Court upholds Thaksin's acquittal in TPI graft case

Court upholds Thaksin's acquittal in TPI graft case

Red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship supporters hold a birthday party for ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawtra on July 26, 2016 at Imperial World shopping mall in Lat Phrao. (Bangkok Post photo)
Red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship supporters hold a birthday party for ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawtra on July 26, 2016 at Imperial World shopping mall in Lat Phrao. (Bangkok Post photo)

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the acquittal of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra on charges of malfeasance for allowing the Finance Ministry to oversee a rehabilitation plan for Thai Petrochemical Industry (TPI).

The panel of nine judges said it found no evidence to back the anti-graft agency's allegation that Thaksin's actions paved the way for close associates to make personal gains, and ruled in favour of last year's acquittal.

The lawsuit was filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which claimed the Finance Ministry had no authority to administrate the rehab plan under the 2001 law on the reorganisation of ministries and departments. The trial proceeded in the absence of Thaksin.

In August last year, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions acquitted him of malfeasance under Section 157 of the Criminal Code. The NACC appealed the ruling and the Supreme Court set up a panel to review the appeal.

The judges ruled yesterday that although there was no law allowing the Finance Ministry to oversee the rehab plan for the financially ravaged TPI, the ministry was obligated to intervene to avert a larger crisis.

TPI went bankrupt following the 1997 economic crash and entered a court-ordered rehabilitation scheme. It was renamed IRPC Plc after the crisis.

According to the judges, Thaksin's proposed the ministry for the administration role after the finance minister sought his opinion.

They found no evidence he was involved in implementation of the rehab plan or the company's affairs, and dismissed the claim he acted in the interests of people close to him.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (14)