All eyes are now on February 26, the judgment day for fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra. The Supreme Court is due to hand down its verdict on the Bt76 billion asset seizure case on that day.
As the countdown towards Thaksin's D-Day nears, there are two scenarios for the ruling: either seizing his assets, or freeing them so he can access them again.
At present, many observers believe the latter scenario - releasing his assets - is near impossible. If the ruling is to seize his funds, there are also two scenarios: seizing all the Bt76 billion or just part of the money.
There are two points of view on why all the Bt76 billion should be seized - or just some part of it.
Thaksin's brother Payap thought Thaksin should be able to keep some of his funds.
Payap said seizing all of Thaksin's assets would not be a good way out for the country unless his brother was proven or found guilty. He suggested the assets should be returned to Thaksin first and then if his brother was found guilty in any further corruption cases he would have to pay compensation to the country.
He referred to the claim that Thaksin approved a Bt4-billion loan from the Export-Import Bank of Thailand so Burma could buy services from his family firm ShinSat. If that deal caused damage to the country - if the interest was too low, say - the government could file a lawsuit against Thaksin asking for compensation. This would be "fair game", he claimed.
Payap thought the Bt76 billion should be divided into three portions. First was the amount the ex-premier earnt before entering politics, which he claimed had been obtained honestly. This sum had to be returned to Thaksin, he said.
Second were assets obtained after he became prime minister. If such corruption cases ended without Thaksin being charged, funds related to those matters had to be returned to Thaksin. For the cases being considered, Payap suggested the agencies involved evaluate the damage and freeze the funds until those matters are heard.
Thirdly, he said, the court could seize funds for any cases Thaksin was found guilty in.
But others say anti-corruption laws would be useless if person who acts corruptly can get some of his money back. Former Supreme Court judge Udom Feungfung said that in unusual wealth cases, courts normally rule to confiscate all assets since the money obtained before wrongdoing was often used to make illegal profits.
"If only the money wrongdoers earn after corruption is confiscated, it means they don't suffer any punishment. Can a thief can walk free after he returns belongings he has stolen?" Udom said. He was head of a subpanel that scrutinised the Ratchada land scandal for the Assets Examination Com-mittee. Udom pointed out some past examples to compare to Thaksin's assets case.
Thirty years ago when he was a judge in a primary court, a police officer arrested a vendor who sold overpriced lottery tickets. The tickets were Bt10 but she sold them for Bt12. The primary court ruled to seize only Bt2 for the tickets sold, but the Supreme Court ruled to confiscate the total amount.
Another recent case was about a state official who sold land to a state agency at a higher price than the actual value. For example, the actual value was Bt10 million but he sold at Bt25 million. After the court found he was guilty the court confiscated all Bt25 million, reasoning that if it only seized the excess amount or Bt15-million profit he would have not been punished.
It remains to be seen what the verdict in Thaksin's asset case will be. But no matter who the ruling favors, divisions in the country are likely to persist.
