TWELVE of Yingluck Shinawatra’s bank accounts will be seized by the Department of Legal Execution in the first civil liability action against the ex-premier whose rice-pledging scheme has been alleged to have caused huge financial damages to the country.

Somchai Sujjapongse, permanent secretary for finance, said the Finance Ministry, representing the government as the plaintiff, was also pursuing other assets belonging to the ex-premier.

The asset seizures are stipulated by a civil liability committee’s earlier resolution for Yingluck to pay Bt35 billion in compensation to the state to cover heavy losses in the rice-pledging scheme, estimated to amount to several hundred billion baht.

Ruenwadee Suwanmongkol, director-general of the Department of Legal Execution, said the agency had already received the Finance Ministry’s list of Yingluck’s bank accounts for seizure.

Besides the civil liability lawsuit, Yingluck is also facing a Supreme Court verdict on a criminal charge in which she is accused of negligence in her official duties while implementing the rice-pledging scheme, resulting in corruption and substantial financial losses. The high court’s verdict is due on August 25.

The civil liability lawsuit has a 10-year statute of limitations, so authorities can list more assets owned by Yingluck to be seized, Somchai said.

He declined to disclose the amount of bank deposits in the 12 accounts to be seized by the government.

Based on Yingluck’s declaration of assets after leaving the prime minister’s office, her total assets amounted to more than Bt615 million, most of which were in the form of land and other properties, investments and loans. Bank deposits at the time were worth only Bt24.9 million.

Somchai said the Finance Ministry was waiting for more information about Yingluck’s assets from other agencies before it proceeded with further action.

The civil liability committee’s chairman Manas Chaemweha said Yingluck would be held accountable for causing damage to the state during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 rice production seasons. Total compensation for financial losses has been estimated at Bt178 billion, Yingluck’s share of which as prime minister was 20 per cent, or about Bt35 billion.

The ex-premier has been charged with failing to take sufficient action to prevent corruption and substantial financial losses from the scheme, despite repeated warnings from the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

However, the committee said Yingluck could not be held responsible for an additional Bt115-billion compensation for losses during the 2011-12 production season.

Meanwhile, the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) yesterday reported that it had found irregularities in the rice-pledging scheme after inspecting warehouses in Sukothai province, where 5 per cent of the white rice listed in the previous government’s rice-pledging scheme reportedly turned out to be a mix of inferior rice varieties.

The PACC stated that rice paddy from other provinces had been taken to Sukothai to take advantage of its rice-pledging scheme, including old rice from previous production seasons.

So far, the PACC has identified a total of 990 cases of irregularities in the rice-pledging scheme with Nakorn Sawan having the most cases, followed by Kamphaeng Phet and Sukothai provinces.

Yingluck’s legal team has petitioned with the Administrative Court seeking an injunction in response to the move to confiscate her assets, according to Noppadon Laothong, one of her lawyers.

In April, the Central Administrative Court dismissed Yingluck’s petition for an injunction concerning a pending civil liability action seeking compensation from her. The court ruled that there was no need for a court injunction at that time because no asset seizures had occurred.

Prayut said anyone who planned to mobilise in Bangkok should be aware that it was illegal.

“Such an act is against the law. You may not face legal action immediately but you can’t escape it eventually. The law is still the law,” he said.

“You may like or love anyone as you please. But you don’t need to cause trouble for other people while doing so,” Prayut added.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is scheduled to read on August 25 its verdict in the case against Yingluck, who is charged with criminal negligence for allegedly failing to stop irregularities stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

His remarks came amid concerns there had been an attempt to mobilise large numbers of people from the provinces to gather at the court ahead of the verdict.

Army chief General Chalermchai Sitthisart, in his capacity as secretary-general of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), added yesterday that the junta had not prohibited any gathering to show moral support “if that happened naturally”.

The general said what was worrying was that people would be mobilised in large numbers, which could lead to “problems”. He urged Yingluck’s supporters to follow news about the court verdict at home instead of travelling to Bangkok.

“It’s against the law to mobilise people for street demonstrations. Individuals should think for themselves if they want to travel and help to pressure the court. Regardless of the people’s numbers, you cannot change a court verdict,” he said.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party leader and former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday voiced concern that certain politicians in Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party seemed to be warning that she had many people supporting her.

“I am worried about remarks by some Pheu Thai politicians that there are not nine judges in the case [against Yingluck]. They have said 10 million people will also judge. This is not a way to give moral support. It seems to be a threat that they have the masses behind them,” Abhisit said.

He added that such remarks appeared to be intended to pressure the court ahead of the verdict.

However, Pheu Thai politicians yesterday allayed fears of possible unrest by Yingluck’s supporters, adding that people would gather peacefully and not violate the law.

Yuthapong Charassathien, who served as deputy agriculture minister in Yingluck’s government, said it was normal for the former premier to have so many supporters, as she had been elected by an overwhelming majority. “I believe that her supporters will abide by the rules and will not cause any disturbances. So don’t worry,” he said.

In a related development, security authorities have been monitoring movements at border areas for possible smuggling of weapons into the country, a source said yesterday.

They were also following communications between certain groups who may be plotting unrest before and after the court verdict, the source added.

The formal invitation was made since HM the King newly took the throne, a diplomatic source said. The trip, if it occurs, would be the first time that a Thai King visits the People’s Republic of China.

The heads of state of the two countries last met in 2003, when China’s then-president Hu Jintao paid a courtesy call to the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej in Bangkok.

HM the King has not paid a state visit to any foreign country since assuming the throne in December.

Thailand and China have historic ties but only established official diplomatic relations in 1975, largely due to differing political ideologies.

Relations between the two countries have been noticeably closer since the ruling Thai junta staged the coup in 2014, an act that was widely criticised by Western countries, notably the United States during the previous administration of Barack Obama, for the suppression of democracy and violations of human rights.

Thai-Chinese deals on military hardware and infrastructure projects, many of which have been made at the government-to-government level, have been passed by Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s Cabinet.

On Sunday and yesterday, Wang visited the Kingdom for the first time in four years, meeting Prayut and Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai separately.

After the meetings, Wang signed a book of condolences for the late King at the Grand Palace before heading to the Philippines last night.

The two countries’ ongoing Bt179.4-billion high-speed train project, for which Prayut has invoked his absolute Article 44 powers under the interim charter to facilitate, was also brought up during Wang and Don’s meeting.

Training concerns

During a joint press briefing, Wang said China would transfer technology and know-how as well as train Thai engineers during the project’s implementation.

Engineers have expressed concern that Article 44’s invocation allowing Chinese technicians to work on the project without having Thai licences would prevent Thai professionals from being involved with the long-term maintenance.

But Thai authorities have said China would be responsible for training and other costs.

Wang emphasised that the multi-billion baht project would proceed.

“It will be beneficial for Thai connectivity and long-term economic development,” he said. “Importantly, our intentions won’t be shifted and we expect it to flourish soon.”

Don reiterated that the multi-billion baht project would be beneficial for Thailand, given that it was in line with China’s One Belt and One Road initiative as well as Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) and digital economy plans.

More connections would help to distribute economic opportunities to Thailand, Asean, China and potentially to European countries, Don said.

Talks also included ongoing efforts to push for a Code of Conduct framework regarding the contentious South China Sea, the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation and the draft of the Third Plan on Thailand-China Strategic Cooperation.

In regards to the last issue, the five-year plan would be effective from 2017 to 2020, during which Thailand would chair Asean, the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Don said.

During his talk with Prayut, Wang said Beijing would support Chinese private sector investment in the EEC, which was expected to produce transport and innovation hubs, Deputy Government Spokesperson Lt-General Werachon Sukondhapatipak told reporters.

Wang also said later that he had invited Prayut to attend a BRICS meeting in November, referring to the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Following the meeting, Prayut said China was a notable economic partner for Thailand in terms of trade, investment and tourism.

He added that China also understood Thai politics and had a trustworthy relationship with the Kingdom.

The court, however, reduced the penalty given to them from jail terms of two years to eight months, citing that they did not act in their own interests or any individual’s interests.

The six former leaders are retired general Chamlong Srimuang, Somsak Kosaisuk, Pipob Thongchai, Suriyasai Katasila, Somkiat Pongpaiboon and media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul, who is serving a jail term in a separate case involving stock market violations.

According to court testimony, the six led protests against the Samak Sundaravej government to put pressure on the then-premier to resign.

They took over Government House and were charged with invading a state property and causing damage.

The first court had sentenced them to three years in jail before reducing the penalty to two years. Their lawyer, Suwat Apaipak said he had posted bail of Bt200,000 each for five of them, and submitted a land deed for Somkiat. Suwat said he has also appealed to the Supreme Court

Last week, the group, along with three other ex-leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy, faced sedition charges for their scattered protests targeting several government compounds in 2008.

However, the first court dismissed that charge against the six ex-leaders and suspended sentence for the three other ex-leaders for two years.

The organic law was passed by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) earlier this month.

Some clauses involved the suspension of the statute of limitations and trials in absentia, which would result in the law being applied to cases that were on hold.

This sparked a controversy as critics questioned whether the law targeted certain figures, such as fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. A few cases against him have been put on hold due to his absence.

The Pheu Thai Party lodged a petition with Prayut last week urging that the controversial law be reconsidered and submitted to the Constitutional Court for review.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, however, said yesterday that the government had no concerns with the organic law and would not petition the Constitutional Court.

“It is not that the PM has to pass everything that everyone lodges with the Constitutional Court,” Wissanu said. “The Constitution only stipulates it is the PM’s decision. Pheu Thai could have questions [about the organic law] but it does not mean the PM does, too.”

The CDC, which was responsible for writing the organic law, would not petition the Constitutional Court on the matter either.

Chief charter drafter Meechai Ruchupan said yesterday the CDC had decided not to propose any amendment on the law. No clauses appeared to be against the intention of the Constitution, he said.

The court, however, expressed concerns over the legality of trials in absentia, allowed in the draft bill. Meechai said that the CDC had already explained the process to the court, which included a three month period before a trial could be conducted in absentia.

Meechai said that the NLA could forward the draft bill to the Cabinet on Friday to seek royal endorsement, the 10th day after the NLA had submitted the bill to the CDC to see whether it would voice any objections.

After the law comes into effect, people could petition the Constitutional Court about its constitutionality, Meechai said, adding that the process would be out of the CDC’s hands. But he insisted the bill did not contravene the Constitution.

However, it would not affect entire political parties, as had been speculated, CDC chief Meechai Ruchupan said on Monday.

Meechai said the tripartite law review committee would meet on Tuesday to consider the proposed changes.

He said the CDC insisted that the primary voting system was the internal business of political parties, and it must not affect the parties’ right to field MP candidates. The new charter has guaranteed this point, he said.

If MPs or senators were found to be involved in fraud, they must be discharged, as their qualification would become invalid, Meechai said.

Yingluck, who faces charges related to a rice-pledging scheme, will make a verbal statement to the Supreme Court on August 1 and her verdict will be read on August 25.

This has prompted concerns in some circles about gatherings of people to show support for her.

Winthai said people had speculated about what would happen based on personal assumptions. In general, he said, people understood the situation and were cooperative. People mostly acted lawfully, he added.

The military would work on security issues as usual, without focusing any particular events or groups, he said.

Some new outlets reported on the weekend that top brass had instructed officers to closely follow the movements of certain groups of people ahead of the Supreme Court verdict.

According to a source quoted by Thai-language newspaper Kom Chad Luek, Army commander-in-chief General Chalermchai Sitthisart, in his capacity as secretary to the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), had instructed local peacekeeping forces to monitor the movements of “all groups involved” over the next month.

The commanders of all four army areas in the main regions of the country had been assigned to monitor any suspicious movement, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Seri, chairman of the NRSA’s political reform committee, was responding to criticism made during Sunday’s public seminar addressing the assembly’s work in the past two years.

The forum heard criticism that the NRSA was only a buffer for the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and that when any reform agenda came under censure, the NCPO could easily evade and drop the NRSA’s proposals.

Seri, however, argued that this was not necessarily true.

The public must look at the work it had done, he said, adding that the assembly had been appointed to serve the national interest.

The reformer hence called for people not to take its work “only as proposals”, and pointed out that reform had not been achieved by any government despite several attempts.

“Please don’t look at it that way. The NRSA has only been trying to clear up all the long-standing problems,” Seri said.

“All members are experts in different fields. And in the past 10 years, there has been the problem with corrupt politicians – and the NRSA has tried to resolve it,” he explained.

The NRSA, which was set up in 2015 to work on reform matters, is set to be dissolved soon once the recently passed national strategy law comes into effect.

However, questions have been raised about how much the assembly accomplished given that reform has been a major agenda item since the 2014 coup.

The court, however, reduced the penalty given to them from jail terms of two years to eight months, citing that they did not act in their own interests or any individual’s interests.

The six ex-leaders are retired general Chamlong Srimuang, Somsak Kosaisuk, Pipob Thongchai, Suriyasai Katasila, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, and media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul, who is serving a jail term in a separate case involving violation of the stock market.

According to court testimonies, the six ex-leaders led the protests against the Samak government in a bid to put pressure on the then premier to resign.

They invaded Government House and were charged with invading a state properties and causing damage.

The first court had sentenced them three years’ jail each before reducing the penalty to two years.

Their lawyers planned to propose bail of no more than Bt100,000 for each of them.

Last week, the group, along with three other ex-leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy, faced a sedition charge for their scattered protests targeting several government compounds in 2008.

However, the first court dismissed that sedition charge against the six ex-leaders and suspended for two years the determination of penalties for the three other ex-leaders.

The court cited as the reason for dismissing the sedition charge the fact that the six ex-leaders had already been sentenced to two years in jail term.