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.