The Constitutional Court will on Friday deliver a ruling in the loan controversy that has engulfed the Future Forward Party (FFP), and while some academics don't expect the party to be dissolved, they believe its executives may be held responsible.
The court will rule on whether to dissolve the FFP over allegations that it accepted a 191.2-million-baht loan from its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, possibly a violation of the organic law on political parties.
On Dec 25 last year, the court accepted an Election Commission (EC) request to consider disbanding the FFP for accepting the loan from Mr Thanathorn to finance its election campaign.
The EC cited Section 72 of the law which prohibits parties and its executives from accepting cash donations, assets or other benefits when they know or suspect the money comes from an illegitimate source. The EC considers the loan illegitimate, citing Sections 62 and 66 of the law on political parties.
Section 62 provides details about what income parties can legally make. The section allows parties to conduct fundraisers or receive donations, but it does not include loans as a legitimate financial source.
Section 66 of the law bars any individual from donating money or assets to parties in excess of 10 million baht within a one-year period.
Jade Donavanik, a legal expert and former adviser to the Constitution Drafting Committee, believed there is little likelihood of the FFP being dissolved, but its executives may risk being banned from politics for five years for accepting the loan from Mr Thanathorn.
But the court may dismiss the case if it rules that the law on political parties does not forbid political parties from accepting loans, Mr Jade noted.
In a worst-case scenario, if the party is disbanded and its executives banned from politics, its MPs must join new parties within 30 days, though this will have no impact on the opposition's censure debate against the government next week, because they would still retain their MP status, Mr Jade said.
Mr Jade said it is very unlikely dissolving the FFP will trigger any violence.
Deputy Thammasat University rector Prinya Thaewanarumitkul on Thursday said the court will decide whether or not the FFP loan is income.
But Mr Prinya insisted the loan is a debt obligation, not income. He added that a party is not a state agency, but rather a gathering of citizens to present policies to be implemented for the nation.
Political parties can engage in activities which are not prohibited by law, he said.
However, a highly placed EC source refuted academics' claims that a loan obtained by a political party is not income.
The source said the EC's request for the FFP's disbandment mainly focuses on whether the loan was a hidden transaction that would lead to the party being dominated by others, a violation of the law on political parties.
The source said that the EC considered the loan a ruse to circumvent the 10-million-baht donation cap under Section 66 of the political parties law.
The EC had to take action otherwise the section which is aimed at preventing parties from being dominated by outsiders would be rendered meaningless.
In the future, parties would seek donations of more than 10 million baht by signing a loan contract to avoid the rule, the source said.