This action has been playing out separately to, but simultaneously with, the criminal charges the former prime minister faces related to her alleged gross negligence in the rice-pledging scheme.

In the rice-pledging case, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders will hand down in its verdict on tomorrow.

But Yingluck’s legal battle won’t end there, as she has also to prove her case against a Finance Ministry order demanding a huge amount of compensation from her.

The Finance Ministry last October demanded that she pay the state a compensation of Bt35.7billion – 20 per cent of the rice-pledging cost of Bt 178.6 billion during crop years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Yingluck has objected to the government move, arguing that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and Finance Minister Apisak Tantivorawong have no authority to issue an order to seize her assets.

She has argued that her government reported its rice price-support policy to the then-parliament. Therefore, the rice policy had happened under the scope of the constitution that holds the government politically accountable, not her personally responsible.

She has also cited a previous legal case in which former central bank governor Rerngchai Marakanond was charged by the Bank of Thailand (BOT) in 2001 over his alleged responsibility for exhausting the country’s foreign exchange reserves defending the value of the baht during the 1997 financial crisis. The BOT filed a case in court, demanding compensation of Bt187 billion from Rerngchai, but the then government did not issue a ministry order as the current junta government has done in the case of Yingluck.

Yingluck lost her first battle trying to block the ministry move.

In December last year, she brought her case to the Administrative Court challenging the ministry order.

Before the ministry proceeded to ask legal-execution officials to freeze her assets, Yingluck filed a case against Prayut, the Finance Minister and senior officials, asking for court injunctions. But in April this year, the Administrative Court dismissed her petition by ruling that the Finance Ministry had not yet taken any action to freeze her assets.

Two months later, the ministry started the asset-seizure process against Yingluck, and so far it has confiscated financial assets from seven bank accounts owned by her.

In July, Yingluck again filed a case in court asking for an injunction demanding that the Finance Ministry end the freeze on her assets. For its part, the ministry this month also sent related information of its actions against Yingluck to the court.

It is expected to take about two weeks from now before the Administrative Court makes a decision.

Legal experts have suggested that even if the Supreme Court acquits Yingluck in the criminal trial, it will not automatically help her win her case against Prayut and the Finance Ministry. Under the civil liability law, the Finance Ministry still has the right to freeze her assets unless the Administrative Court rules that she is not required to pay any compensation.