Department's surprise decision not to act against TPI Polene may strengthen the Democrat Party's hand in its dissolution case
The surprise decision by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) not to pursue the charge against TPI Polene of siphoning off funds is a big boon for the ruling Democrat Party in its legal battle in which the party's dissolution is at stake.
The move is likely to hand the Democrats' legal team a new argument to defend the party against the accusation that it had obtained in 2005 a donation of Bt258 million from petrochemical company TPI without reporting it to the Election Commission (EC).
The governing party is also fighting another dissolution case in which it is accused of misusing the political party fund of Bt29 million obtained from the EC, but the Democrat legal team appears to be more confident about that case.
No proof of a concealed deal
DSI director-general Tharit Pengdit on Monday said the agency would drop the fund-siphoning charge under the Securities and Exchange Commission Act against TPI. The new team of DSI investigators, set up to replace a previous team that resigned, found no evidence of a concealed deal that could support suspicion the donation was paid through Messiah Business and Creation Co to be later transferred to Democrat figures.
Tharit said the DSI's previous probe team suspiciously did little work in looking into the alleged offence of fund siphoning and instead focused on pressing the charge of violation of the Political Party Act against the Democrats.
Democrat MP Virat Kalayasiri, who is a member of the party's legal team fighting the dissolution cases, said yesterday that the party was likely to ask the Constitutional Court to allow the DSI to become another defence witness.
A Democrat source yesterday said the latest DSI decision not to pursue the case against TPI would boost the party's defence regarding the Bt258-million case.
"This case stems from the allegation that the party got the money from TPI. When TPI is found to have committed no offence in the beginning, from where did the party get the alleged donation? An analogy is that when no theft is committed, how can we get charged with accepting an item that was said to 'stolen'?" the source said.
A senior public prosecutor at the Attorney-General's Office, which earlier suggested the Bt258-million case should not be pursued against the Democrats because of lack of evidence, said yesterday that the ruling party had a "great chance" of being found not guilty.
The source said the Democrats could argue that according to the previous Political Party Act of 1998, when the alleged offence took place, the political party registrar could single-handedly decide whether to refer to the Constitution Court a dissolution case against any political party. And under the current Political Party Act of 2007, a final decision by all election commissioners is required only when the political party registrar decides to file a dissolution case against a party.
EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond, who is concurrently the political party registrar, originally decided not to pursue the case against the Democrat Party because of a lack of evidence.
During the recent red-shirt protests in Bang-kok, hard-line leader Arisman Pongruangrong and a large group of protesters stormed the EC headquarters, demanding that it quickly decide whether to refer the dissolution case against the Democrats to the Constitution Court. Arisman, who is now on the run on charges of terrorism, warned that if the EC decided against dissolving the Democrat Party, the lives of EC commissioners would themselves end up being "dissolved".
'Insufficient evidence'
Late in April, at the height of the red-shirt protests, the commissioners decided in a majority vote to seek a Constitution Court ruling on the Democrat Party's dissolution.
Apichart, who voted against seeking the Democrats' dissolution, said yesterday that he had agreed with the public prosecutors that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case. He added that for many observers, the case was clearly politically motivated.
The case was first investigated by the DSI under the leadership of Tharit's predecessor Thawee Sodsong in 2008 after a complaint that the Democrats had obtained an illegal donation from TPI. With leaked information from the DSI, opposition MPs from the Pheu Thai Party made assaults against the Democrat Party during the first censure debate in early 2009 shortly after the current government was formed.