Paiboon defends alleged delay in Shinawatra investigations

The case is in connection to a loan from Krungthai Bank to Krisda Mahanakorn Group.

Paiboon said the DSI would in one month be able to press charges against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s son Panthongtae; Thaksin’s former wife Pojaman na Pombejra’s personal secretary Kanchana Honghern; Wanchai Honghern; and former Pheu Thai MP Sita Divari’s father Manop Divari.

Paiboon explained that the DSI had to wait for the Supreme Court’s verdict on a corruption case, adding that the department was only investigating the money-laundering case and not the one related to stolen assets. 

Last Wednesday, the court sentenced then-Krungthai Bank president Viroj Nuankae, 68, and board chairman Suchai Jaovisidha to 18 years in prison. The court also hit 18 others with lengthy prison sentences and up to Bt10 billion in fines for corrupt loan practices.

The court has suspended its ruling on Thaksin until he returns to Thailand. 

Meanwhile, prosecutor inspector Winai Damrongmongkolkul, then-public prosecutor of the Krungthai loan case, yesterday also defended the decision of dropping charges against Panthongtae and three others in relation to money laundering and possessing stolen assets. 

Winai said the Assets Examination Committee in 2008 had taken recourse in the criminal code’s Article 357 to charge the four with possessing stolen assets in connection with the Krungthai loan case.

Chulasingh Vasantasingh, who was attorney-general at the time, decided that the case against the four had to be filed at the Criminal Court, not at the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, since the accused do not hold political office. 

Winai pointed out that since the four were not state officials, the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) also could not sue them. 

Meanwhile, the joint panel of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and public prosecutors on January 27, 2009, did not make a resolution to charge the four on the possession of stolen assets. The public prosecutors, thereby, had no right to file any lawsuits against the four suspects. 

Paiboon insisted that the DSI had taken over the money-laundering case against the four in 2007, adding that the AEC should be able to explain why it did not ask the DSI to look into the stolen-assets charge. 

Criticism of the investigation delay surfaced after concerns were raised that the statute of limitations in cases against the Shinawatra family might expire. 

Winai said the possessing stolen assets charge has a 10-year statute of limitations and the penalty is up to five years in jail; the money-laundering case has a statute of limitations of 15 years and the maximum penalty is 10 years in jail. The statute of limitations starts from the time the crimes were allegedly committed.