all work at that time "proceeded normally”. Asked by a defence lawyer if Pojaman, wife of then PM Thaksin Shinawatra, made any special request to speed up the process, Suporn said: "Nobody made any special request."
Sathorn To-uthai, said it was expected that the FIDF would try to auction off the land even at a low price in order to use the money to pay the interest that the FIDF was incurring. He added that in auctioning the land the FIDF didn't have to ask for permission from either the Finance Ministry or the prime minister, thus giving the impression of distancing Thaksin from the deal. "The decision to sell anything is decided by the board," Sathorn told the court
The plaintiff's lawyer yesterday tried to highlight the fact that the FIDF board consisted of senior bureaucrats that could however still be pressured by politicians.
Danucha Yindeepen, a member of the Finance Ministry's state enterprise planning committee, told the court that due to a Cabinet resolution the FIDF along with the BOT are not directly under the control of the Finance Ministry. The status of the FIDF as a special form of state enterprise was highlighted by the defence attorney's
The Supreme Court also heard the opinion of the Constitutional Court, in regards to an earlier appeal to the court to rule on whether Article 100 of The NCCC Act (2542) was a violation of The Constitution of Thailand BE 2550, sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 39 and 43;The Constitution of Thailand BE 2540, sections 29 and 50; and The Constitution of Thailand (Interim) BE 2549. The court ruled that there were sufficient clauses available within the NCCC Act (2542), and that as the Act had been promulgated 4 years prior to the land sale, and that section 100 of the NCCC Act (2542) included paragraph 3, then there were sufficient grounds to rule that the defendants rights were not violated by Section 100 of the NCCC Act, and that the section was needed to ensure protection to other people and ensure the stability of the state, and that Section 100 was consistent with key principles of the Constitution.
Full reading of the Constitutional Courts opinion can be found Here
The court also announced that as previously agreed, there would be three remaining days of testimony for the defence, and that the original dates; 15th, 19th and 22nd August 2008 would be used for these witnesses.
