LEGAL EXPERTS have outlined three major points that Supreme Court judges in the negligence case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra are likely to focus on.

In order to reach a common verdict as to whether Yingluck is guilty or not, the experts said that the nine judges individually should first try to answer these |questions. Did her government actually “pledge” rice from farmers? Was rice from government stocks sold through government-to-government deals? And was the then-PM aware of irregularities?

The prosecution has argued before the court that although the programme was called a “rice-pledging” scheme, farmers who had their rice pledged under the |project would never have bought it back because the pledge price offered by Yingluck’s government was much higher than the market value of the rice. This resulted in large quantities of harvested rice ending up in government stocks.

That administration’s policy of |pledging “every grain of rice” was blamed for a lot of irregularities that together cost over Bt400 billion in taxpayers’ money. The graft scams making up many of the irregularities involved pledging low-quality rice and cheaper rice from neighbouring countries, and allowing non-farmers into the project. The judges would also have to determine whether rice under the project was sold to any foreign country through government-to-government deals.

In a separate case also stemming from the rice-pledging scheme, Yingluck’s |former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his ex-deputy Poom Sarapol are charged with malfeasance for the alleged sale of rice from state stockpiles to the Chinese government.

The deals were claimed to have been made with a local Chinese state enterprise, but investigators found that the rice “sold” had never been exported. The enterprise cited was not certified by the central Chinese government. Also, the claimed representative of the Chinese firm was found to work for a Thai |company with close connections to |certain figures in Yingluck’s government.

The Supreme Court is also scheduled to deliver its verdict in the case against Boonsong and 27 others in the “fake” |government-to-government rice sale case on August 25, the same day as Yingluck’s verdict is handed down.

A “guilty” verdict in that case would confirm charges of irregularities in the rice-pledging project and that certain government figures and policy-makers were involved.

Regarding the question as to whether Yingluck was aware of the irregularities, the prosecution argued that the Finance Ministry at that time reported to her Cabinet on three occasions about |problems stemming from the project, including a massive loss and damages caused. As chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee, Yingluck would certainly be aware of all those problems, the prosecution argued.

Public prosecutors also introduced |evidence that Yingluck seemed to have ignored warnings of irregularities from the Auditor General’s Office and the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

In response, the ex-PM argued that her government had to continue with the rice-pledging project because it was one of her political party’s election campaign promises. Yingluck said a budget loss should not be taken into consideration for a government project that benefits |farmers. And she claimed she had taken measures to prevent and stop irregularities at “every stage”, including setting up a committee to investigate graft claims.

The judges will have to determine whether irregularities actually took place and if she should be held responsible for the graft, according to the legal experts. And the court will need to judge whether she acted sufficiently in her capacity as government head to stop or prevent those irregularities.