The defence lawyer for Thaksin Shina-watra and wife Poja-man has moved to call former finance minister and central bank chief MR Pridiyathorn Devakula as a witness for hearings over a major land scandal.

Pridiyathorn will make a statement to the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) hearing over the controversial sale of blocks of land on Ratchadaphisek Road in Bangkok, which were bought by the former prime minister's .wife.

Lawyer Pichit Chuenban yesterday submitted a 63-page statement of defence.

Pichit explained later the couple asked the AEC to consider statements about the controversial land sale. They requested it admit declarations from ex-finance minister Somkid Jatusripitak, his former deputy Varathep Rattana-korn, Bank of Thailand (BOT) legal director Chanchai Boonrit-chaisri and Pridiyathorn.

"However, the AEC allowed only Pridiyathorn to deliver additional testimony. He will appear on Wednesday next week," Pichit said. Pridiyathorn is reportedly in Chiang Rai and unavailable for comment. It is understood he is yet to be approached about the appearance.

As BOT governor, Pridiyathorn chaired the board of the Financial Institutions Development Fund. The fund sold the land to Pojaman at auction for Bt772 million.

Pichit believed Pridiyathorn was directly involved with the transaction and is on record as saying there were no irregularities with the bid. The fund made a 15-per-cent capital gain on the sale.

The AEC earlier ruled Thaksin and Pojaman should face charges for violations of Article 152 of the Criminal Code. It alleged the couple exploited Thaksin's position for personal gain.

Both are accused of violating the National Counter Corruption Commission Act. It prohibits state officials and spouses from having any interest in contracts made with state agencies.

Phichit's defence claimed Thaksin had no authority over the Financial Institutions Develop-ment Fund, the seller of the Ratchadaphisek Road land plots at the centre of the scandal.

He said the fund was a state agency governed by a board, not a government ministry or department. The Bank of Thailand Act 1942 stipulates the fund's board oversees its activities and not the prime minister.

In addition, Pichit asserted the Ratchadaphisek purchase was via an auction where other bidders competed. "The AEC has misinterpreted the law and misunderstood the powers of the prime minister in relation to the fund," he said yesterday.

Pichit said the AEC could not use the act to prosecute Thaksin because the alleged offences were not a matter of public interest or a conflict of personal or public interest.

"The law says real-estate sales are a matter for the fund's board and not political office-holders, be they the finance minister or other Cabinet ministers. So, how can Thaksin be accused of this?" he said.

In addition, the fund was not an aggrieved party, Pichit said. It had not voluntarily lodged a complaint over the sale, but did so after being ordered to by the AEC.

AEC member Udom Fuangfung said the Pridiyathorn statement was "normal defence strategy". He said after Pridiyathorn's testimony the subcommittee hearings would conclude and report to the full AEC. The case could be before the Attorney-General before the end of the month.

In the defence statement, Pichit referred to the fund's reluctance to submit a formal complaint to the AEC over the sale. He argued that the Bank of Thailand Act stipulates the fund reports to its own board and was not subject to prime ministerial power.

The defence argument said AEC action against Thaksin under the National Counter Corruption Act was a misunderstanding of the law. It said the Act did not cover "one-time deals" such as the land purchase.

Pichit contended the AEC had no jurisdiction over Thaksin.

The statement continues with an assertion the September coup abolished the corruption act and replacement legislation could not be applied retroactively.

Udom rebutted the arguments saying "if only ministers could be held responsible and prime ministers could do anything with any ministry without bearing any responsibility, how could this nation survive?"

Meanwhile, Pinthongta and Panthongtae Shinawatra are yet to submit revised income statements to the Revenue Department reflecting additional tax owed from the sale of Shin Corp shares.

Budsarakham Sinlapalavan

The Nation