Thailand's Undemocratic Media Muzzling: Nation Wins Key Battle Over AMLO by Phairath Khampha 25 June 2002 An Administrative Court judge in Thailand on June 21, 2002 declared unlawful the Anti Money Laundering Office investigation into the banking records of four Nation Multimedia Group editors and urged the court to revoke the probe. Judge Chaidej Tantiwess' advocacy statement, made under the unique check-and-balance rules of the Administrative Court, set the stage for its final verdict, to be made by a panel of other judges. Chaidej's opinions had no legal bearing on the final verdict. In all previous cases of the Administrative Court, however, the final rulings toed the lines of opinions of the so-called "neutral" judges. This was seen as a victory against the country's prime minister's increasingly dictatorial tactics of curbing freedom of speech when opinions were against him. The Administrative Court confirmed on June 24 that the Anti-Money Laundering Office probe into the bank transactions of journalists critical of the Thaksin government was illegal. The court handed down the historic ruling despite AMLO's conspicuous decision to officially cancel the probe on June 21. The agency had appealed for the case to be dismissed, saying that since the investigation had officially been called off there was no longer any need for a ruling. Chaidej ruled that the AMLO had overstepped its jurisdiction in pursuing the unwarranted probe, which was seen by ordinary Thais as undemocratic media intimidation. He said an order by AMLO information director Sihanart Prayoonrat for banks to give transaction data of the editors and their family members was a wrongful act. The judge rejected Sihanart's argument that the order was allowed under Articles 38 and 40 of the AMLO law. The judge said such an order for banking information must be given by AMLO's so-called transaction committee only. Regarding claims that Sihanart was being empowered by AMLO secretary-general Peeraphan Prempooti, the court said there was no evidence Peeraphan received prior consent from the transaction committee. Peeraphan possibly gave the order to Sihanart as a superior, which in this case was not allowed under the AMLO law, the judge said. Peeraphan had been told by Thailand's prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, to lean on The Nation after it published articles that showed the government was functioning improperly, the country's rampant corruption had not been curtailed and that many of Thaksin's election promises were quite empty. "For the administrative branch to exercise power or carry out activities which could affect individuals' rights and liberty, the action must be carried out under clear-cut laws, and invocation of those laws must be done unequivocally," the judge said. He said the AMLO had not been empowered to harass the press and its two officials were accountable for any violations incurred. "Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is not recognised as a state official under the administrative law, hence staying outside the court's purview," he added. Following leaks about the AMLO investigation targeting journalists critical of the government, the four NMG editors, led by Suthichai Yoon, petitioned in March 2002 for the Administrative Court review on the matter. The four complainants had also sought and received an injunction to suspend the investigation pending the judicial review. In their complaint, the four named the AMLO, its secretary general Peeraphan, his information director Sihanart and Thaksin as defendants responsible for the probe. Presiding Judge Wisanu Waranyu had just concluded the hearing of evidence submitted by the two disputing parties and on June 21 proceeded to commence the review of pertinent legal issues. Under the court procedures, Wisanu had the discretion to listen to the opinions of his fellow judges although he was not obliged to incorporate them into his verdict. Based on past administrative cases, a judge's advocacy statement was often the harbinger of an upcoming decision, however. Arguing for the complainants, Chaidej said the dispute over the AMLO investigation fell under the court's purview although any ruling could not be enforced on the political overseer Thaksin. Even though the complainants contended that Thaksin had ordered the investigation, the court could not adjudicate his violations because of lack of mandate, Chaidej said. Regarding the investigation itself and the conduct of AMLO officers, the advocacy judge said the money-laundering law did not empower the AMLO to conduct "wild" probes beyond its six prescribed duties. He said Peeraphan and Sihanart had cited a wrong provision to back up the investigation and also wrongly interpreted the law as empowering them to check on government critics. Meanwhile, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court's injunction against the investigation, citing possible irreparable damage if the probe were to proceed. Asset probe ruled illegal As a confirmation, the Administrative Court ruled on June 24 that the Anti-Money Laundering Office probe into the bank transactions of journalists critical of the Thaksin government was illegal. The court handed down the historic ruling despite AMLO's conspicuous decision to officially cancel the probe on June 21. The agency had appealed for the case to be dismissed, saying that since the investigation had officially been called off there was no longer any need for a ruling. AMLO's move, however, failed to stop the court from making public its ruling, which categorically declared that the steps taken by the agency in its attempt to investigate journalists' bank assets were illegal and an infringement of civil rights. Judge Wisanu Waranyu ruled that the AMLO law did not empower its information director Sihanart Prayoonrat to order banks to hand over the transaction data of the editors and their family members, nor did the law empower AMLO secretary-general Peeraphan Prempooti to assign Sihanart to take such action. "The February 25 order to banks [made by Sihanart] is illegal because the person who issued the order does not have legal power to do so," the judge said. The court also noted that Sihanart did not report his actions to AMLO's transactions committee, which is empowered to launch investigations into individuals or groups suspected of money laundering. The court said that apart from failing to abide by the AMLO's established procedures, Sihanart based his "suspicion" about the journalists purely on an anonymous leaflet which vaguely accused them of money laundering. "Anonymous leaflets must be treated carefully with the fairest of minds because they could be used to smear people. Worse is the possibility that they were produced to justify the abuse of state power. This would be a danger to the rights and liberty of the people," the judge said. He noted that Sihanart had pursued the investigation despite the fact that a check on the AMLO's own database turned up nothing to back the charges made in the leaflet. "Grounds for suspicion must come from the 'outside', not from the personal feelings of the enforcers of the law," the judge said. Nation Multimedia Group (NMG) editor in chief Suthichai Yoon, his son Prabda, NMG editor Thepchai Yong and senior editor Sopon Ongkara filed complaints against the AMLO in April following reports that the agency was investigating their bank transactions. The court subsequently slapped a temporary injunction on the investigation. However, it was not until June 21 that the AMLO formally instructed banks that the investigation had been cancelled. The move followed an advocacy statement by an Administrative Court judge, who is required to give his opinion on the case under the court's checks-and-balances rule, said that the probe was illegal and must be stopped. Suthichai said the court's ruling proved that AMLO's standard for judging initial allegations against individuals or groups was poor. AMLO had told the court its suspicion against NMG concerned the group's launch of a new Thai newspaper despite making a business "loss". "This low standard of judgement raises the possibility of AMLO becoming a tool of politicians," Suthichai said. "To me, the whole probe had political influence written all over it." AMLO had claimed its investigation of countless others were also based on anonymous leaflets. The court's ruling raised questions about those investigations. The court ruled that while allegations in anonymous leaflets could be used as tips, serious investigation can be launched in accordance with strict procedures, to prevent infringement of civil rights. "The four complainants' rights were violated the moment the order was given to the banks," judge Wisanu said. "The [AMLO] must be enforced in an unambiguous manner and it was written that only the agency's transaction committee can authorise such a probe. Moreover, the law allows banking investigation in the event that the investigation will facilitate the agency's duty. The law does not allow a blanket investigation against just anybody." Deputy Prime Minister Korn Dabaransi, who replaced Defence Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh as chairman of the AMLO board after the scandal broke, on June 24 admitted that the government's disciplinary investigation against Peeraphan and Sihanart had made little progress. Korn also said he wondered why AMLO only decided to officially end its probe against the journalists the week before. Meanwhile, a source from a commercial bank, who asked not to be named, said that as of June 24 it had not received any official documents from the AMLO cancelling its earlier request to probe the financial transactions of several executives of media firms.