Thanathorn faces more legal hurdles

[webfact]

Thanathorn faces more legal hurdles

By The Nation

 

 

Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit is likely to face another legal problem for allegedly endorsing a party candidate who contested the March 24 election despite being unqualified.

 

A source at the Election Commission (EC) said yesterday that Thanathorn was likely to be investigated after a Future Forward candidate in Sakon Nakhon province, Phubet Henlot, was found to be ineligible.

 

The Supreme Court’s Electoral Cases Division on March 19 revoked Phubet’s right to contest the election after learning that he held shares in a media company, which is against the law.

 

The Constitution, as well as the MP election law, prohibits media-business shareholders from contesting an election.

 

Thanathorn, as Future Forward Party leader, had signed documents endorsing Phubet as a party candidate.

 

The EC source said it is a political party’s duty to check and verify the backgrounds of their election candidates and ensure that they are qualified. 

 

“So the party leaders and other executives should be held responsible for fielding a candidate who is not qualified,” the source said.

 

According to the MP election law, anyone found guilty of intentionally applying to contest an election despite being disqualified risks up to 10 years, a fine of up to Bt200,000 and the revocation of electoral rights for 20 years.

 

Party leaders and executives involved can also face criminal punishment as instigators and accomplices, the EC source said yesterday. 

 

The source cited the Criminal Code, which has specific clauses stating that instigators and accomplices shall also be punished along with the violator.

 

Thanathorn has also been accused by the EC of violating rules related to holding shares in a media company. On Tuesday, the EC said it found that the tycoon-turned-politician was a major shareholder in V-Luck Media Co Ltd, a magazine publisher, when applying to contest the election. The EC will issue a verdict, though Thanathorn can appeal it in court. 

 

Meanwhile, key figures in the ruling junta yesterday denied playing any part in the legal problems faced by the Future Forward leader, whose party came third in the national vote in terms of MP seats won unofficially.

 

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha said the ruling National Council for Peace and Order has no power over the matter, which is under the jurisdiction of the EC and relevant courts.

 

Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan, who is in charge of security affairs, yesterday ruled out possible political violence that could result from the legal actions against the Future Forward. He did not think the issue could spark a street protest.

 

“No disturbance. Everything is in accordance with the law. This is a matter for the EC,” said Prawit, who is also the defence |minister.

 

Future Forward is a key ally in the anti-junta coalition led by the Pheu Thai Party, which is in a close battle for power with the pro-junta Phalang Pracharat Party to form the next government.

 

In a related development, the lawyer of Future Forward Party, Worawut Bootmart, said yesterday that Thanathorn has until May 1 to submit his defence statement in relation to the EC’s accusation regarding his media shareholding. 

 

The lawyer said Thanathorn would call a meeting of the party’s legal team as soon as he returns to Bangkok from Europe this evening.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30368318

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-04-25

[webfact]

EC: Future Forward leader has seven days to submit evidence on media shareholding

 

   

BANGKOK, 25 April 2019 (NNT) - The Office of the Ombudsman has accepted a petition calling for the nullification of the March 24 general election and will consider the issue this week, as the Election Commission (EC) has accused the Future Forward Party leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, of violating MP rules on media shareholding and he has seven days after being informed to submit evidence against the accusation.

 

Mr. Thanathorn posted a message on his Facebook page while he was in the Netherlands that he had been informed about the EC’s decision and will quickly return to Thailand for the unexpected situation.

 

The EC Secretary-General, Pol. Col. Charungwit Phumma, said the EC had received a complaint about the New Economics Party, headed by Mingkwan Saengsuwan. According to the complaint, the New Economics Party allowed outsiders to have influence over its political activities. Pol. Col. Charungwit said the EC will verify the allegation before carrying out an investigation.

 

The EC Secretary-General added that the commission is ready to prosecute MP candidates who contested in the general election even though they are aware that they are not qualified. If found guilty, they can face up to 10 years in prison and a 200,000-baht fine, and their electoral rights can be revoked for 20 years.

 

The Secretary-General of the Office of the Ombudsman, Raksakecha Chaechai, said his office had accepted the petition calling for the nullification of the March 24 poll. The petition was submitted by a former member of the now-dissolved Thai Raksa Chart Party, Ruangkrai Leekitwattana. Mr. Raksakecha said the EC has been given until April 25 to defend its handling of the general election. He said the petition has to be considered, as it is an issue of public interest.

 

After receiving an explanation from the EC, the Office of the Ombudsman will process all the information and will deliberate the issue within this week, before the commission will announce the official election results on May 9. The Secretary-General said the Ombudsman Office will have to thoroughly consider the issue and be able to answer all questions once it has made the decision.

 

-- © Copyright nnt 2019-04-25

[Donutz]

What a joke...

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

He did not think the issue could spark a street protest.

all of us should feel so much better with prawit in leadership

[Reigntax]

Treasonists prosecuting anyone who could potentially remove their troughs comes to mind

[MRToMRT]

If he broke the law with his media shares he should be banned from politics, as so should the other party member accused of the same thing. But thats where it should end. 

In truth everyone of these scumbags, either in power or wanting to be in power has a dodgy past and possibly present  but the law should be the law with no exceptions. As well, the EC should be informed of all other cases irrespective of party allegience - but they won't be because everyone who stood would possibly be banned and thye will keep their mouths shut rather than risk being found out themselves. 

Full financial disclosure should be a prerequisite for even standing in an election.

[holy cow cm]

4 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

but the law should be the law with no exceptions.

Problem with this statement is it is either twisted to a full extent or deciphered in manner that bends to the needs as the old rules were washed with the constitution and new ones made up to favor a certain group a certain way. Even the redrawing of the election boundaries in some of  constituencies was a low blow.

[MRToMRT]

17 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

Problem with this statement is it is either twisted to a full extent or deciphered in manner that bends to the needs as the old rules were washed with the constitution and new ones made up to favor a certain group a certain way. Even the redrawing of the election boundaries in some of  constituencies was a low blow.

So you feel its not worth following the law because you dont think its a fair law?

 

Isnt this how Thailand has got into such a mess on every level so far - because a person be they a citizen, politician, policeman, businessman or whatever thinks a law should not apply in their case of choice.

 

[leeneeds]

How to undermine a threat,  is a new book of instructions written by the ruling junta but done under pseudonyms  

[holy cow cm]

13 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

So you feel its not worth following the law because you dont think its a fair law?

 

Isnt this how Thailand has got into such a mess on every level so far - because a person be they a citizen, politician, policeman, businessman or whatever thinks a law should not apply in their case of choice.

 

I think the law is applies to the goose (to cook it) and very selective to the gander in most situations. The laws can be contorted as deciphered a couple of ways to the liking of a certain outcome. So in this case who drew up and revamped the laws?

[jonclark]

Sorry I am really confused by the first three sentences. 

 

On the 24th March an allegedly unqualified candidate contested the election in Sakorn Nakorn Province. But on the 19th March the candidate's authority was revoked. 

 

I am assuming that 'contested' meany he ran in that election on election day given the date of 24th March. If he ran in the election and his authority had been revoked then the EC has some very serious questions to answer as well, how the hell did a person who had been disqualified 6 days earlier still get to run in the election - That in itself is grounds to have the election nullified, as it shows mind blowing incompetence. 

[toenail]

Sad the “government” doesn’t pay as much attention to their corrupt police system as to Thanathorn. 

[Orton Rd]

The price of popularity if on the wrong side, if he had far fewer votes he would be facing no charges, probes or harassment.

[DPKANKAN]

1 hour ago, holy cow cm said:

Problem with this statement is it is either twisted to a full extent or deciphered in manner that bends to the needs as the old rules were washed with the constitution and new ones made up to favor a certain group a certain way. Even the redrawing of the election boundaries in some of  constituencies was a low blow.

The EC have their instructions. The Junta have spoken!!

[rabas]

1 hour ago, holy cow cm said:

Problem with this statement is it is either twisted to a full extent or deciphered in manner that bends to the needs as the old rules were washed with the constitution and new ones made up to favor a certain group a certain way. Even the redrawing of the election boundaries in some of  constituencies was a low blow.

Twisted to the fullest extent of the law!

[Lacessit]

It shows the level of desperation prevailing in the junta, Thanathorn is a real threat to them.

If the same level of rigorous scrutiny was applied to them, permit me to doubt there would be no glaring infractions.

[Eric Loh]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Thanathorn has also been accused by the EC of violating rules related to holding shares in a media company. On Tuesday, the EC said it found that the tycoon-turned-politician was a major shareholder in V-Luck Media Co Ltd, a magazine publisher, when applying to contest the election. The EC will issue a verdict, though Thanathorn can appeal it in court. 

 

Best explained in an editorial in Bkk Post today. Thanathorn transferred his shares on 8th Jan. and he had shared a copy of the share transfer certificate to the public. The certificate is also required by the Civil & Commercial Code for Companies to make their share sales legal.

 

The EC used the register of shareholders document that the V-Luck Media Company submitted to the Department of Business Development (DBD) on March 21 as claim that the share was sold on that date after Thanathorn enter the poll race.

 

Financial experts point out that the register of shareholders is not the document that certify any particular share transfer but a annual report that all companies submit to DBD. I do that every year for my company. This document do not report on every share transaction every time it occurs.

 

Now why can't The Nation have investigative journalists to write such editorial. 

 

 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The EC source said it is a political party’s duty to check and verify the backgrounds of their election candidates and ensure that they are qualified. 

Laws are not enforced by self-regulation.

 

Certainly it is to a political party's benefit that it check and verify the backgrounds of their candidates and ensure that they are qualified in accordance to the constitution. But there is nothing in the law that requires them to do so under penalty of law.

 

It is the EC's constitutional obligation, however, to enforce the law. It is the EC's duty to check and verify the backgrounds of election candidates and ensure that they are qualified PRIOR to the election. That assures valid election results. Many of proposed major party candidates were known last year that gave the EC plenty of time to correctly qualify or disqualify candidates.

 

The constitution gives the EC the authority to suspend a candidate from the election if there's even a suspicion of criminal violations. The EC has full investigative authority to gather evidence as an independent constitutional organization and can direct government agencies to cooperate in its investigations. The EC's review of a candidate's eligibility for an election is not dependent on the representations or lack thereof by any political party.

 

Prior to the February (delayed to March) 2019 election the EC completed its candidate reviews and APPROVED Nanathorn's candidacy among many others. Whatever its reasoning was to do so is irrelevant other than the EC is the only organization to make such determinations.

 

I am sure the EC is embarrassed having little excuse not to assure adequate pre-election candidate reviews that only now aware of possible criminal violations being charged by outside persons and more specifically by NCPO (aka junta) Chief and PM Prayut who too is seeking the PM office.

But the EC attempting to place blame for its apparently inadequate pre-election background check of Nanathorn's candidacy on his political party does not merit the reputation of their "high office." 

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

If he broke the law with his media shares he should be banned from politics, as so should the other party member accused of the same thing. But thats where it should end. 

In truth everyone of these scumbags, either in power or wanting to be in power has a dodgy past and possibly present  but the law should be the law with no exceptions. As well, the EC should be informed of all other cases irrespective of party allegience - but they won't be because everyone who stood would possibly be banned and thye will keep their mouths shut rather than risk being found out themselves. 

Full financial disclosure should be a prerequisite for even standing in an election.

There are basically two types of laws depending on the country concerned. The Anglo-saxon law define offenses broadly and then the law gets more precise with the use of the principle of precedents. The Roman law tends to define precisely the offenses and penalties in advance in the law, a d relies less on precedents.

None of it in the Thai law. Offenses are defined very broadly so that they can be interpreted in any convenient way, and there is no principle of precedent. There also has been some cases of laws having been applied retroactively.

Add to it that the judiciary and the semi-judiciary (agencies) belong to the same yellow-coloured network, whose components appoint each others.

Then you start to understand how it works here.

[jonclark]

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

 

 

It is the EC's constitutional obligation, however, to enforce the law. It is the EC's duty to check and verify the backgrounds of election candidates and ensure that they are qualified PRIOR to the election. That assures valid election results. Many of proposed major party candidates were known last year that gave the EC plenty of time to correctly qualify or disqualify candidates.

 

 

Really good post and my apologies for editing it. 

 

Maybe you can help me on this - the OP states the candidate was disqualified by a court on 19th March. But also 'suggests' he contested the election on 24th March, which can only be done realistically if you are on the ballot paper. If he was on the ballot paper and contested the election, following disqualification by a court, the EC is massively at fault for providing ballot paper with a disqualified candidate on, against a court judgement surely?  Do you know if he actually contested the poll on 24th March. 

 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, candide said:

There are basically two types of laws depending on the country concerned. The Anglo-saxon law define offenses broadly and then the law gets more precise with the use of the principle of precedents. The Roman law tends to define precisely the offenses and penalties in advance in the law, a d relies less on precedents.

None of it in the Thai law. Offenses are defined very broadly so that they can be interpreted in any convenient way, and there is no principle of precedent. There also has been some cases of laws having been applied retroactively.

Add to it that the judiciary and the semi-judiciary (agencies) belong to the same yellow-coloured network, whose components appoint each others.

Then you start to understand how it works here.

 

Not so. You are muddling attempted descriptions of Common Law and Codified law in an attempt to apply them to Thai law.  

 

Thai law does use precedents although it is not mandatory for judges to do so; it is at their discretion.

 

A great emphasis here, in applying laws, rules, decisions, is placed in individual discretion of the person making the decision. That, whilst theoretically giving that person the ability to make decisions based on all unique facts, also opens the way for misuse.

 

Any student of different law systems would also point out the very strange decisions that often come out of US courts, at federal, state and all levels! No system is perfect.

 

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Not so. You are muddling attempted descriptions of Common Law and Codified law in an attempt to apply them to Thai law.  

 

Thai law does use precedents although it is not mandatory for judges to do so; it is at their discretion.

 

A great emphasis here, in applying laws, rules, decisions, is placed in individual discretion of the person making the decision. That, whilst theoretically giving that person the ability to make decisions based on all unique facts, also opens the way for misuse.

 

Any student of different law systems would also point out the very strange decisions that often come out of US courts, at federal, state and all levels! No system is perfect.

 

Really turn how the law is interpreted on its head when judges admitting to decisions were based more on political expediency than law. Confirming your comment that no system is perfect.  

[Nip]

4 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

I think the law is applies to the goose (to cook it) and very selective to the gander in most situations. The laws can be contorted as deciphered a couple of ways to the liking of a certain outcome. So in this case who drew up and revamped the laws?

Indeed in the same way history is written by the victorious the laws in Thailand are written or deciphered by the victorious ie those in power.

[sweatalot]

Whatever they do to get rid of him will make him and his party stronger.

[DrTuner]

Thanathorn, the Trump of Thailand, enemies trying to sue him out. Let's hope he is as resilient as the saviour of the white man has been.

[holy cow cm]

1 hour ago, Nip said:

Indeed in the same way history is written by the victorious the laws in Thailand are written or deciphered by the victorious ie those in power.

Not like this bunch has 

[geoffbezoz]

1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

Whatever they do to get rid of him will make him and his party stronger.

Only if they are still breathing

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, jonclark said:

Really good post and my apologies for editing it. 

 

Maybe you can help me on this - the OP states the candidate was disqualified by a court on 19th March. But also 'suggests' he contested the election on 24th March, which can only be done realistically if you are on the ballot paper. If he was on the ballot paper and contested the election, following disqualification by a court, the EC is massively at fault for providing ballot paper with a disqualified candidate on, against a court judgement surely?  Do you know if he actually contested the poll on 24th March. 

 

The ballots for all candidates would have been distributed by the EC prior to the Early Election held on March 17th. More than 2.3 million Thais were expected to vote before the official March 24 poll date. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30365958

Presumably candidates on the early election ballots would also be the same candidates on the ballots for the General Election held on March 24th.

[greeneking]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It shows the level of desperation prevailing in the junta, Thanathorn is a real threat to them.

If the same level of rigorous scrutiny was applied to them, permit me to doubt there would be no glaring infractions.

If it is believed candidates should not have influence over the media  then what is the proper legal response to this?

'Television is by far the most popular medium in Thailand. Almost 80 percent of Thais are estimated to rely on television as their primary source of news. Major television stations are owned and controlled by the Royal Thai Army and Government.'

Wikipedia  - Freedom of the Press 2015

[chama]

On 4/24/2019 at 4:08 PM, webfact said:

Meanwhile, key figures in the ruling junta yesterday denied playing any part in the legal problems faced by the Future Forward leader, whose party came third in the national vote in terms of MP seats won unofficially.

Anyone that believes anything the junta has to say about the election, or the junta opponents in the election, are really gullible.