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

Pastrygate

It started out as an intriguing little tidbit, when it was mentioned in a newspaper that a lawyer representing a "Big-Time Politician" was rumoured to have tried to have given a gift of 2 million baht to the office of the Supreme Court. The money was evidently placed inside a box of pastries, and Pastrygate was the term used for what was suspected as being an attempted bribe.

It all started on June 11th 2008 when the following was printed in The Nation:



Supreme Court president orders probe into report that Bt2 million given to court officials


Supreme Court President Wiraj Limwichai (นายวิรัช ลิ้มวิชัย)  has ordered an investigation into a report that a lawyer put Bt2 million in a candy box and gave it to certain officials of the Supreme Court. Sarawut Benjakul, deputy secretary-general of the Justice Affairs Office, said Wednesday that Wiraj appointed a committee of three judges to investigate the report. Sarawut said he learnt that the court officials had returned the money to the lawyer.



No mention of who was involved, but at the time there were three very high profile cases shortly to commence trial with the Supreme Court. Thaksin Shinawatra, and Watana Asavahame were due before the Supreme Court Criminal division for Political office holders and Yongyudh Tiyaphairat was due before the Supreme Court on a charge of violating the Election Act.

What was surprising about this case was that according to a spokesperson of the Supreme Court, once the money was discovered, it was photographed and then returned to the lawyer. It was only after the news was leaked, that the President of the Supreme Court,Wiraj Limwichai ordered a full inquiry.



June 10th 2008, Lawyers representing Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra go to the Supreme Court to file a request to appear at the Court. Later on the same day, the President of the Supreme Court appoints a panel to investigate a possible bribery attempt.

June 13th 2008, Seven court officials involved with the incident give formal testimony to the Supreme Court Panel

June 14th 2008, Preliminary findings by Supreme Court justices Mongkol Thapthiang (มงคล ทับเที่ยง), Weeraphol Tangsuwan (วีระพล ตั้งสุวรรณ) and Issaret Chairat (อิศเรศ ชัยรัตน์) indicated that the money was intended not for Judges but for the office staff at the Supreme Court. The lawyer was summoned to appear before the investigating panel.

June 17th 2008, It had emerged that Thana Tansiri, a legal representative of Thaksin Shinawatra was being implicated. Thana, when interviewed by the Investigation Panel tried to pass the incident off as a case of his driver giving him the wrong bag, one with 2 million baht as opposed to a similar one with pastries in.

June 19th 2008, Pichit Cheunban testifies to the Supreme Court Panel, denying any knowledge of the incident, although he does concede that he was present at the Supreme Court building that day

June 25th 2008, Three lawyers who represented Thaksin Shinawatra, Pichit Cheunban (พิชิฏ ชื่นบาน), Thana Tansiri (ธนา ตันศิร) and Supasri Srisawat (ศุภศรี ศรีสวัสด) were   ordered to spend 6 months in Jail
for violating court authority. Only Phichit and Supasri were present at the hearing and both were taken immediately to jail, and an arrest warrant was issued for Thana. Thana is married to Pojaman's cousin.

June 26th 2008, The Supreme Court requested that criminal charges be filed against the three lawyers under article 144 of the criminal code (bribery of state officials).This charge carries a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra appointed Anek Khamchum as the lead lawyer and former senator Kamnuan Chaloptham as their legal representatives.

June 27th 2008, The Law Society of Thailand (LST) announced that they would set up a panel with the possibility of delisting the three lawyers. Currently this is under appeal by the three lawyers

June 29th 2008, Preliminary hearings of the Ratchada-Phisek case started at the Supreme Court, where witnesses, evidence and court schedule were decided.

June 30th 2008, The police were already announcing that there was probably insufficient evidence to proceed with the criminal charges. On the same day Thana Tansiri was finally taken to jail, after having been located at Bumrungrad hospital, Bangkok.




December 23rd 2008, The three lawyers were released from Prison, when the Police announced that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a criminal prosecution. The police decision was made 2 weeks prior to the three lawyer’s release, but the case was handed over to a public prosecutors' team, who have made no announcement, but made no objections to the three being released.


As with many things surrounding Thaksin Shinawatra, this case revealed very few answers, but left lots of unanswered questions. Throughout the period, Thaksin denied any involvement in the case.
 

 

Wikileaks 08BANGKOK2092 gave some more information about the pastrygate incident.  In the cable, a Shinawatra family lawyer conceded that the there had been an attempt to pay the money to court officials, but insinuated that this had been done at the request of the said officials
 
According to court records, Thana Tansiri met with M.L. Thitipong Chumpoonut (หม่อมหลวงฐิติพงศ์ ชมพูนุท)  at the supreme court building where they went to a unoccupied room, here Thana tried to hand over a sealed pastry box. M.L.Thitipong then went out and asked a superior if it was alright to accept the package, and was informed that it was not. For reason not fully explained someone then opened that pastry box and discovered that there was approximately two million baht inside in one thousand baht bill denominations.
 

Pichit Cheunaban still maintains his innocence and maintains that there is absolutely no point in trying to bribe officials of the court as they only do routine work; copying, filing, informing people of court schedules etc. He is currently a party list M.P for the Peau Thai party which has Yingluck Shinawatra (Thaksin’s younger sister) as the countries Prime Minister. He is also one of the parties legal advisers. 

The trial begins

One of the controversial aspects of the case was the fact that the FIDF did not want to file a charge against Thaksin and his wife, reasoning that they found the deal transparent, and the price fair. By their own admission, they could not find any way in which the FIDF had been damaged, and finally, only after threats of criminal action against Dr.Tarisa-Watanagase,the head of the Bank of Thailand, did they consent to file the complaint. The actual charges were prepared in advance by the Asset Examination Committee, for someone to sign, after the original complaint failed to name anyone or specify any damages, although even the AEC were unsure whether it should be the FIDF, Bank of Thailand or Ministry of Finance who were authorised to make the complaint. As it turned out most of the defence witnesses were either current or former members of either The FIDF or Bank of Thailand.

The Charges were:

Sections 4, 100 and 122 of the NCCC Act, and Section 33, 83, 86, 90,96, 152 and 157 of the Criminal Code. Most of these are clarifications and possible punishments, and the main charges are violating NCCC Act Article 100 and Criminal code Acts 152 & 157. The NCCC Act charge is labeled as a conflict of interest, whilst the other two main charges are criminal malfeasance charges. Generally an individual will only be investigated for violation of NCCC Act 100, when there is evidence of corruption.



NCCC Act. Section 4
In this Organic Act:
“State official” means a person holding a political position, Government official or local official assuming a position or having permanent salaries, official or person performing duties in a State enterprise or a State agency, local administrator and member of a local assembly who is not a person holding a political position, official under the law on local administration and shall include a member of a Board, Commission, Committee or of a sub-committee, employee of a Government agency, State enterprise or State agency and person or group of persons exercising or entrusted to exercise the State's administrative power in the performance of a particular act under the law, whether established under the governmental bureaucratic channel or by a State enterprise or other State undertaking;
“person holding a political position” means:
(1) Prime Minister;


NCCC Act. Section 100
Any State official shall not carry out the following acts:
(1) Being a party to or having interest in a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings.

(4) The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.


NCCC Act. Section 122
Any State official who violates the provisions of section 100, section 101 or section 103 shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht or to both.

Criminal Code. Section 33
For the forfeiture of a property, the Court shall, besides having the power to forfeit under the law as specially provided for that purpose, have the power to forfeit the following properties also, namely:
(1) A property used or possessed for use in the commission of an offence by a person; or
(2) A property acquired by a person through the commission of an offence. Unless such property belongs to the other person who does not connive at the commission of the offence.


Criminal Code. Section 83
In case of any offence is accrued by commission of the person as from two persons upwards, such accomplices deemed to be principals shall be punished as provided by the law for such offence.

Criminal Code. Section 86
Whoever does for any reason whatsoever as assist or facility to any other person committing an offence before or late time of committing the offence, even though such assistance or facility is not known by the offender, such assistant deemed to be supporter in committing such offence shall be punished by two-thirds of the punishment as provided for such offence.

Criminal Code. Section 90
When any act is one and the same act violating several provisions of the law having the severest punishment shall be applied to inflict the punishment upon the offender.

Criminal Code Act. Section 96
Subject to Section 95, in case of compoundable offence, if the injured person does not lodge a complaint within three months as from the date of offence and offender to be known by the injured person, the criminal prosecution is precluded by prescription.

Note: Section 95 refers to the Statute of limitations.

Criminal Code Act. Section 152
Whoever, being an official having the duty of managing or looking after any activity, takes the interest for the benefit of himself or the other person concerning such activity, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years and fine of two thousand to twenty thousand Baht.

Criminal Code Act. Section 157
Whoever, being an official, wrongfully exercises or does not exercise any of his functions to the injury of any person, or dishonestly exercises or omits to exercise any of his functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years or fined of two thousand to twenty thousand Baht, or both.

Sources:
Organic Act on Counter Corruption BE 2542 (1999)
Criminal Code.No17 BE 2547 (2003)


After arriving back in Thailand on January 8th 2008, Pojaman Shinawatra was taken to the Department of Special Investigations, where she acknowledged the Charges related to the Ratchada-Phisek land case and was released on 5 million baht bail.

On January 23rd 2008, at a hearing of The Supreme Court; Pojaman Shinawatra pleaded, "Not Guilty". The court scheduled the examination of evidence for the 30th and 31st April 2008

After arriving back in Thailand on February 28th 2008, Thaksin Shinawatra was taken to the Department of Special Investigations, where he acknowledged the charges related to the Ratchada Phisek case and was released on 8 million baht bail.

On March 13th 2008, at a hearing of the Supreme Court; Thaksin Shinawatra pleaded, "Not Guilty". The Court also proceeded to review and approve a defence request for the trial proceedings to be conducted in-absentia, freeing Thaksin and Pojaman from having to attend every court session. The court also upheld the restriction on travel, except where the Supreme Court gave permission in advance.

On March 30th 2008, at a hearing of the Supreme Court; The Court scheduled 1st July 2008 as the Opening of the trial, where both Prosecution and Defence lawyers would give their opening Statements. The court also scheduled:

The prosecution witnesses to testify on July 8, 15, 22 and 25.

The defence witnesses to testify on August 1, 5, 15, 19 and 22.

The high court reserved two extra days, August 26 and 29, for the examination of additional evidence, if submitted.

Witnesses for the prosecution

Seksan Bangsombun (นายเศกสรรค์ บางสมบุญ) the chief prosecutor revealed that he would call a total 21 witnesses for the prosecution of Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra.








1. Chuan Leekpai (นายชวน หลีกภัย) - Former Prime Minister.
2. Banharn Silpha-Archa (นายบรรหาร ศิลปอาชา) - Former Prime Minister.
3. Veera Somkwamkid (นายวีระ สมความคิด) - Co-Plaintiff to the AEC.
4. Kalayanee Rutharakarn (นางสาวกัลยาณี รุทระกาญจน์) - Co-Plaintiff to the AEC.
5. MR Pridiyathorn Devakula (ม.ร.ว.ปรีดิยาธร เทวกุล) - Former Governor of Bank of Thailand.
6. Chatumongkol Sonakul (ม.ร.ว.จัตุมงคล โสณกุล) - Former Governor of Bank of Thailand.
7. Nam Yinyaem (นายนาม ยิ้มแย้ม) - Former member of Asset examination committee.
8. Udon Fuengfung (นายอุดม เฟื่องฟุ้ง) - Former member of Asset examination committee.
9. Amnuay Kantara (นายอำนวย ธันธรา) - Former member of Asset examination committee.
10. Kaewsan Atibodhi (นายแก้วสรร อติโพธิ) - Former member of Asset examination committee
11. Krerk Vanikkul (นายเกริก วณิกกุล) - Former member of FIDF, currently Assistant Governor.
12. Pairoj Hengsakul (นายไพโรจน์ เฮงสกุล) - Former member of FIDF.
13. Sawangjit Jaiyawat (นางสว่างจิตต์ จัยวัฒน์) - Former member of FIDF.
14. Somchainuk Engtrakul (นายสมใจนึก เองตระกูล) - Former board member of FIDF.
15. Runruang Kokuthok (นายไพโรจน์ เฮงสกุล) - Current official with Bank of Thailand.
16. Amorn Boontham (นายอมร บุญธรรม) - Land Department Cartographer, Huay Kwang.
17. Wuthisith Chanthasutr (นายวุฒิสิทธิ์ จันทสูตร) - Chief of Land Department, Huay Kwang.
18. Yani Khonbun (นางญานี คงบุญ) - Official in Land Department, Huay Kwang.
19. Nipa Yimsupa น.ส.นิทรา เอี่ยมสุภา) - Former registrar of Land Department, Huay Kwang.
20. Tewee Danyutthasin (นายทวี ด่านยุทธศิลป์) - Official in Land Department, Huay Kwang.
21. Sombun Koptimnan (นายสมบูรณ์ คุปติมนัส) - Former lawyer for Pojaman Shinawatra.

Witnesses for the defence

Defence lawyer Anek Khamchum (เอนก คำชุ่ม) revealed that he would call a total of 19 individual witnesses and representatives from the Ministry of Finance for the defence of Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra.







1. Tarisa Watanagase (นางธาริษา วัฒนเกส) - Current Governor of Bank of Thailand
2. Verathep Ratanakorn (นายวราเทพ รัตนากร) - Former Deputy Minister of Finance
3. Wirat Kulphetprasit (นายวิรัช กุลเพชรประสิทธิ์) - Legal Execution Department official
4. Sujirat Thongmee (น.ส.สุจิรัตน์ ทองมี) - Legal Execution Department (Bankruptcy Division)
5. Neungtai Wongtong (น.ส.หนึ่งหทัย วงษ์ทอง) - Former FIDF Official
6. Wasan Thianhom (นายวสันต์ เทียนหอม) - Security & Exchange Commission Official
7. Veerapong Uthanont (นายวีระพงษ์ มุทานนท์) - Director of Land & House Ltd
8. Panlop Saksoponkul (นายพัลลภ ศักดิ์โสภณกุล) - Office of Bureau of the Budget official
9. Preecha Vajrabhaya (นายปรีชา วัชราภัย) - Secretary General of Civil Service commission
10. Danucha Yindeepen (นางดนุชา ยินดีพิธ) - Ministry of Finance official for State Enterprises
11. Sathorn To-uthai (นายสาธร โตโพธิ์ไทย) - Bank of Thailand official assigned to the FIDF
12. Soporn Deepan (นายสุภร ดีพันธ์) - Senior litigation official for Bank of Thailand and FIDF
13. Charnchai Boonwichaisilp (นายชาญชัย บุญฤทธิ์ไชยศรี) - Law and Litigation for Bank of Thailand
14. Tewee Chavphijit (นายทร ชาวพิจิตร)- Legal and Litigation official for Justice Department
15. Malee Manmintra (น.ส.มาลี แม้นมินทร์) - Deputy Director of Bangkok City Planning Department
16. Viboonsaitej Thitapan (นางวิบูลย์เพ็ญ หิตะพันธ์) - Auditor Generals Office official
17. Pavangthip Prampajon (นางพวงทิพย์ ปรมาพจน์) - Director of the Bank of Thailand
18. Viliwaan Sasanantra (นางวิไลวรรณ ศศานนท์) - Auditor Generals Office official
19. Pannee Sathawaroedom (นางพรรณี สถาวโรดม) - Director of Fiscal Policy

1st day of prosecution witnesses

On the 8th July 2008 the first witnesses were called, the Prosecution called four witnesses; Former Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai (นายชวน หลีกภัย), Former Prime Minister Banharn Silpha-Archa (นายบรรหาร ศิลปอาชา), Mr. Veera Somkwamkit (นายวีระ สมความคิด) and Mrs. Kalayani Rujtolakal (นางสาวกัลยาณี รุทระกาญจน์).





Both Former Prime Ministers testified about the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Financial Institutes Developement Fund(FIDF). Both Banharn and Chuan told the court that the prime minister would not directly give orders to the FIDF as the fund is overseen by the Bank of Thailand, which works under the Finance Ministry. Mr Banharn told the court that whilst he was the prime minister he did not have the authority to supervise the FIDF, which comes under the Bank of Thailand, or any other state enterprise. Mr Chuan said the law does not authorise the prime minister to supervise the FIDF. Only the finance minister has that authority, he said. But the prime minister is empowered to oversee the operations of the Finance Ministry, he said.

Activist Veera Somkwamkit, who formally petitioned the AEC to investigate the Ratchada Land deal by Pojaman Shinawatra, testified that he approached the AEC as no other legal body was prepared to petition the AEC. He also testified that he believed that there must have been some form of corruption, as FIDF had made a net loss of more than 1.1 billion baht on the 772 million baht sale. He also petitioned the court to revoke bail for both Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra, citing the recent 2 million baht attempted bribery by Thaksin's lawyers. As a formal application from the prosecution was not made, the court did not rule on the petition.


The final witness on the first day of witness testimony was Kalayanee Rutharakarn, Secretary General of the National Debtors Coordination Centre, who also raised questions over why the land was sold to Pojaman at such a low price. Kalayanee told the court it was very unusual as the FIDF would normally never sell anything at a loss. This was rebutted by the defence lawyers who gave several examples of land which was auctioned by the FIDF below the official appraisal value. Mrs Rutharakarn retorted by saying, "No matter what happens, they can't incur a loss, The Financial Institution Development Fund must have made some mistake, which led to damage to the fund itself."

The court adjourned noting that as scheduled the Prosecution would continue to present witness in one weeks time, on the 15th July 2008.

2nd day of prosecution witnesses

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.

3rd day of prosecution witnesses

The hearing which occurred on Tuesday 22nd July 2008 saw four more witnesses for the prosecution. These included former Chairman of the Asset Examination Committee, Nam Yimyaem (นายนาม ยิ้มแย้ม); Former FIDF Manager, Sawangjit Jaiyawat (นางสว่างจิตต์ จัยวัฒน์); Bank of Thailand real estate manager, Runruang Kokuthok (นายไพโรจน์ เฮงสกุล); and Former Permanant Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Somchainuk Engtrakul (นายสมใจนึก เองตระกูล).

The first witness, Nam Yinyaem, defended the AEC and told the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders the body did not bully the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) into petitioning it for the Ratchadaphisek land auction to be brought to court, and that everything was done by the book, when questioned by defence lawyers regarding the fact that the AEC had pre-prepared a written form of complaint, he testified that this was merely to speed the process along as the AEC only had a limited period of time to work, and that the previous forms submitted, failed to comply with the NCCC Act which demands that complaints must state who had caused the damage, and the amount of damage to the state before any investigation can proceed to call witnesses. Nam Yinyaem did agree with the defence argument that the AEC were unsure at the time which agency would have the power to submit the complaint.
Nam, also testified that he held no personal grudges against the couple, but felt that a wrong had been committed. He testified that he didn’t even know them personally. I cannot influence our side when the full members of the AEC approved the case should proceed with the case.

Another witness, former FIDF manager Sawangjit Jaiyawat, was asked by a defence attorney whether the amount earned by the FIDF from the land auctioned to Pojaman was considered a business loss. Sawangjit answered no. The defence team highlighted the fact that a nearby land plot was sold by the FIDF to MCOT at an even lower rate of 55,500 baht sq wah as opposed to the 58,000 baht sq wah that Pojaman paid

Doubts about whether the land was sold to Pojaman at below-market price continued as Runruang Kokuthok, who is in charge of real-estate management at the Bank of Thailand, responded to a judge's question about the price. He said he could not know the market price, because no similar land in the area was sold at about the same time.

The final witness of the day, Former Finance ministry permanent secretary,Somchainuk Engtrakul, who was also the Deputy Chairman of the FIDF reconfirmed that the committee was of the opinion that the sale to Pojaman should go ahead, and also stated that although there was no minimum price set for the land, the Board of the FIDF had amongst themselves decided that the sale would only go forward if the offer was higher than 750 million baht. He also stated that the extending of the period of time for paying the deposit from 7 days to 10 days was to ensure that the maximum number of bidders would complete in the auction, thereby giving the FIDF the maximum price.

The next court session is set for Friday 25th July instead of Tuesday 29th as had previously been allocated. No reason was given for the decision by the court.

4th Day of prosecution witnesses

The Fourth hearing by the Supreme Court saw five witnesses from various Land Departments, both Central and local. They included supervisor of the Huay Kwang land department, Wuthisith Chanthasutr (นายวุฒิสิทธิ์ จันทสูตร), Cartographer, Amorn Boontham (นายอมร บุญธรรม)and land department officials, Miss Nipa Yimsupa(น.ส.นิทรา เอี่ยมสุภา), Yani Khonbun (นางญานี คงบุญ)and Tewee Danyutthasin (นายทวี ด่านยุทธศิลป์).




The first witness was the land department cartographer, Amorn Boontham. It was his task to convert the 13 separate land plots into the 4 land plots which were put up for auction. He testified that the order to do the conversion came from the then finance permanent secretary, who was the deputy Chairman of the FIDF, who had sent a letter to the Huay Kwang office asking the office to speed up the process. When asked to show the letter he was unable to do so, but stated that the office was happy to comply. He also testified that he felt that the process seemed rushed as he ended up having to work throughout a weekend to complete the process in time, and in the process, acknowledged that his supervisor had written to him, extolling upon him to work with more diligence.

Amorn's supervisor who wrote the note, Wuthisith Chanthasutr, told the court the note was meant to urge Amorn not to be late in finishing his work, and that there was nothing more to it. He explained that as the FIDF had put in an official request, the land department was obliged to complete the task within 30 days, he stated that he only wrote the note when he realised that after 25 days had passed the process had still not been completed. When asked why the order was so urgent, he explained to the court that as the land had been barren for a long period of time, there was a 30 year clause, which meant that the land department would not be able to re-survey the plots in question if they had not completed the task in time, which would have meant that the land would fall into a different category. By being able to re-survey, new chanotes (Title Deeds) could be issued which would enable the seller,(FIDF) ensure the maximum price at auction as there would be no question on actual land size, boundaries and ownership rights.

Wuthisith also testified about the process of transferring of the title deeds, and the documents required which if the buyer was married, needed the consent of the spouse, along with copies of marriage certificates and identity cards of both people. Without these, the land department cannot transfer ownership.

Three other witnesses produced by the plaintiff insisted nothing unusual had occurred in the process of merging 13 plots of land into one in order to be auctioned off by the FIDF. No one except Amorn had raised doubts as to whether the process was rushed so the deal could be completed quickly.

The prosecutor then explained to the court that one of it's witnesses, Kaewsan Atibodhi, would be unable to attend the hearing on the 29th as originally scheduled, and asked that the defence start to call witnesses, and that the final plaintiff witness would testify at a later date.

The bench agreed and scheduled the next hearing for 29th July 2008, which although originally scheduled, still showed a faster pace for the hearings.

5th Day of prosecution witnesses

The fifth hearing of the Supreme court saw three witnesses, MR Pridiyathorn Devakula (ม.ร.ว.ปรีดิยาธร เทวกุล), The former Chairman of the Bank of Thailand, and Chairman of the FIDF at the time of the auction; Udom Fuengfung (อุดม เฟื่องฟุ้ง), Chairman of the Asset Examination Committee’s (AEC) sub-committee looking into the Ratchada-Phisek land scandal and Sombun Koptimnan (นายสมบูรณ์ คุปติมนัส), who was the attorney for Pojaman for the land purchase.



The first witness called was Pridiyathorn Devakula. (Note: There have been reports that defence lawyers were barred from the hearing of Pridiyathorns testimony.)Pridiyathorn testified that there was nothing irregular about the Ratchadapisek land auction won by then premier wife Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra.When asked by a presiding judge if he had ever discussed the matter with then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Pridyathorn replied: "Never. Also, I don't mingle with him." The former central bank chief also told the court that it was FIDF's duty to buy troubled assets from financial firm at high price and when the land was auctioned to Pojaman, the land price was lower but it justified the role of FIDF nonetheless. He also stated,” If we can sell it we must hurry", adding that the land is also handicapped by the fact that there exists a Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) restriction not to build anything above 23 meter close to The Thai Culture Centre.

When asked by the plaintiff lawyer whether he would have sold the land at a lower price than what he bought for if it were his own business, Pridyathorn replied: "No. It's impossible. But if someone else sells it to me then I will [take it]." When asked by a presiding judge whether there was anything else he wished to add to the proceedings, Pridyathorn stated that he had already formally testified to the AEC regarding the case, and he had nothing further to add from that testimony.

The second witness of the day was Udon Fueangfung. Udom cited irregular activities by Land Department official and possible collaboration from FIDF staff. Udom also questioned whether Prediyathorn has leak the information about the minimum selling price to someone or not. Udom later was later aggressively cross-examined by defence lawyer team whether he intentionally disregard materials and witnesses who run contrary to the AEC's subcommittee conclusion or not. Udom denied but was visible upset.

The third witness was Sombun Koptimnan, Pojaman's attorney for the land deal. He testified that he had looked into the various legal concerns and had advised that there was no conflict of interest in this case, and therefore Pojaman could proceed with making a bid in the auction.

The Supreme court also heard a petition from Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra, asking for permission to travel to Japan, China and England. The court granted the petition, allowing the two to leave the kingdom for a trip to Japan and China between July 31st to August 10th. The court also decided that the couple's will have to report themselves to the court after returning and re-petition for the later trip to England.

The court scheduled the next hearing to take place on August 1st 2008

6th Day of prosecution witnesses


The 6th session of the Supreme Court saw the final two witnesses for the prosecution, Former Asset Examination Committee (AEC) members, Kaewsan Atibodhi (นายแก้วสรร อติโพธิ) and Klanarong Chantik (นายกล้าณรงค์ จันทิก) who is currently a member of the NCCC.






Kaewsan Atibodhi, a former member of the now-defunct Assets Examination Committee, told the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders yesterday that just because he had spoken on a People's Alliance for Democracy stage, it did not mean he was biased in any way against former premier Thaksin Shinawatra. He stated, "I believe that humans are capable of dividing their beliefs and responsibility," the 57-year-old said. "I insist that I have no reason to hate Thaksin." Kaewsan testified that he was one of the few AEC members who had proposed that Thaksin's wife Pojaman be, "let off the hook" in her land-purchase case because there was insufficient evidence against her, despite the many "suspicious circumstances".
The suspicious circumstances cited by Kaewsan included questions on why Pojaman did not try to buy the land in the first round of bidding, and why no real bidding had taken place. He also asked why it appeared that the land's registration numbers had been leaked even before the document was made official, and also why no minimum bidding price was quoted in the second round of bids.

The last witness for the prosecution was Klanarong Chantik, who testified to the court that since Bt772 million had already gone to the FIDF, the land should be confiscated if Thaksin and Pojaman were found guilty. "The money was used for a crime and the purchase of the land was illegal," Klanarong said.

Like Kaewsan, Klanarong said he had no personal grudge against Thaksin and that his work at the AEC was led by the principle of "fairness and accuracy". He denied having ever graced the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) stage, although conceded that he had been present at several PAD rallies in the past.

That concluded all Prosecution witnesses against Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra. The Supreme Court then started to listen to testimony from witnesses for the defence.

1st Day of defence witnesses

The first witnesses for the defence occurred on the same day as the final witnesses for the prosecution. The defence called 2 witnesses, Pannee Sathawaroedom (นางพรรณี สถาวโรดม) and an unnamed representative of the Comptroller-General's Department.







The first witness, Pannee, who is the Director General of fiscal policy at the Bank of Thailand, and also on the board at the FIDF, described the function of the FIDF board, how it was formed, what the roll of the Finance Ministry was in regard to setting up the board, and the independance of the FIDF board.

The second witness,(doesn't appear to be named, but is stated as being a representative of the Comptroller-General's Department.) also testified about the operations of the FIDF and the roll of the executive board, and the roll that the Ministry of Finance have in appointing representatives to the executive board as stipulated in the Bank of Thailand Act.

Former deputy finance minister in the Thaksin government Varathep Ratanakorn and a representative of the Budget Bureau had been scheduled to testify for Mr Thaksin and Khunying Pojaman yesterday. However, defence lawyers told the court that Mr Varathep was tied up with other business and was unable to turn up at court, and the defence asked that the testimony be re-scheduled.

The trial was scheduled to continue with witnesses for the defence on Tuesday 5th August. The defence council also made a statement the he was expecting Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra to testify to the court on 22nd August or soon after.

2nd Day of defence witnesses

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.

Fugitives

On the 5th August 2008, Pojaman Shinawatra along with her adopted brother and secretary flew to Beijing to see the Opening of the Beijing Olympic Games. Thaksin Shinawatra had flown earlier to give a lecture in Japan, and the two were expected to meet up in China. According to reports they already had reservations on a Thai Airways flight back to Bangkok for Sunday 10th August. This would mean that they could present themselves to the Supreme Court on Monday 11th as had been arranged when their permission to leave the country had been granted.

By Thursday 8th 2008, there was already speculation that they might be seeking exile, possibly in China. The rumours intensified when it was learnt that Pojaman was taking a large number of suitcases with her, and that she had a tearful farewell with all three of her children when they saw her off.

By Friday 9th 2008, confirmation of flights were circulated to all the local media and temporary ended speculation, with many people close to Thaksin stating that there was no way that the couple would fail to fly back to Thailand on the dates previously announced. Even former Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, stated that it would be extremely difficult for someone like Thaksin to find a country which would give him exile.

With reporters at the airport, it was quickly announced that both Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra had failed to catch their flight TG 615, and rumours that the couple had fled to England started to spread, although it was still possible at this time for the couple to catch a later plane and go directly to the Supreme Court. Rumours were also circulating that the couples three children had already left Thailand, and planned to meet up with their parents in London.

With their failure to present themselves On Monday 11th August 2008, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders issued an arrest warrant for the couple. The panel of judges ruled that both failed to abide by the conditions set by the court for their permission to leave the country. The court forfeited Bt8 million bail money posted by Thaksin and Bt5 million by Pojaman.

Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra became once again exiles and fugitives.

Shortly afterwards Thaksin issued a statement from London saying simply, Today is not my Day". He then went on to state on how he felt that his and his family's lives had been threatened on numerous occasions. He accused the country's legal system of employing "double standard" in their proceeding with legal matters against him and his family.

3rd Day of defence witnesses


For the third day of defence witnesses, five witnesses were scheduled to testify; Tewee Chavphijit (นายทร ชาวพิจิตร),Director of the legal and litigation division at the justice department; Malee Manmintra (น.ส.มาลี แม้นมินทร์), Deputy Director of Bangkok City planning department; Viboonsaitej Thitapan (นางวิบูลย์เพ็ญ หิตะพันธ์), from the Auditor Generals office; A Director of the Bank of Thailand and Viliwaan Sasanantra (นางวิไลวรรณ ศศานนท์), also an official at the Auditor Generals office.

The hearing started with an announcement from the legal representatives of Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra. They told the Justices of the Supreme Court that they had been advised by their clients, that their services would no longer be required. They additionally requested the courts permission to withdraw from the case.

After a thirty minute recess, the Judges announced that they were not going to allow either of the legal representatives, Anek Kamchum (เอนก คำชุ่ม) and Kamnuan Chaloptham (นายคำนวณ ชโลปถัมภ์) to withdraw from the trial,

"The court considers that the defendants are still in the court's jurisdiction because the defendants had surrendered to authorities, and the court had granted them bail," chief judge Tonglor Chomngarm (นายทองหล่อ โฉมงาม) said. He then announced that the hearings would proceed as planned. The court also told the couple's lawyers that it was up to their own judgement whether to question any of the defence witnesses.


Tewee Chavphijit of Legal and Litigation division of the Justice Department testified about legal issues concerning property sold through auction.

Viboonsaitej Thitapan of the Auditor Generals Office testified about the role of the OAG in auditing, scrutinizing, overseeing and recommendation for legal proceedings to the FIDF

Malee Manmintra the Deputy Director of Bangkok City Planning Department testified about the new Bangkok City Plan, and how this cancelled out the previous restrictions that were in place in the area surrounding the Thailand Cultural Centre and how the plan had originated from the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, but did require cabinet approval before it could be legally implemented. She conceded that as a result of the new plan, land surrounding the Cultural Centre was now allowed to build taller buildings, but pointed out that this was more to do with land which was within 500 meters of the subway station, and the land which was auctioned to Pojaman Shinawatra was outside this zone. The previous rule which limited the height to approximately nine stories or 23 meters in height was no longer in effect, and the land was designated as allowing medium rise buildings.

Pavangthip Prampajon a Director of the Bank of Thailand testified about why the value of the asset was reduced by the FIDF from 2,140,357,500 baht to just 1,310,100,000 Baht. Pavangthip testified that in 2001, all FIDF assets were re-appraised in order to get a true reflection of their actual worth. The Asset re-evaluation was to enable the FIDF and Ministry of Finance to set up a new Agency called the Thai Asset Management Company (TAMC), which was tasked with taking over all distressed assets and thereby allow the financial sector to transfer all non - performing loans to the TAMC. The TAMC was then tasked with selling these assets. The TAMC is fully owned by the FIDF.

Viliwaan Sasanantra of the Office of the Auditor General testified that the OAG had not questioned the sale or the sale price.