.jpg)
The second hearing which occurred a week after the original, saw again four witnesses testify for the prosecution, these were Former Bank of Thailand Governor, MR Chatumongkol Sonakul (ม.ร.ว.จัตุมงคล โสณกุล); FIDF Managers Krerk Vanikkul (นายเกริก วณิกกุล) and Pairoj Hengsakul (นายไพโรจน์ เฮงสกุล); and AEC member Amnuay Kantara (นายอำนวย ธันธรา).Mr Chatumongkol Sonakul who was also a former chairman of the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), testified that the final two auctions for the land occured after his tenure. Commenting on the earlier e-auction, he said he believed influential people could have been able to check details of the online land bid, which otherwise could not have been done if the auction had been handled in the traditional way of submitting bids on paper in sealed envelopes. He is quoted as saying,
"Insiders could be advantaged ... I don't trust [their method] and it could ensure little fairness," he said, adding that he first thought Pojaman would not become a bidder because the land was state property and her husband was then the prime minister".
When questioned as to whether the FIDF normally had acted independently and without direct interference from the prime minister it was emphasized by Chatumongkol that the fund normally had the Finance Ministry permanent secretary as chairman of its board, thus ensuring government oversight.
Krerk and Pairoj mostly testified about the bidding process and whether or not they received orders, suggestions or requests from the Finance Minister, to which they both confirmed in the negative. Krerk Vanikkul was actually the Manager in charge of disposing of land assets for the FIDF, and it was his decision to put the Ratchada land up for both e-auction and once this had proved unsuccessful to return to the closed bid auction which finally secured a purchase, although he still felt that an e-auction was probably the way for the FIDF to secure the highest price. When both FIDF Managers were questioned as to whether the FIDF normally had acted independently and without direct interference from the prime minister, they answered in the affirmative
Amnuay testified that he held the minority view of the AEC in that the auction should be annulled and the money returned to Pojaman Shinawatra. Defence lawyers also got the former FIDF officials to confirm that prior to the AEC action, no one within the FIDF considered anything irregular in the Ratchada land auction.
Defence lawyers also stressed that prior to the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) being appointed by the military junta which staged the September 2006 coup, the board of the FIDF did not see any irregularity with the land deal despite the perception that the price offered was much lower than the original price paid by the fund.
It was also noted in these proceedings that one of the presiding Justices had to remind the witnesses that only legal details were needed, and neither suspicions nor feelings would determine the final decision.
The court adjourned noting that as scheduled the Prosecution would continue to present witness in one weeks time, on the 22nd July 2008.
