Corruption courts to take a tough stance on those who jump bail

On December 23, the Prayut Cabinet approved a bill to set up corruption courts after the Council of State approved a revised version of the bill. Article 6 of the approved bill stipulates that Regional Corruption Courts will be set up across the country.

The Criminal Court’s Corruption Cases Division for state officials, which was established in August, will be granted broader powers to target corruption.

Court of Justice spokesman Suebpong Sripongkol said according to the bill, 10 courts would be established including the Central Corruption Court and nine Regional Corruption Courts.

According to Article 20 of the bill, the Central Corruption Court has jurisdiction over Bangkok, Samut Prakan, Samut Sakhon, Nakhon Pathom, Nonthaburi and Pathum Thani.

The bill is meant to ensure expedited court procedures and convictions for state officials and people in the private sector who are guilty of corruption. 

The legislation, Suebpong said, plugs loopholes in existing law, such as the problem faced when suspects escape prosecution by fleeing after being temporarily released during police investigations.

Article 14 of the bill states that accused defendants who flee while on bail will face up to an additional six months in jail, a Bt10,000 fine or both.

If a suspect flees during a trial, prosecutors must submit monthly reports on progress made to apprehend the subject, regardless of whether the original corruption case proceeds or not.

Article 13 of the bill stipulates that if suspects accused of corruption abscond, the period of time during which they evaded custody will not count in terms of the statute of limitations. If a court convicts a defendant, the period will also not be counted as part of the sentence.

The intent behind Article 13 is to prevent offenders from evading punishment by absconding. Even if suspects evade capture for decades, they would still face the penalty for fleeing custody as well as the full sentence associated with the original crime regardless of the statute of limitations for the crime. The bill further stipulates that court proceedings will continue during the suspect’s absence.

The specified legal procedures in the event of a suspect fleeing custody are the same as those practised by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. 

Furthermore, appeals will only be accepted at the Court of Appeals’ Corruption Case division, which will also be set up under the new legislation. In the event of appeals, defendants must be present in court and will not be able to designate lawyers to represent them.

Decisions by the Court of Appeals’ Corruption Case division will be final.

The only judges who will be eligible for service in the Corruption Courts must have at least 10 years of experience on the bench.

A Cabinet spokesman said each corruption case should be resolved in less than two years. “The Corruption Courts should be operational within the next year,’’ he added.

Corruption watchdog groups said the bill still had a loophole regarding judges’ leeway to decide how long convicted criminals must remain incarcerated before their sentences could be commuted. A spokesman for the watchdog groups gave the example that if a convict was sentenced to 20 years in jail on corruption charges, he or she should serve at least 10 years, or half of the sentence.

In the past, many convicts in corruption cases have had their sentences commuted, the spokesman added. “Only when the law is sacred [has] the country entered true reform.’’