No Verdict on Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin 'Until mid-August' by Phairath Khampha 31 July 2001 Thailand's Constitution Court judges said they would form a verdict on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's corruption indictment by mid-August at the earliest as they had yet to deliberate on a number of legal issues, a judge said on July 2, 2001. The judge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the first legal hurdle before forming a decision was the interpretation of the Constitution's Article 295 on the commencement of the five-year ban for holding office if Thaksin were to be found guilty of asset concealment. Constitution Court judges on July 31 started drafting their verdict ahead of their formal vote. Experts said neutralising the NCCC's case would require complicated legal arguments and rejecting key evidence because it was obvious that once political pressure was removed from the equation, the guilty verdict would be the correct verdict. But Thailand is Thailand, where law and order mean quite little. The final verdict, whether or not it were to be in Thaksin's favour, would set legal and constitutional precedents and would affect the international community's perception of Thailand and its rule of law. If and when the judges were to reach a consensus on the ban commencement, they would proceed to review other issues including the most decisive question, that of whether Thaksin intentionally concealed his assets. The judge denied that an article published in the court journal could influence the judges' opinions. The article involved an individual interpretation of Article 295, but it had no bearing on the Thaksin case, he said. The article was written by clerk of the court Kla Samudvanija. Meanwhile, the court denied the allegation that its past verdicts had been influenced by cronyism and corruption among judges, usually a common problem in Thailand's somewhat corrupt justice system that usually sees influential people and members of the country's economic and political elite freed on charges. The court verdicts, all of which were published in the royal gazette, were open for public scrutiny, the court said in a statement, and the written opinions accompanying each verdict clearly demonstrated the judicial independence of each judge. Judges draft Thaksin verdict Constitution Court judges on July 31 started drafting their verdict ahead of their formal vote on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's graft case for asset concealment. They agreed to meet five days a week to expedite their ruling. The individual opinions of most of the 15 judges were already completed and would be incorporated into the draft verdict. Constitution Court President Prasert Nasakul said he might be able to give a date for the announcement of the verdict at his weekly news conference on August 3. Prasert warned that anticipation of a guilty verdict was premature. "Such speculation is groundless. Everyone should wait for the court's decision, and I may be able to say on Friday when it will be ready," he said. Judge Sujit Boonbongkan said he was ready to cast his vote on the Thaksin case, which he expected would be decided together with a similar case against MP Prayuth Mahakitsiri. Judge Issara Nitithanprapas said he had already made up his mind but preferred to make his decision known only when he cast his vote. Meanwhile Thaksin supporter Sem Pringpuangkaew said he had amassed 1.4 million signatures in support of the prime minister's remaining in office and would submit them to Parliament President Uthai Pimchaichon at the beginning of August, he said. Logic 'calls for guilty verdict' Experts said neutralising the NCCC's case would require complicated legal arguments and rejecting key evidence because it was obvious that once political pressure was removed from the equation, the guilty verdict would be the correct verdict. But Thailand is Thailand, where law and order mean quite little. As the Constitution Court's verdict on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra loomed, legal and constitutional experts speculated on what the 15 judges would have to say to justify their common ruling, which would become a crux of modern Thai political history. The judges would write their own individual rulings, which might be for or against Thaksin. But after voting on a final verdict, a common ruling would have to be written and made public. Not only the Thai people but the international community waited eagerly to see on what the judges based their ruling. According to experts, if political pressure were to be taken out of the equation, something basically impossible in corrupt and dishonest Thailand, it would be easier to come to a guilty verdict. They pointed out that an acquittal would have to tackle quite a few loose ends, which, if not tied up properly, could expose the weakness of the rule of law in Thailand to local and international condemnation. In a guilty ruling, the judges would have to say they believed Thaksin and his wife had transferred large chunks of Shinawatra empire stocks to their servants for unscrupulous reasons and that as the share transfers were for a dishonest purpose, Thaksin had thus had a motive to keep the shady shareholdings from anti-graft authorities when he had to declare his assets before and after serving in the Chavalit Cabinet in 1997. A guilty verdict would have a systematic scenario: Thaksin and his wife transferred billions of baht ($US1 = 43 baht)worth of shares to their domestic servants and used their secret stockholdings to evade tax or violate the share market's transparency rules; when Thaksin had to declare his assets in 1997 and 1998, he concealed this shadowy part of his wealth for fear that publicising the details could cause him legal or political trouble. This verdict would be backed by what the National Counter Corruption Commission described as hard evidence. First, the NCCC found that the servants' shares were not static but actively traded, sometimes back to the empire's leaders or sometimes among the employees themselves. The court was not in a position to rule whether all the dubious transactions resulted in unfair profits for the Shinawatra family or put other investors at a disadvantage, but the judges could still find the practices questionable and evidence of corrupt activities. The Thaksin defence never effectively addressed this crucial point. Thaksin tried to justify the use of "nominees" in his controversial share transactions by saying that he had built up his empire from a fledgling "family business". The humble beginnings and the early struggle for what would become Shin Corporation, he claimed, required putting nominees on the list of shareholders. This, of course, is just hogwash. However, the judges could question whether Thaksin's domestic employees became his nominees "at the beginning" or whether they were dragged into an intricate web of asset-juggling after he became a multibillionaire. For example Shin Corp was anything but a family business on April 9, 1997, when Thaksin's maids Duangta Wongpakdee and Boonchu Rianpradab were left holding six million and 990,000 shares respectively. On the same day, Thaksin and his wife were holding a combined 48.75 per cent of Shin Corp shares. But if shares held by Boonchu and Duangta are taken into account, the amount belonging to the Shinawatra couple would have been 53.79 per cent. The judges could say this raises the question whether the stock market's rules on tenders were violated. For with Thaksin's and Pochaman's combined holding of 48.75 per cent, any further acquisition of stocks should have been conducted openly through a tender offer to allow other investors an opportunity to sell their shares at a higher premium. On October 8 of the same year, Thaksin and his wife still held the 48.75 per cent of Shin Corps, but Boonchu held an additional 834,700 shares, raising her total to 1,824,700 shares. Another employee, Chairat Chiangpruek, suddenly became the holder of 1,657,600 shares. While the question lingered as to whether Shinawatra shares were manipulated, the Constitution Court judges could look at what could be a more concrete piece of evidence. Bannapot Damapong, Thaksin's brother-in-law, "bought" 4.5 million Shin Corp shares from one of Thaksin's servants, paying Bt738 million in what looked like a normal purchase. This meant he did not have to pay hundreds of millions of baht worth of tax, which would have been due had the transfer been truthfully reported as a gift from Pojamarn. This obvious tax evasion, according to the NCCC, confirmed that the servants were holding Shinawatra shares for dishonest reasons, motivating Thaksin to keep the employees' stockholdings from his 1997-1998 asset reports. This proved he was dishonest, corrupt and therefore unfit, in accordance with Thailand's constitution to hold political office, less be the country's prime minister. An acquittal ruling, meanwhile, would present a much trickier situation for the judges. Complicated arguments would be required to neutralise the NCCC's key points such as why the servants were trading shares among themselves and whether the state had lost income in the Bannapot share "purchase". The acquittal ruling would have to state that the Bt11 billion share transfer to the servants was a "normal" or "honest" business practice, so there was no reason for Thaksin to intentionally hide it. Therefore, he simply "forgot" to declare this part of his assets. Moreover, the judges may rule, Thaksin has enormous wealth and it was not unusual to overlook some details. It would also set a precedent in that it would mean anyone could commit similar dishonest practices and not be prosecuted. Given the vast amounts of wealth, this would really only be an issue for the country's generally corrupt and dishonest economic and political elite. And to rule that Thaksin simply "forgot" to declare those assets or was not aware of them, the judges would have to either rebut or skirt what the NCCC proved was damning evidence pointing to the contrary. The court was told Thaksin had proudly stated on a TV talk programme that the Alpine Golf Course purchase, made in the servants' names, was his best buy. Moreover, the judges would have to rule that it was "not unusual" for the tycoon's wife, who is also his closest business partner, to keep from him the fact that their household employees were holding a large portion of the family's assets. Can the judges rule that the share transfers were improper but Thaksin was kept in the dark, so he is not guilty? That could make things more complicated. Holding his wife responsible would create the impression that what she did was wrong and also gave Thaksin a strong motive to help her cover it up. If what she did was "right", then it would be a case of an "honest" failure to declare those assets. Therefore, a paradox-free acquittal basically required the court to rule that Thaksin's wife "honestly" handled the share transfers and Thaksin himself "innocently" forgot to report them. Most importantly in the event of an acquittal ruling, the judges will have to state that there is no proof Thaksin used the shares in dishonest ways and that he did not benefit from failing to report the servants' shareholdings. How someone can forget the transfer of such vast wealth is difficult to imagine. But if such impressive forgetfulness can occur, then the man is definitely unfit in terms of physical and/or mental ability to be a country's prime minister. The final verdict, whether or not it were to be in Thaksin's favour, would set legal and constitutional precedents and would affect the international community's perception of Thailand and its rule of law. Thaksin's enormous popularity and the country's economic crisis complicated the case and put more pressure on the judges. The Thai nation held its breath.