There is intense speculation on the possibilities of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
A legal expert has offered a set of different likely scenarios for February 26. It is anybody's guess what will be the final verdict, which could have far-reaching implications for Thai politics.
Here are the different scenarios:
- The court might reject the case on the grounds that the investigative process lacked justice or legal basis. The Assets Examination Committee, formed after the military coup of 2006, started the investigation process against Thaksin's alleged attempts to conceal his assets, and alleged policy corruption by him to benefit the share prices of family-held company Shin Corp.
The AEC has survived this legitimacy test when it succeeded in helping the prosecutors to lodge the case against Thaksin in the Ratchadaphisek land deal. In that case, Thaksin was found guilty of abusing his power, leading the court to sentence him to two years in prison. Thaksin has been a fugitive from justice since then, fleeing the country in August 2008 just before the Criminal Court's ruling.
- The Supreme Court could find Thaksin not guilty of assets concealment by concluding that he and his ex-wife Khunying Pojaman na Pombejra had legally transferred their stakes in Shin Corp to their children and close relatives before he entered politics. A ruling on Thaksin's alleged policy corruption to benefit Shin Corp is possible only if Thaksin is found guilty of assets concealment.
- The court might also reject this case on the grounds that the state cannot seize Thaksin's assets even though he might be found guilty of assets concealment and policy corruption. Thaksin can be sued separately on a case by case basis rather than face a total seizure of assets.
In the event that the court finds Thaksin guilty of assets concealment and abuse of power to benefit Shin Corp, there are two possible scenarios:
- The court might rule that part of his assets would be seized. In effect, the court might rule for the state to seize Bt53 billion of the Bt76 billion, while the remaining Bt22 billion must be returned to Thaksin. This amount represents the value of Thaksin's shares in Shin Corp before he served as prime minister in 2001. Shin Corp was sold to Temasek Holdings of Singapore in January 2006.
-The court might rule to seize the entire Bt76-billion assets as recommended by the public prosecutors and the AEC.
Another line of argument is that Thaksin's case is special. He was an elected public figure, who won the mandate to run the country. The public voted him into office and gave him the trust that he would serve the country honestly and with integrity. But since Thaksin had allegedly violated the public trust, he should be ruled as committing an act of treason against the state. In that case, his entire assets must be seized. But this line of argument is unprecedented.
Thai leaders in the past have also faced assets seizures. Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat and Field Marshal Thanom Kittkachorn. Maj-General Chatichai Choonhavan and his Cabinet members were also charged with corruption and assets seizure. But the Supreme Court eventually ruled in favour of Chatichai and his ministers.
+++++++++
The verdict
Possible scenarios of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Bt76 billion asset seizure case
1. Rejection of case due to investigation process findings.
- Investigation by the Assets Examination Committee against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was unfair or illegal.
- Thaksin and his ex-wife Khunying Pojaman Na Pombejra had legally sold their stakes in Shin Corp to their children before he entered politics.
2. Rejection because of insufficient basis for seizure of assets.
Even though the defendant might have abused his power to benefit Shin Corp, his assets cannot be seized by the state. Rather Thaksin should be sued for alleged corruption on a case-by-case basis regarding any violations of the law.
3. Rejection because there's no evidence to suggest Thaksin benefited from monetary gains from an alleged abuse of power.
It cannot be proved that Thaksin abused his power to benefit Shin Corp.
4. Ruling for a part of the confiscated assets to be seized.
There is enough compelling evidence to believe that Thaksin deliberately concealed his assets and abused his power to benefit Shin Corp. But some Bt22 billion he earned before assuming prime minister's office could be returned while another Bt53 billion representing the capital gains during his years in the high office could be seized.
5. Ruling for all of the confiscated assets to be seized.
The whole Bt76 billion in assets would be seized because Thaksin violated the trust of the Thai public who voted him into high office. Without that high office, he would not have been in a position to abuse his power to benefit his own assets.
