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.
