Supreme Administrative Court rejects Yingluck retrial bid in 10-billion-baht rice case on Sept 23

The Supreme Administrative Court has upheld the rejection of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s request to reopen her rice-pledging compensation case, leaving her liability of 10,028,861,880.83 baht unchanged. The order was read at the Central Administrative Court on Chaeng Watthana Road on Wednesday (September 23, 2026).

The Supreme Administrative Court found that a Commerce Ministry letter cited by Yingluck did not constitute new evidence capable of materially changing facts already established in the case. The court also rejected her objections to the calculation of her liability and the evidence used in reaching its judgment.

Norawit Lalaeng, Yingluck’s personal lawyer, said the decision ended the application for a retrial, although her legal team believed there were still issues on which it could continue to contest the case.

Yingluck and her husband, Anusorn Amornchat, had requested a retrial in Red Case No. Phor Mor 3/2569. The Central Administrative Court declined to accept the request on January 13, 2026, prompting the appeal considered by the Supreme Administrative Court.

The underlying lawsuit brought by Yingluck and Anusorn named then-prime minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha and eight other defendants, challenging the legality of a Finance Ministry compensation order. The disputed order held Yingluck responsible, in her capacities as prime minister and chair of the National Rice Policy Committee, for allowing corruption under the rice-pledging scheme and failing to prevent losses to the state within her official powers and duties.

Commerce Ministry letter fails new-evidence test

Yingluck’s proposed new evidence was a Commerce Ministry letter marked “Most Urgent”, reference Phor Nor 0302.3/781, dated August 1, 2025. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the letter answered an inquiry about enforcement of a different administrative order from the one challenged in her case.

According to the court, the permanent secretary for commerce’s letter concerned Confidential Order No. 453/2559, dated September 19, 2016. That order required six state officials to compensate the Commerce Ministry for losses arising from corruption involving four government-to-government (G-to-G) rice-sale contracts.

The Commerce Ministry letter stated that the order complied with the prescribed formal requirements and applied only to the officials subject to it, not to other individuals. Some of those officials had challenged the order in the Administrative Court of First Instance, with their appeals then under consideration by the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the letter could not materially alter its established findings because it concerned an order that was not the basis of Yingluck’s lawsuit. The document therefore did not meet the new-evidence requirement under Section 75, paragraph one (1), of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure (1999).

Yingluck challenges 50% liability and criminal-case evidence

Yingluck, the first plaintiff, disputed the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision to hold her responsible for 50% of the losses used to calculate compensation. Yingluck argued that the calculation drew on losses covered by the Commerce Ministry’s 2016 order, even though she was not subject to that order.

Yingluck also challenged the court’s reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions in Red Cases Nos. Or Mor 178/2560 and Or Mor 179/2560, together with appellate judgments in Red Cases Nos. Or Mor Or Thor 2–3/2562, dated September 6, 2019. Yingluck argued that she was not a party to those criminal cases and that the facts concerned arose after the Finance Ministry had issued its compensation order against her.

Court says rice losses covered pledging and sales

The Supreme Administrative Court said corruption had occurred at several stages of the main-crop rice-pledging programmes for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 production years. The court identified farmer verification and certification, rice pledging, storage at mills and central warehouses, fraudulent use of farmers’ entitlements, the use of imported rice to claim scheme entitlements, and G-to-G rice sales.

Losses from the rice-pledging programmes therefore encompassed both the acceptance of pledged paddy and the disposal of rice through G-to-G transactions, the court said. Evidence concerning losses from the rice sales was already contained in the records considered at both first instance and appeal, including pleadings submitted by the parties.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that Yingluck’s arguments challenged its exercise of judicial discretion rather than demonstrated mistaken factual findings, materially significant new evidence or a serious procedural defect that had made the outcome unjust. The arguments therefore did not satisfy Section 75, paragraph one (1) and (3), and the court upheld the lower court’s refusal to accept the retrial request.

Yingluck’s lawyers dispute the basis of compensation

Norawit said the Commerce Ministry document concerned an order requiring six officials, ranging from a former minister to officials within government agencies, to pay more than 20 billion baht over losses from rice disposal. Yingluck was not named among those officials, which her legal team believed provided grounds to argue that she should not bear responsibility under that order.

Norawit also disputed the basis of a Finance Ministry order requiring payment of 35 billion baht, arguing that the amount reflected profit-and-loss calculations rather than damages. The distinction was another ground on which Yingluck’s legal team had applied for a retrial, Norawit said.