No motive cited as summonsing begins

The department decided to press charges against the MPs, though its investigation file does not cite any motive for the alleged offence.

Yesterday the DSI began summoning six Democrat MPs per day to acknowledge the charge of violating the 2007 Political Party Act. Parliament is not in session, so the MPs are no longer protected by special immunity.

Of the 48 MPs originally targeted, three have passed away, while Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra have already turned themselves in to face the charge. Abhisit, however, will be summoned on May 2 to face an additional charge for the same offence, this one allegedly committed during his time as PM. The other MPs allegedly committed the offence between 2008 and 2012.

Article 57 of the Act stipulates that donations of more than Bt20,000 to political parties must be made by crossed cheques or bills of exchange. The 43 Democrat MPs, however, got the Secretariat of the House of Representatives to deduct their salaries and write crossed cheques to the party.

Election Commissioner Sodsri Satayatham said she believes the Democrats did not violate the law because the Parliament carried out the transactions through a bank in order to deduct the MPs’ salaries and write the crossed cheques. The MPs can thus obtain withdrawal slips as evidence from the bank.

The DSI’s Pol Colonel Niran Adulyasak, chief investigator in the case, said the DSI viewed the offence as a “technical” one. 

“It’s as if the law says you must step out of the house left-foot first; if you step out right-foot first, then you’ve broken the law,’’ he said.

However, the DSI believed MPs must strictly abide by this law, he said, because the intention of the law was to make it easy for officials to cross-check sources of donations to political parties. Parties were supposed to issue a receipt to each donor, but the 43 Democrats shared one receipt issued to all of them.

Defending themselves against the allegation, the Democrats have given several reasons for their action.

The strongest defence is that the party has carried out financial transactions in a transparent manner by reporting to the Election Commission (EC) and the Political Registrar, who endorsed the transactions, guaranteeing that the donation to the party was done correctly. 

The Democrats also said the DSI did not have authority to investigate the case, which they say is in the EC’s jurisdiction.

The DSI, however, has its own legal interpretation. It believes the nature of the case is not political but criminal, so it will submit its investigation to prosecutors, rather than the EC, for indictment.