“This is legal and [the Anti-Money Laundering Organisation] AMLO has done this many times before. This is AMLO’s responsibility and not that of the government or the contract partner – the Pollution Control Department,” he said.

AMLO took recourse to Article 48 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act to suspend NVPSKG’s right to call on the government to pay the second and third instalments of Bt2.38 billion each, which are due on May 21 and November 21 respectively.

“The government is not avoiding payment. We are ready to pay, but have to suspend it in line with AMLO’s order.

“This order is separate from the Supreme Administrative Court’s order telling the government to pay compensation to NVPSKG,” he said.

The court had ordered the state to company with an arbitration panel’s ruling in favour of the NVPSKG consortium, which won the controversial construction contract back in 1997.

The first compensation instalment has already been paid.

However, AMLO froze the first Bt5.8 billion payment to NVPSKG after the Criminal Court ruled on December 17 last year that the initial contract for the Khlong Dan project was unlawful. The court also declared it null and void due to corruption and nepotism.

Wissanu said AMLO has the right to freeze NVPSKG’s assets within 90 days.

The group has 30 days to prove it was not involved in irregularities in the project.

If AMLO does not believe NVPSKG’s defence, it can call a meeting to decide whether it should seek a court order to confiscate the conglomerate’s assets.

“If AMLO is satisfied with the private firms’ explanation and does not take the case to court, the government is willing to pay the compensation.

“In that case, there could be negotiations for a reduction of the payment. During the freeze period, the government does not need to pay the second instalment or the interest,” he said.

Although it has been proposed that the government call on the Supreme Administrative Court to order a retrial in the Khlong Dan case, it was just an option, Wissanu said, though he would not comment on it saying it may adversely affect the case.

Article 75 of the Establishment of the Administrative Court Act allows cases ruled upon by the Supreme Administrative Court to be retried if there is new evidence and either party or stakeholders file for a retrial with court.