It is the first comment from Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the youngest daughter of ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, since her aunt, ex-PM Yingluck, was sentenced to five-years imprisonment on Wednesday for neglecting the operation of her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

The ruling was rescheduled from August 25, when Yingluck dramatically fled the country after two years of constant court battles.

The Shinawatras have remained low-profile since then, only posting a few messages and photos of Thaksin, Paetongtarn, Pintongta with her husband and twin daughters in London.

It is believed Yingluck is in Dubai as PM Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha claimed that he had been informed by the Foreign Ministry.

The lawyer for Panthongtae Shinawatra, son of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, on Thursday renewed his call for the Department of Special Investigation to drop a money-laundering probe against his client by citing the name of Meechai Ruchuphan.

Lawyer Choomsai Sriyaphai, said that if the DSI continued the anti-money laundering probe against Panthongtae related to fraudulent loans from the state-owned Krungthai Bank, the DSI should also take action against Meechai, now chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission.

In his appeal against the probe, Choomsai said that Meechai was chairman of Krisada Mahanakorn Group, including some of the time that it received Bt9.9 billon in fraudulent loans for the 20 years between 1992 and 2012. In contrast, he said, Panthongtae was just an “outsider”.

The lawyer asked how, if Meechai had learned nothing about the fraudulent loans, outsider Panthongtae could know that the money was illegal. The charge that Panthongtae attempted to help the management of Krisada Mahanakorn launder the illegally obtained money was invalid, said Choomsai.

In the middle of September, the Anti-Money Laundering Office submitted a complaint with the DSI, accusing Panthongtae of getting involved in laundering of the fraudulent loans granted from Krungthai Bank to Golden Technology Industrial Park Co, a subsidiary of Krisada Mahanakorn Group.

Based on a Supreme Court verdict, Krungthai Bank was found to have granted the Bt9.9-billion fraudulent loans to Golden Technology based on highly inflated collateral, resulting in financial damage to the bank. Some of the fraudulent loans, totalling more than Bt3.5 billion, were then extended to various people and organisations, including an unspecified donation to the Rutthaburut Foundation.

The AMLO said Panthongtae faced the charge because he allegedly received a Bt10-million cheque from Wichai Krisadathanont of the real estate firm Krisada Mahanakorn Group.

Chumsai noted that Meechai has never faced any charges although he was the chairman of the Krisada Mahanakhon board for 20 years.

He also noted that Panthongtae got the Bt10-million cheque in May 2004 before Krisada Mahanakhon’s loans were approved.

Chumsai said Panthongtae had no intention to conceal the money and the lawyer reiterated that over 150 others had received the money from the group in a manner similar to Thaksin’s son but none faced charges.

Chumsai added that Wichai was known to be a wealthy land developer, so Panthongtae had no reason to suspect that the money from him had been unlawfully gotten, and he thought Wichai really wanted to invest in Panthongtae’s business at that time.

The lawyer added that his client had returned the money to Wichai after he found the money did not meet the investment criteria.

Chumsai noted that the Bt10 million was only 0.1 per cent of the Bt9.9 billion in loans. Had Panthongtae intended to help the group launder the money, the money would have to be transferred to him 1,000 times, the lawyer noted.

“All of these pointed out that it was not justified to raise money-laundering charge against my client so I request the DSI to consider this point for the sake of fairness,” the lawyer said.

Pol Major Woranan Srilam, director of the special cases division, who received the appeal from Chumsai, said the appeal was similar to earlier requests from Panthongtae’s side with no new points.

He said he would in any case submit the appeal to DSI chief Pol Colonel Paisit Wongmuang to pass on to the investigators of the case for consideration, along with evidence and other information.

Wissanu said the court verdict was for a criminal charge against her, and should have nothing to do with the asset seizure.

At this point, the Legal Execution Department’s actions have been limited only to freezing Yingluck’s accounts.

The department had been waiting to see whether the Administrative Court would rule against the order as petitioned by Yingluck, said Wissanu.

Suebpong spoke after the Wednesday conviction of former premier Yingluck Shinawatra for dereliction of duty and malfeasance in preventing corruption in her government’s government-government rice deals. She was sentenced for five years without suspension.

Suebpong said the new charter included no prohibitions to bar such an appeal. Appeals can thus be launched challenging the Supreme Court’s findings of proven facts and on the basis of a legal technicality, and by either the convicted defendant or the plaintiff.

The previous charter allowed an appeal only if there was new evidence submitted, Suebpong said.

The widening of appeals grounds originates through rights recognised under Article 25 of the new constitution, which states that any rights and freedom under the constitution can be exercised following the constitution’s spirit, when there is an absence of specific laws to the contrary.

Because the Supreme Court has not yet addressed specified legal procedures against political officer holders in a criminal case, both the convicted and the plaintiff have broad bases for appeal, said Suebpong.

Meanwhile, the new law on criminal procedures against political office holders was promulgated on Thursday and put into effect tomorrow. A convicted person would now have to launch an appeal in person before the court rather than designate a lawyer to do so.

In the case of Yingluck, that could mean the former PM must attend the courtroom in person in the event that she wished to launch an appeal.

Yingluck fled the country two days prior to the original August 25 date for the Supreme Court ruling on her charges. The reading of the ruling was then delayed until this Wednesday. Few expected Yingluck to return for the event.

Yingluck is now living in Dubai, Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-Cha revealed on Friday.

If requested, the ministry will consider whether Yingluck’s passport could be revoked in line with the ministerial regulation on passport issuance, Busadee said.

According to the regulation, a revocation may proceed if a passport holder faces punishment as a result of a criminal case, is temporarily released or faces an arrest warrant that demonstrates that the courts, police or administrative officers consider that he or she should not be granted a passport.

Yingluck was yesterday sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment without suspension, after being convicted for negligence in oversight of her government’s rice-pledging scheme by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

Busadee refused to provide information on Yingluck’s records for an alleged entry into Dubai, or on reports that she used a diplomatic passport to get entry to the United Kingdom.

Authorities in Dubai have also promised the Thai Foreign Ministry that they would keep an eye on Yingluck and ensure she did not take part in any political campaigns, Prawit said.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha in the morning told reporters, a day after Yingluck was sentenced in absentia to five years in prison by the Supreme Court for negligence in preventing corruption and irregularities in her government’s rice-pledging scheme, that she was in Dubai.

Yingluck fled the country just a day or two before she was scheduled to attend the reading of the verdict by the Supreme Court. The court postponed the reading to Wednesday due to her absence.

Yingluck’s elder brother and former PM Thaksin had also fled to Dubai to escape from justice.

Yingluck was sentenced to five years in prison on Wednesday after the Supreme Court found her guilty of negligence in the management of her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

Prayut said the Foreign Ministry had reported to him about Yingluck’s whereabouts.

Yingluck fled the country days before the court was scheduled to read the verdict on her case on August 25. The court rescheduled the verdict reading to Wednesday.

Reports said Yingluck fled the country to Cambodia, and then on to Singapore, before reaching Dubai where her brother and fugitive former premier Thaksin lives.

On Tuesday, Prayut revealed that he knew about Yingluck’s whereabouts as he had spies.

He had promised to reveal more details after the court had read the verdict. Before the court read its verdict on Wednesday, Prayut had only said that Yingluck was in a foreign country.

Regarding the court verdict, Prayut said: “I told you that the law is the law. Everyone is under the same law. When a verdict is issued all have to abide by it.”

Prayut said an arrest warrant would be issued for Yingluck and efforts made to have her extradited.

“But whether we can get her back depends on the country where she resides.”

“I don’t see any difficulty. Let the police do their jobs,” he said.

Prayut said the Foreign Ministry is in the process of revoking Yingluck’s passport.

THE FIVE-YEAR jail term handed out to former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra did not surprise her supporters, who lingered to hear the verdict in front of the Supreme Court yesterday, because they claimed to have “lost faith in Thai justice” a long time ago.

The crowd’s size was relatively small compared to that on August 25, the day her verdict was originally meant to be read, when thousands of supporters waited to see their beloved leader who never turned up and has not been seen in public since.

The verdict in Yingluck’s case concerning negligence over her government’s rice-pledging scheme was rescheduled to yesterday, when only about 100 supporters stood outside in the sun in front of the court building.

They were aware that Yingluck would be nowhere to be seen. Pheu Thai Party politicians and red-shirt figures did not travel to the court as they had on previous occasions.

Only ex-MP Suchat Lainamngern was there – of his own accord, not as a party representative.

The judgment reading took almost four hours, and the number of supporters shrank to a couple of dozen by the time the court distributed briefings of the official ruling.

Around a hundred of metropolitan policemen stood in rows in case any scene erupted, but it all went by quietly. Yingluck’s fans simply shrugged as they read the paper, saying that such a “harsh punishment against the innocent” was nothing more than they expected.

One by one, they started packing up and went back home in peace.

“At least Yingluck is away for now and she does not have to face this punishment,” said a woman who introduced herself as Roong, a 48-year-old coconut milk seller from Ratchaburi.

“I guess that’s why we supporters are not hugely disappointed. For now, we can only accept the ruling. I just wish that Yingluck is safe and sound. Maybe her brother, Thaksin, might speak up shortly,” Roong continued.

Roong, along with other supporters, wore t-shirts printed with a message, “[We] miss the overseas ones”, in reference to the Shinawatra siblings, Yingluck and Thaksin. “Love Poo [Yingluck’s nickname] Dubai!” The crowd had shouted in the morning in the belief that Yingluck is now safe with her brother in the United Arab Emirates.

Crystal, a 52-year-old tour guide, said she has come to support Yingluck as she had relatively little to do.

“I don’t have many tourist customers in recent months. The economy is certainly going down,” she said.

Crystal said she felt that westerners with purchasing power had tended to travel less to Thailand, partly due to the undemocratic situation in the Kingdom.

“The coup and the junta ruling have caused foreign countries to issue warnings and notes to their citizens,” she said “As a tour guide myself, I can feel this decrease of tourists via my job.”

Thi, a 62-year-old Bangkok woman, simply said that the ruling was “not fair” to the former premier for “merely proceeding policies as declared to the parliament”.

Like many supporters, Thi believed that Yingluck did not have a role in the operation of the controversial rice-pledging scheme that was ruled to have brought multi-billion baht damages to the country. Despite this affirmation and the long fight, Thi admitted that Yingluck herself and the bloc might need to keep a low-profile for now.

“It’s still not our time,” she said.

The ruling may mark the end of the Yingluck rice-pledging saga, but it did not end the hopes and faith of Pheu Thai Party supporters who still trust the leaders they voted for and continue to back the policies that, in their view, favour low-income people, especially rice farmers.

However, Yingluck and her brother Thaksin Shinawatra may not be at a complete loss and could still turn a crisis into opportunity. Given her new status as a convict, Yingluck could be allowed to make a plea for support from the international community, like her brother has done.

Yingluck was sentenced to five years in prison yesterday for malfeasance of duty for failing to prevent corruption in her government’s rice-pledging scheme, and particularly regarding rice distribution under government-to-government contracts, which were later found to be fake.

The verdict has put her in the same position as her brother, who fled the country to avoid a charge in a case involving a Ratchadaphisek land deal. He has been living in exile for years.

However, as a convict, Yingluck could play a new political game, like her brother has from overseas. A discourse about a “double standard” could be powerful in helping garner sympathy for Yingluck. The only question is how intense that sympathy could become, especially given that Pheu Thai Party is still a factor.

Somsak Prisna-anantakul, a key figure in Chart Thai Pattana Party, said the verdict shook politicians’ credibility and confidence.

Polls in the Northeast found that Pheu Thai Party could still win a majority vote, suggesting that the verdict might not tarnish politicians’ images and credibility in the long run, or in the months to come when elections are due to take place. The verdict, more significantly, is a lesson to any top leader on how to oversee government officials to fend off future corruption charges.

Jade Donavanik, adviser to the Constitution Drafting Commission, said without Yingluck, some Pheu Thai figures might decide to leave the party. Along with new rules written under the charter and organic laws, it was unlikely that Pheu Thai would have another major victory, Jade said.

As a result, the junta’s standing would rise and become a critical factor in the coming election, Jade said.

The junta is seen by some political observers as now having the advantage. With Yingluck’s guilt declared, military leaders can claim legitimacy and prolong their stay in office. And without her presence in the country, it is easy for the junta to attack her without fearing resistance from her supporters.

If nothing changes, the junta can take a strong stand in the election under its “roadmap to democracy” and control the situation better than before, while being able to determine the fate at the polls.

Pheu Thai Party, on the other hand, is in a relatively difficult situation, with prospective leaders fearing the same fate as their former leader.

Yingluck is, therefore, at a critical juncture. She has to decide whether to relinquish her power or fight to the end in the hope of a change that will allow her to take the lead again.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a politics science professor at Chulalongkorn University, was quoted by AFP as saying that the guilty verdict might not eliminate the Shinawatras’ influence altogether, although it spelled “the end of Yingluck’s political career”.

It also sent a warning to would-be successors who might try and challenge the dominance of the military and its allies in Bangkok’s traditional aristocracy, he said.

“This is the first time that a Thai prime minister has been sentenced to jail for a policy from an election campaign,” said Thitinan. He called it “a tough and tricky standard for future Thai prime ministers”.

Paul Chambers, an expert on Thai politics, told AFP the military had rid itself of a potential thorn in its side after Yingluck fled because she could have become a martyr if jailed, or a powerful politician again if not.

A high-ranking source in Pheu Thai said he believed members of the Shinawatra family would not dare to assume leadership of the party. “They learned a lesson in the past decade. I think they may not be in a position to resist or retain power. They will prefer to keep low profile,” the source, who asked not to be named, told The Nation.

POLICE PLEDGED to step up the hunt for convicted former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra after the Supreme Court yesterday ruled unanimously to sentence her in absentia to five years in prison.

Convicted of negligence in preventing corruption and irregularities in her government’s rice-pledging scheme, Yingluck had fled abroad, according to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who staged the 2014 coup that toppled her government. However, he did not offer any details.

“[She is] in a foreign country.” When asked if Yingluck was in a neighbouring country, he said he was unaware. “Don’t ask me.”

Prayut had promised before the verdict reading yesterday that more details about the fugitive’s whereabouts would be divulged.

In line with standard procedures, police were waiting for an arrest warrant to enforce the verdict and would coordinate with Interpol to hunt down the former premier, national police chief General Chakthip Chaijinda said.

Yingluck disappeared late last month just a day or two before the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders was due to read a verdict in the case on August 25.

Police were investigating who had helped her escape from Bangkok and her route of travel, Chakthip said, adding that they had already alerted 190 member countries belonging to Interpol.

“There is no clear information about her, so far,” he said.

He added that Prayut had not given police details about her location despite having earlier said he knew where she was.

Three police officers have been moved to inactive posts for allegedly driving Yingluck to the Cambodia border two days before the reading of the verdict last month.

However, the officers are not facing charges, lending weight to speculation that the former prime minister’s escape was part of a deal with the junta.

The court yesterday found Yingluck guilty as she had acknowledged the illegality of the government-to-government rice deals and had failed to stop nominal rice deliveries to a non-existent Chinese state-owned enterprise.

The phoney government-to-government rice sales were conducted by her former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, who was jailed for 42 years last month.

The court ruled that the deal involved ill-gotten gains and the dishonesty in the discharge of official duties.

“Favouring Boonsong and other accomplices, Yingluck allowed them to buy rice at lower than the market price while also receiving a surplus of goods, resulting in damage to the state budget, which is an act of malfeasance,” the court said.

“The defendant [Yingluck] was found guilty of the offences under Section 157 of the Criminal Code and Section 123/1 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption 1999 and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment,” a statement from the court read.

Both the defendant and prosecution had the constitutional right to appeal either on the grounds of legal procedures or evidence to the Supreme Court, according to the new 2017 Constitution.

Yingluck’s lawyer Norrawit Larlaeng said after the verdict that he did not know if his client would appeal as he had not talked to her since her disappearance before the scheduled reading of the verdict on August 25.

However, there is lack of clarity on her right to appeal since the law regarding procedures for crimes committed by political office holders has not yet come into force. The new law stipulates that defendants have the right to appeal only if they appear in court in person.

Norrawit declined to predict possible scenarios in the case, reiterating that he would need to review the court’s decision in detail before proceeding.

The caretaker secretary-general of Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party, Phumtham Wechayachai, reacted to the verdict by expressing confidence that the scheme initiated by his party had been faithfully intended to help farmers.

“We will remain steadfast and continue our mission to help ease people’s difficulties,” he said.