• 
• 

Published on July 17, 2007

The spokesman said the allegation was baseless. AEC regulations prohibit members from profiting from information in their possession and to do so would expose them to corruption charges, he said.

"Myself, the chairman and the secretary would definitely do no such thing because it is an offence. If we commit an offence, we will be punished. There is no secret," he said.

A lawyer for Thaksin on Sunday demanded that the committee cancel the provision to pay informants a commission of 25 per cent of the value of the assets exposed and allow them to remain anonymous.

He said the provision could allow AEC members to appoint nominees to accept commissions on their behalf.

Sak said the call was a ruse by lawyers to get the AEC to reveal the identities of those providing tip-offs. "We cannot reveal their identity if they do not want us to. We ourselves have faced threats," he said.

Sak insisted the AEC investigation into Thaksin was neither illegal nor in conflict with earlier rulings that Thaksin did not conceal his assets. Its focus was on "a different angle from the asset-concealment case", he said.

The former Constitution Court found Thaksin not guilty on grounds he had no intention to conceal assets by dividing them among family members and employees.

The committee is looking into allegations that Thaksin was in fact still the beneficial owner of these assets while prime minister. It is illegal for Cabinet members to hold shares in companies.

"Our investigation found Thaksin still held shares [while prime minister]. We know who held these shares and then sold them, and to what bank accounts the proceeds went after the sale," he said.

Sak said it was good that Thaksin's lawyers had raised the subject of rewards for tip-offs as this would encourage more people with information about the ousted prime minister's wealth to come forward.

Committee secretary Kaewsan Atibodhi yesterday rejected claims that the AEC had no legal right to pay commissions for information.

He said the regulation was in accordance with National Counter Corruption Com-mission (NCCC) laws and the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

But Thaksin's lawyer Vichit Plangsrikul said an order made by the Council for Democratic Reform after the coup allowed the AEC to investigate corruption, not to issue regulations using the powers of the anti-corruption commission.

"If the AEC claims it has more or less the same rights as the NCCC, it must also be prepared to face the same punishment as commissioners who commit offences," Vichit said, referring to the double penalty imposed on anti-graft commissioners.

"For transparency, the committee should revoke this regulation," he said.

Vichit said the AEC would face a predicament because it had a one-year term only and its probes would take years.

Budsarakham Sinlapalavan

The Nation