It's seemingly an unbelievable theory, but stranger things have happened in Thai politics. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised if the Democrats are hoping that their executives will be able to avoid the five-year ban from politics even if the party is found guilty of misusing state subsidy.
What's the difference? The PPP faced dissolution because its executives were accused of being involved in electoral fraud. Normally, electoral fraud would not get a party dissolved unless executives are found guilty of being involved in it too. In other words, if high-level officials were not found involved in fraud, the law would only result in MPs losing their seats or facing other penalties. In the case of the PPP, though, the fate of the party and its executives was inseparably linked - the party would not have been dissolved if the executives had not been found involved.
This time, the Democrat Party faces dissolution because it (note that "it" doesn't necessarily mean executives) is accused of misusing state subsidy. It's a crime punishable by dissolution, but the executives don't automatically get banned. If the party is found "guilty" and dissolved, then the judges will have to make another decision - whether or not to ban the executives.
One can argue that a party can't commit a crime by itself, but the Political Party Act seems to provide an escape route for the executives. An article says that once a party is dissolved, the court will then have to judge whether the party executives are responsible for the crime that led to the dissolution, and only after they are held responsible can they be banned from politics.
This seemingly narrow loophole can be utilised by the Democrats, whose existing executives were elevated to the party's board after the alleged crime had taken place. Although Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's signature was on the documents concerning the allegedly misused funds, the party's lawyers have been trying to point out that he was not in a position of power when the money was being misappropriated.
The Democrats are also relying on another technicality - the alleged misuse of state funds took place under the old Political Party Act, which did not prescribe party dissolution as punishment. However, what looks like a sound argument - new laws shouldn't be applied against old crimes - it will be hit by charges of double standards, and the logic behind Thai Rak Thai's dissolution will certainly come under critics' microscope.
As the judgement day draws near, the Democrats are studying all possibilities, just as the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra camp did earlier. Apart from preparing to refute prosecutors' evidence and discredit the other side's witnesses, the Democrats are said to be seriously studying legal technicalities. Their most conspicuous move concerns Suthep Thaugsuban, who has been asked to resign his Cabinet post so he can run in a Surat Thani by-election, indicating that the party has not ruled out a "technical ruling" that may spare its secretary-general.
While Suthep may not be that popular - Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij is way ahead of him when it comes to whom Bangkokians prefer as new prime minister - he is considered "the man" to go to in times of trouble. The decision to field him in the by-election suggests that this quality of his matters the most for the time being.