Yingluck´s Minister zu 42 und 36 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt

1. In Thaksins PPT kam eine schöne Gegendarstellung der Fälle:

   While a lot of the media attention has been on Yingluck Shinawatra’s no-show at the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions verdict day, the related sentencing of her former colleague Boonsong Teriyapirom to 42 years in jail and his former deputy Poom Sarapol to 36 years in the so-called government-to-government rice sales case deserves attention too.

   Earlier, the former commerce minister said he would “respect the court’s decision which ever way it went.” It went the way that everyone had expected and he and his deputy were found guilty. So were a score of others. As Prachatai reports it:

   The two were accused of violating the 1999 Anti-price Collusion Act for helping Chinese companies that did not represent the Chinese government to obtain the government-to-government rice export deals with Yingluck’s administration.

   The court also sentenced Manas Soiploy, a former director-general of the Department of Foreign Trade, to 40 years of imprisonment and his deputy Tikhumporn Natvaratat to 32 years in jail for involvement in the deals.

   Akharaphong Theepwatchara, former director of the department’s Rice Trade Administration Bureau, was sentenced to 24 years while Apichart Chansakulporn, the executive of Siam Indica Co Ltd., the rice exporter company, got 48 years imprisonment.

   The court also demanded Siam Indica to pay 16.9 billion baht damage to the Ministry of Finance.

   Eight of the total of 28 accused were acquitted while the rest got jail term and were ordered to pay damages in accordance to the proportion of their involvement in the rice deal.

   Perhaps Yingluck got wind of these horrendously long sentences and decided that she was likely to get the maximum sentence in her case (10 years and a large fine), and to seek other climes (although officials claim there is no record of her leaving the country).

   Khaosod explains some of the courts decision and the case:

   The Supreme Court said the four government-to-government deals made in 2011 and 2012 were made with state companies in Chinese provinces which were not authorized to represent Beijing. The deals allowed them to buy rice from Thailand at below-market prices.

   Evidence later showed that Siam Indica resold the rice back into the domestic market. They were accused of violating two anti-corruption statutes: the 1999 Price Rigging in Public Sector Contract Bidding and a 1999 anti-corruption law called the Organic Act on Counter Corruption.

   In September 2016, the Anti-Money Laundering Office ordered over 7 billion baht in assets seized from Siam Indica, Apichart and his network after they were indicted by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

   Apichart was known to have close ties to exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. A previous firm he led won the right to sell rice from a rice-pledging program under Thaksin’s administration.

   Yet, the deals done were not that easily explained. As the Bangkok Post tells it, the court decided:

   … in the past G-to-G rice sales to China had been done through China National Cereals, Oil and Foodstuff Import Export Corporation (Cofco).

   But the rice sales panel chaired by Poom during the Yingluck Shinawatra government changed the G-to-G definition to include sales to other state enterprises and use ex-factory prices instead….

   Poom later approved two sales contracts for 5.2 million tonnes with two Chinese provincial state enterprises not authorised by Beijing. Boonsong later took over as chairman of the panel and signed another two contracts to sell another 2.4 million tonnes.

   All in all, the four contracts causes damages of around 17 billion baht, the statement said.

   The ruling said there were irregularities involving the four contracts.

   “Payments were made in cashier cheques. Buyers could resell the grain to a third country. The contracts were amended to change the rice types and amounts without bargaining to ensure the changes were in the best interest of the country.

   “After the sales, payments were made in hundreds of cashier cheques in the country and an authorised Thai company took delivery of the grain and sold it to local rice traders without shipping it to China or other countries,” the statement said.

   “Mr Poom, Mr Boonsong, Mr Apichart and others brought the two provincial state enterprises to buy rice from the Foreign Trade Department, saying they were authorised by Beijing, at low prices without competition.

   “When rice market price fell, the enterprises did not take delivery as specified in the contracts. Instead, they asked to change the contracts so they could buy the same type of grain at lower prices,” the ruling said.

   For those interested, historical rice prices are here, suggesting that, in the court’s reckoning, the damage done was not the total amount of the deals done, but that the reduced prices were the issue for the court. Losing money may be poor business and poor state business, but the sentences are mammoth.

   Dagegen kann man wenig sagen bis auf Eines:
   Auch wenn man einen Betrug mit einer staatlichen chinesischen Firma macht
   bleibt es am Ende ein Betrug !
   Insbesondere wenn der Reis garnicht exportiert wird sondern in Thailand
   zum viel höheren Inlandspreis verkauft wird.

2. ben: Schafft vielleicht endlich Frieden zwischen Rot und Gelb, da irgend wann sogar die Roten einsehen sollten, dass ein möglichst Korruption freies miteinander besser wäre für Thailand.

   Ben, du bist ja erst 6 Jahre in Thailand deshalb sei dir deine Friedenssehnsucht
   nachgesehen. Meine Erfahrung ist leider anders:
   Vor 30 Jahren wurden Korruption , Erpressung und Betrug in Thailand
   aufgrund des Druckes der Entwicklungshilfegeberländer wirklich verfolgt.
   Vor 20 Jahren gab es die Chuan Leekpai Regierung welche wirklich versuchte
   Korruption Erpressung, Betrug Menschenhandel etc aus eigenem Antrieb
   und weil es besser für die Thai Gesellschaft sei zu verfolgen und einen
   Rechtsstaat zu errichten.
   Danach kam Thaksin der Chuan als „Law Lunatic“ diskreditierte
   und einen mehr praktischen Ansatz für Thailand nam.
   Er sagte dies sei zwar moralisch verwerflich aber trüge alles
   zur Binnenkonjunktur bei und dieses Wachstum brauche Thailand.
   Die jetzige Militärdiktatur ist zwar angetreten um in Thailand aufzuräumen
   aber tut gerade dies nicht. Ja, es sind viele angeklagt worden einige auch
   verurteilt aber niemand wurde wirklich nachhaltig betraft.
   Auch die 42 Jahre sind tinneff weil er sehr bald wieder frei ist.
   Man kann ja froh sein dass er überhaupt noch da war und
   überhaupt noch Vermögenswerte hier hatte.
   Mit ausschliesslich legalen Geschäften wäre das thailändische
   Wirtschaftswachstum lange vorbei.

3. emi_rambus: ImTVsahdassoaus,alswaerendiemitdemGefaengniswagenweggebrachtworden.

   http://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/20170825/c1_1312903_170825191029_620x413.jpg

   1. emi_rambus: ImTVsahdassoaus,alswaerendiemitdemGefaengniswagenweggebrachtworden.

      http://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/20170825/c1_1312903_170825191029_620x413.jpg

      ja, die werden ja nach dem Urteil sofort verhaftet. Danach können sie Berufung einlegen und die Kaution beantragen.
      Bei 42 Jahren kommt man aber normal nicht mehr so einfach raus, schon gar nicht – wenn die Hauptangeklagte verschwunden ist.

4. ben: Ist natürlich noch nicht definitiv – die können ja noch 30 Tage Einsprache erheben..

   Im TV sah das so aus, als waeren die mit dem Gefaengniswagen weggebracht worden.

5. Ist natürlich noch nicht definitiv – die können ja noch 30 Tage Einsprache erheben.. Aber die Urteile sind happig und werden wohl in Zukunft so ein Paar ROT Käppchen Grossmäuler zum Nachdenken bringen… Schafft vielleicht endlich Frieden zwischen Rot und Gelb, da irgend wann sogar die Roten einsehen sollten, dass ein möglichst Korruption freies miteinander besser wäre für Thailand.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.