Thaksin’s Assets Seizure Case

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions will hand down the verdict on the seizure of Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin Chinnawat's 76 billion baht assets plus interest on Friday, 26 February 2010.
Several people will keep an eye on the day which is the day of an important political changing point, whether or not the verdict will be in favor of Pol Lt Col Thaksin Chinnawat. It is believed that before the verdict day, political situation inside and outside the parliament will be increasingly intensified. The intensity will reach its peak after the judge panel in this assets seizure case finishes reading the verdict in the evening of that day. The judge in charge of preparing the verdict is Somsak Netmai.
For this reason, right now the government and armed force leaders have closely analysed political situation and prepared to handle political activities before or after 26 February 2010. For example, Thaworn Senniam, the deputy interior minister, has announced that the government is ready to handle mass rallies by red shirted people. He only hopes the mass rally to be carried out under the framework of the law. However, if the situation was to turn violent, the government might have to invoke the security act in a bid to be prepared for the situation.

Clarification on Progress
At the same time, looking at the moves by red-shirted people, the leaders and MPs of Phuea Thai Party have tried not to talk about the Supreme Court's verdict reading on 26 February 2010 that how the verdict would affect the red shirted people and Phuea Thai Party's political moves, ranging from the no-confidence debate to the red shirted people's mass rallies. They only talked about places that the red shirted people will hold rallies. For example, they will hold a rally at Khao Soidao Resort in Chanthaburi Province on 23 January 2010. They will gather in front of the Justice Ministry to demand the clarification on the progress of the petition for the royal pardon for Pol Lt Col Thaksin that they have submitted.
The reason that the red shirted people and the Phuea Thai Party have not shown their clear stance about the no-confidence debate and the mass rally might be that they did not want to be viewed that they were planning their moves for political effect on the asset seizure case, both before and after the verdict was read. It is a political strategy that is understandable.
However, what many people are watching is that before the Supreme Court reads the verdict on the assets seizure case, political pressure related to the voting by nine members on the judge panel is expected. The pressure could be in the form of the release of information that could confuse the public about the working process of the Supreme Court in this case. For example, a rumor might be released among people in politics that the judges have already made decision on the verdict in advance. Or, there might be rumors on lobbying attempts, which are all inappropriate. And there might be an attempt to forecast the court's verdict that is to be handed down despite the fact that members of the judge panel have not yet voted on the verdict.

Judicial Process
In this kind of attempts to discredit the judicial process, relevant people intend to discredit judges' working process and also to create political pressure on this case.
However, the public could be ensured that they could trust the court's ruling. This is because the ruling is a result of a working process which has been carried out neutrally and fairly according to the law and facts. The working process has not been politicized. The court has not treated the defendant with double standard as certain group of people has tried to mislead the public.
The verdict is a result of the hearing of relevant facts from all facets, from all witnesses of the plaintiff, which is the public prosecutor, and witnesses of the defendant, which is Pol Lt Col Thaksin; witnesses summoned by the court, and documents that are evidence in this case. For this reason, it is believed people who try to pressure the court in this asset seizure case would not be able to do what they want.