Attorney general denies bias in Pojaman ruling

Julasing Wasantasing said he saw no need to lodge an appeal with the high court in every case.
He added that he agreed with an earlier Appeals Court verdict that overturned a lower court’s ruling against Pojaman Damapong na Pombejra, her brother Bannapot Damapong, and her secretary Kanachanapa Honghern.
In 2008, the Criminal Court had sentenced Pojaman and Bannapot to three years in jail each and Kanachanapa to two years’ imprisonment, for involvement in a conspiracy to evade Bt546 million in tax liabilities related to a share transaction in 2000.
On August 24 this year, the Appeals Court acquitted Pojaman and Kanachanapa on “benefit of the doubt” but upheld the guilty verdict against Bannapot. However, his sentence was reduced to a two-year suspended jail term and a fine of Bt100,000.
Julasing said yesterday that it was normal for legal professionals to have different views about certain legal points. He said that next week he would provide politicians from the opposition Democrat Party with the documents they requested regarding the public prosecutors’ decision not to pursue the tax-evasion case.
The attorney-general said that on October 5 next Wednesday he would also testify before a Senate committee on the matter. “I am ready to explain to prove innocence and transparency,” he said.
Yesterday the Democrats’ legal team, led by deputy party leader Thaworn Senneam, called on Julasing at the Office of the Attorney-General formally to request copies of relevant documents in the tax-evasion case.
Thaworn said the case had been under widespread public attention because it involved a large amount of money and relatives of political leaders.
“The Democrat working group will study the documents involving the case to determine whether the decision by the Office of the Attorney-General is in line with [legal] principles. There was a big difference between the verdicts of the lower court and the Appeals Court,” the opposition MP said.
“Tax-evasion cases involve national security and they require a good standard. Public prosecutors have the duty to protect justice for the people. They have to defend their dignity too,” he said.
The attorney-general yesterday came under a barrage of fiery questions from reporters while giving an interview at his office.
In response to Julasing’s remark that different views were normal among legal professionals, a reporter asked why the public prosecutors decided against bringing the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision. He said it would mean the Appeals Court’s verdict was ignored, although he agreed there were some cases that would need to go to the Supreme Court after a ruling by an appellate court.
He added that the decision not to pursue the case would also help the state save money.
When asked whether the public prosecutors would have made a different decision if the defendants had been someone else, Julasing said he had not based the decision on any individuals’ names. “The decision would be the same, regardless of the names.”
He insisted the prosecutors acted independently and expressed wonderment as to why there was suspicion on his office, and not the Appeals Court that acquitted the defendants.
The attorney-general said anyone who suspected him of malfeasance could seek his impeachment.