The national anti-graft agency will pursue a criminal case against ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra for filing false information about his assets, should he be found guilty in the assets-seizure case against him.
Prof Pakdee Pothisiri, a member of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, yesterday said the agency would request documents from the court that had been obtained from overseas, such as those from a Singaporean bank.
He said his investigative panel would add those pieces of evidence to the existing information from witnesses and documents it had gathered, so that it could prepare a report for the NACC commissioners to decide whether to pursue a case against Thaksin.
INVESTIGATING ALLEGATIONS
Pakdee heads the NACC subcommittee investigating allegations that Thaksin had reported false information about his wealth when submitting his financial statements with the agency.
He also said a guilty verdict by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in the assets-seizure case would affect criminal cases against Thaksin, such as those in which he is charged with malfeasance and dereliction of duty.
Politicians found guilty of filing false information with the NACC face a five-year ban from politics, as well as maximum imprisonment of six months and a fine of up to Bt10,000.
Meanwhile, two of Thaksin's children yesterday petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking an order preventing former members of the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) from "distorting facts and legal principles" by commenting on the assets-seizure case against their father.
In their petition, Panthongtae and Pinthongta Shinawatra said it was improper for anyone to comment publicly in a bid to distort the facts and legal principles regarding the case. They accompanied their lawyer to the court.
They said Udom Fuangfung and Kaewsan Atibodhi - both members of the now-defunct AEC - had presented personal views about the case, which could cause misunderstanding among the public that Thaksin had committed wrongdoings as alleged and hence deserved to have all Bt76 billion of his family's frozen assets seized.
Their lawyer Kittiporn Arunrat expected a court decision on the request in a day or two.
He said the former AEC members had completed their task when they forwarded their investigation report to public prosecutors.
He added that they should not comment publicly on the case as their remarks could have an impact on the trial.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict on February 26 on whether the Thaksin family's frozen assets should be seized by the state. He is accused of being unusually wealthy and abusing his power to unfairly help his family's businesses.
In Panthongtae and Pinthongta's petition, they cited Udom's article in the January 16 edition of the anti-Thaksin |ASTV Manager newspaper, which said that "according to |the principle, the frozen assets in any case where a politician is found guilty of being unusually wealthy must all be seized".
On January 18, Kaewsan commented in the Matichon daily, also suggesting that all the frozen assets must be seized by the state. His analogy was that if grass were stolen to feed a cow, then the whole cow must be seized, not just part of it.
Panthongtae and Pinthongta on Monday submitted their closing statements in the trial, claiming that Bt40.6 billion of the frozen family assets rightfully belong to them.
Pinthongta told reporters yesterday that their petition was aimed at seeking justice for her family. She said she had been frustrated over the past few years about the effect the case was having on her family.
Panthongtae asked reporters to keep their distance from his sister, as she had just been discharged from hospital.
He said that looking at Kaewsan's analogy from a different perspective, his grass had been stolen to feed a cow but when he seized the cow, he risked a charge of robbery. "I feel that I am being robbed. I would like to ask you to view it from a different viewpoint. My life is quite difficult now," Panthongtae said.
He also said that if Kaewsan's analogy were accepted, farmers should stop cultivating rice and instead shift to growing grass. Then, when stray cows fed on their grass, they would be justified in seizing them.
