If I know Siamese judges, Taksin cat will get screwed big times
by Tammy, this blog humanity journalist
- The Macro-Picture: Judges Considers
First, if the assets belongs to Taksin or not, because the anti corruption unit said the assets really belonged to Taksin and that Taksin just used his kids to hide his assets. So the Judges must first decide, who the assets belong to. If the judge rule the assets belong to his family, then the relating corruption charges are dropped.
Secondly, if the judge says the assets belong to Taksin-then that means other new charges will be levied, such as breaking stock market regulations and others, but then this opens the case for 5 other corruption charges associated with Taksin using his prime minister position to help his company.
Thirdly, the judges then will look into the five cases, to see if in fact, Taksin used his prime minister position to benefit his company.
- The Micro Fact Sheet
No Beyond Doubt:
A great deal of details of the entire case and all the points to consider by the judges, have been floating around in the Thai media for a long time. Please do not suffer what this blog did and went to study it-it is pointless. After having read all of it, the point is, “it is close” meaning, it can go any way. And this therefore, means, there is no “Beyond the Doubt” in this case. However, in Thailand there is no such thing as “Beyond a Doubt.”
Mood Against Taksin:
That off course leave the judges in the driver seat. On Thai judges, unfortunately, for the past 4 years, the entire Thai judiciary system has been politicized. The most famous example is the case against Thailand’s former prime minister, Samak, case on his cooking school thing. Most Thai legal expert on any side, said the judges decided to “Use Strict Reading” of the law.
Thailand and Networking:
Apart from the courts being politicized, there is a net-work of very senior judges, called “Songkhla Network”-that is links to Prem and the appointed senators, both arch enemy of Taksin. There is a grea deal of debate in Thailand about nationalizing only parts of Taksin assets, using the application of political science. But clearly, that call for a compromise with a political science consideration-obviously is being influenced to the other direction, meaning total nationalization, by the Songkhla Network, Prem and the appointed senators.
Conflict of Interest:
Thai law allows for the witness in corruption cases to gain about 25% of the nationalized assets and the law prohibits disclosure of such information. This off course, can be one reason why so many people offered testimonies that greatly discredit Taksin. However, this is Thailand, and such clear conflict of interest, does not carry much weight with the courts.
Recourse:
Taksin has a few real recourse here. In Thailand’s political history, nationalized assets had been returned to the owners before, when the political mood of the country changes and new people comes into power. Then secondly, as difficult as it may be, the World Court, sometimes gets involved with these types of cases. Then off course, the ruling in Thailand, can be appeal on many grounds.
Thai Intelligent News 