Murdered Wansley Kin Protest Over Thailand's Corrupt Trial Delays by Phairath Khampha 31 August 2000 The slow pace of the scandal-tainted trial into the murder of Michael Wansley prompted the Australian financial expert's family to appeal once again to the Thai government, and has made the Australian Embassy increasingly restless about the increasingly obvious "foot-dragging" because the accused is a senior member of Thailand's economic and political elite. Adam Wansley, Michael's son, wrote another letter to Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai and the Justice Ministry. The letter called on them to help speed up the trial, which had seen only two of about 50 witnesses take the stand in more than a year. The trial also was marred by a controversial decision to grant bail to the alleged mastermind behind the murder. Michael Wansley was shot to death in Nakhon Sawan on March 10, 1999. He was on his way to the sugar refinery, Namtal Kaset Thai Co Ltd. Wansley had been helping to restructure the company's Bt3.7-billion debt on behalf of South Sathorn Planner Co, an affiliate of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, which had taken over the sugar company. Wansley uncovered that there were financial irregularities in the running of the company and that in fact the owners and senior members of the board were embezzling large amounts of the money that had been made available to restructure the company. Adam Wansley first appealed to the Thai government and the Australian Embassy in the latter half of 1999, following the court's decision to grant bail to Pradit Siriviriyakul, the former owner of the sugar firm who was charged with arranging the murder. Adam Wansley then said he feared for the safety of the witnesses. Two of Pradit's fellow executives and two other people also were charged with murdering Michael Wansley. Since Adam Wansley's first appeal, the case has continued to proceed slowly, and according to an Australian Embassy source, there is mounting concern over the "foot-dragging". The source said Thai police made swift arrests in the case because of its diplomatic sensitivity, but the judicial process had since dragged on because those arrested and accused were members of Thailand's elite. "The wheels of justice can turn extremely slowly in Thailand, partcularly when those involved are important people and they have the money to pay off the prosecutors and the judges," the source said. "Out of some 50 witnesses, I understand that only a handful have been interviewed. Naturally, it is going to help the interests of the defence the longer this case is drawn out and delayed." Despite their concerns, there was little Wansley's family and Australian officials can do, he said. Adam Wansley wrote his latest plea to the Thai government in June 2000. A copy was sent to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. The embassy source said Adam Wansley complained about the pace of the trial and the time taken to investigate irregularities by judges who had released Pradit on bail and which evidence suggests they were paid off by Pradit. The Criminal Court's chief justice, Sombat Diewissaret, on August 23 blamed the prosecutors and the defence lawyers for the delay. "The court never drags its feet. We have made regular court appointments, but the defence lawyers have always sought postponements. The prosecutors themselves also have had problems, claiming they have had to handle other cases," Sombat said. However, the trial's biggest controversy involved the court itself. in 1999 a disciplinary probe was launched into the granting of bail to Pradit. As a result, a retiring senior judge was dropped from a service-extension scheme. Samer Intharasak supervised the bail procedures as chief justice of Appeals Court Region 6. He was accused of violating court rules by establishing a special panel to consider Pradit's bail request instead of letting the duty-judge rule on the request. The court had previously dismissed Pradit's requests for bail seven times before the special panel finally granted it after it was paid off by Pradit and his cronies. The controversy led the Judicial Commission to decide not to seek royal approval for Samer's nomination for the service-extension program. But subsequent investigations into the matter also have dragged on for obvious reason, considering this is Thailand where a large number of the judiciary are known to be quite venal. The Thai police, at least on the surface because they, too, are easy to pay off, seemed to have supported the Wansley family's call for Pradit's bail to be revoked. They said they believed the suspect could use his wealth and intimidation tactics to influence the case; something which is increasingly becoming obvious he is doing. Pol Lt General Sophon Savikhamin, who led the investigation as commander of Region 6 police, said he was worried that Pradit and the other suspects would try to influence the case. "One suspect has even said that 30 million Baht (1 US Dollar = 40.77 Thai Baht) would be handed out if the case crumbled," he said. So it is quite obvious that justice quite likely would not win out, and classic Thai mafia-style activities will prevail in doing business in Thailand. Of the five suspects charged with the killing, one, small fry in the scheme of things and scape-goat, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Somchai Jaihao was found guilty of driving the motorcycle for the gunman during the attack and the escape. Pradit and his cronies are paying an allowance to Somchai's family.  Despite Somchai's confession and conviction, there appeared to be no end in sight for the trial of the others. Sophon was the first prosecution witness to take the stand. It took eight court sessions over a lengthy period of time to complete his testimony. The second witness in the case first took the stand only in the third week of August. "I have never seen such a prolonged trial," said Pol Colonel Amornsak Sasiwannapong, chief of Takli district police in Nakhon Sawan, who also was involved in the investigation. "Almost two years now, and only one witness has completed his testimony. And this case has 50 witnesses." Pradit's lawyer, Prachoom Thongmee, denied that his client was planning to escape or influence the case. He blamed the slow trial on witnesses' failure to meet court appointments. Before he was murdered, Michael Wansley had had heated arguments with Pradit and other company executives. The last quarrel took place one day before he was killed. At the end of the argument, Wansley agreed to go to Nakhon Sawan again on the following day to try to pacify sugar cane farmers who had stopped receiving payment from the firm. The firm stopped paying the farmers out of the financial restructuring funds, as it was supposed to, because the money was being diverted by Pradit and his cronies. Wansley was murdered after he uncovered the scheme and he was planning to tell the farmers at his meeting with them why the firm had stopped paying them. Glacial trial taints Thailand's image The murder of Australian auditor Michael Wansley dealt Thailand's image a heavy blow. Greater damage, however, is highly likely as a result of the painfully slow pace of the scandal-tainted murder trial. While the auditor's slaying generated all the negative messages about the country's financial mess, corruption and underworld links to multibillion-baht businesses, the trial reflects everything that is bad aboutThailand's judicial system. The mastermind behind the murder was released on bail under dubious circumstances; there were suspects planning to derail the trial with bribes and intimidation; and, after more than a year, only the second of some 50 witnesses took the stand towards the end of August. Wansley's family appealed once again to the Thai government, complaining about the delay and the unusually long time taken to investigate the judges involved in the granting of bail to the prime suspect, Pradit Siriviriyakul, former owner of Namtal Kaset Thai Co Ltd. The Australian Embassy became increasingly restless. Of the five suspects charged with the killing, one was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. In a swift process, Somchai Jaihao, following his arrest not long after the murder, was found guilty of driving the motorcycle for the gunman during the attack and subsequent escape. But despite Somchai's confession and conviction, there was no end in sight for the trial of the others, who are much richer and more powerful, and are members of Thailand's political and economic elite. The latest protest by the victim's son to the Thai government prompted the expected buck passing that is inimical to the Thai culture. Police blame the court for failing to tighten the schedule. The court blamed the "busy" prosecutors, who only had handful of cases, and the defence, which always seeked postponement. The defence blamed the prosecution witnesses. No matter whose fault it is, the delay made a mockery of the political issue when Thailand's Supreme Court asserted itself as the body that should have a final say on which election candidate should be disqualified for cheating. The court suggested that, with a little more manpower, it should be able to consider thousands of election-fraud complaints, sort out substance from nonsense, send off candidates who are found guilty and endorse the need for by-elections - all within the 30-day constitutional time frame for a general election to be completed. The fact that it took about a year for the first prosecution witness in the Wansley murder trial to complete his testimony is damning evidence of the inefficiency of Thailand's court system. And it has long been a tradition in Thailand that the richer and more powerful the defendants are, the longer their trials are. Sentences can fall like lightning if the suspects are destitute. It was reported in August that a movie actor who was a defendant in a rape case repeatedly ducked appointments to hear the court's ruling by simply claiming to have a migraine. The Wansley murder trial's biggest controversy involved the court directly. In 1999 a disciplinary probe was launched into the granting of bail to Pradit. As a result, a retiring senior judge was dropped from a service-extension scheme, but further investigations into the matter have also dragged on because that same judge is a member of Thailand's economic and political elite. It is the court's duty to do justice in this murder and all cases. It has all the power to speed up the process if it really wanted to do so. A prolonged trial only increases the distraught feelings of the victim's family and is unfair to the defendants if they are innocent. Also important is the country's reputation. Thailand is still serving an international sentence on Wansley's killing, so do not let a dubious judicial process bring the nation into double jeopardy. But this would fall on deaf ears because Thailand's judiciary, like all public servants, are very corrupt, greed individuals.