Govt widens scope of rice loss payment demand

Govt widens scope of rice loss payment demand

Yingluck plans Admin Court challenge

The demand for 35.7 billion baht has gone out to ex-premier Yingluck, and the Foreign Trade Department will discuss how to get the rest of the 178 billion. (Illustration by Post Today)
The demand for 35.7 billion baht has gone out to ex-premier Yingluck, and the Foreign Trade Department will discuss how to get the rest of the 178 billion. (Illustration by Post Today)

Authorities will meet this week to discuss procedures to widen the net as it seeks compensation from those responsible for massive losses incurred in the rice-pledging scheme during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 growing seasons.

The move comes after Deputy Finance Minister Wisudhi Srisuphan and finance permanent secretary Somchai Sujjapongse signed an administrative order requiring ex-prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra to pay 35.7 billion baht in compensation for her alleged dereliction of duty in the rice-pledging scheme.

Rice crops incurred losses of 178 billion baht from 2012-2014, of which Ms Yingluck has been ordered to pay 20%, with the government seeking others to compensate for the remaining 80%. Lawyers for Ms Yingluck, meanwhile, disclosed she is planning a prompt challenge to the order.

Duangporn Rodphaya, director-general of the Commerce Ministry's Foreign Trade Department, said the Justice Ministry plans to call a meeting with state agencies this week to consider next steps as it proceeds to find the people responsible for the remaining compensation.

She said the Commerce Ministry is collecting information, which includes how the losses were incurred and whether procedures had been properly followed, for the meeting. She said the losses in the rice-pledging project are different from those in the government-to-government (G-to-G) rice sales, which are under the ministry's supervision.

"The rice-pledging scheme involved several agencies and committees ranging from the cabinet and the National Rice Policy Commission to private companies. We need to proceed carefully if we are to seek compensation. The prime minister has stressed that all should be treated fairly," she said.

Regarding the fake G-to-G rice sales, she said the Commerce Ministry has sent an order demanding six people including ex-commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom pay a combined total of 20 billion baht in compensation.

Four of the six received the administrative order on Sept 21 and the others on Oct 10, she said, adding they can contest the legality of the orders with the Administrative Court within 90 days of receiving the order.

Of the 20 billion baht in compensation, Mr Boonsong is required to pay 1.77 billion baht and his then deputy Poom Sarapol has to pay 2.3 billion baht.

The four others are required to pay 4 billion baht each. They are the former secretary to the Commerce Ministry Weerawut Wajanaphukka, former Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) director-general Manas Soiploy, his then deputy Tikhumporn Natvaratat and the DFT's former director of foreign rice trade Akharapong Theepwatchara.

Noppadol Laothong, a lawyer representing Ms Yingluck, said the legal team will lodge a petition with the Administrative Court against the order as soon as possible despite the 90-day time-frame.

The order demands Ms Yingluck pay the compensation to the ministry within 30 days, and allows her the right to appeal within 90 days.

He said the legal team will not try to stall the case because the administrative order is unjust.

The petition is expected to be filed within next month.

According to Mr Noppadol, the lawyers are considering who should be named in the petition and at least 10 points of arguments would be raised before the court.

Ruangkrai Leekijwattana, Pheu Thai Party's legal expert, asked how the Finance Ministry came up with the amount of compensation Ms Yingluck is required to pay.

He said the amount of compensation started at 500 billion baht before it was lowered to 280 billion baht and then rose to 35 billion baht.

Moreover, it was unclear who would be held responsible for the remaining 80%.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (28)