The amount was determined by a government-appointed committee headed by Comptroller-General Manas Jamveha.

It accounts for 20 per cent of the estimated total damages stemming from the corruption-plagued project.

According to the standard procedures, Yingluck will be given 30 days after getting the administrative order to pay the damages.

If she fails to meet the deadline, the Finance Ministry will issue a notice for her to make the payment within 15 days after receiving it.

If the administrative order were issued, the ministry would be empowered by the Tort Liabilities by Officials Act of 1996 and the Administrative Procedures Act of 1996. The laws allow administrative orders for the seizure of assets belonging to officials who cause civil damage to the state.

But the question remains: Would issuing the order without first bringing a case to court be an attempt to bypass the justice system?

Interesting, an administrative measure like this has been in practice for some 20 years.

There have been more than 1,000 cases of state officials being ordered through this measure to pay compensation to the state for the damages they caused. So, Yingluck’s case is obviously not the first involving an administrative order.

An administrative order for civil liabilities can be issued immediately by the relevant state agency without a court order.

However, the person ordered to pay damages may bring their case to the Administrative Court for a judgement for an injunction or the withdrawal of the order.

Yingluck may avoid having to pay damages by petitioning the Administrative Court within 90 days of receiving the Finance Ministry’s administrative order. She may ask the court to order the withdrawal of the edict or grant an injunction pending a final court verdict.

A trial is such cases would be expected to take about a month.

If the court grants an injunction, the Legal Execution Department would have to postpone its |asset seizure under the administrative order until the final court verdict.

If the court rules to withdraw the administrative order, the order would not be executed. But the Finance Ministry could appeal the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

However, if the court rejects Yingluck’s request for an injunction, the Legal Execution Department may seize her assets immediately. This is because an administrative order is considered legal with immediate effect after the given deadline (in this case 45 days after the reception of the administrative order).

In normal cases, the Legal Execution Department only enforces court orders for asset seizures. However, the agency has been enforced to seize assets in cases involving damages stemming from agricultural subsidy programmes after Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha issued an order in September under Article 44 of the post-coup interim charter.

He acted in his capacity as head of the National Council for Peace and Order.

Yingluck’s assets

Assets of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, worth about Bt611 million, that she declared with the National Anti-Corruption Commission in May 2015, a year after leaving office.

1. Cash: Bt14.3 million

2. Deposits in 16 bank accounts: Bt24.9 million

3. Investment funds: Bt115.5 million

4. Money lent: Bt108.3 million

5. Eighteen lots of land in several provinces, including Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai and Samut Prakan: Bt117.2 million

6. Houses in Bangkok, Chiang Mai and Samut Prakan: Bt162.37 million

7. Vehicles: Bt22 million

8. Concessions: Bt569,189

9. Other assets: Bt45. 7 million

The report also states that nearly 13 million tonnes of rice remains in the government’s inventory.

PM’s Office Minister ML Panadda Diskul said the report would be discussed at a committee meeting chaired by the prime minister on Tuesday.

According to the report by Jirachai Moonthongro, who heads the civil liability fact-finding committee looking into the scheme initiated by the Yingluck government, Yingluck is liable for an estimated Bt286 billion in damages and Boonsong Bt18.7 billion.

The Yingluck government spent a huge amount of state money to buy rice from farmers at a price much higher than the market value, resulting in losses estimated at more than Bt500 billion.

Nearly 13 million tonnes remains in the government’s inventory because less than a million tonnes was exported, the report found.

ML Panadda said the measures taken against the previous government should serve as a lesson as politicians could be liable for civil liability for policies that caused financial damage to taxpayers.

Jirachai said Yingluck’s civil liability figure was cited during his testimony before the Supreme Court on a related criminal case against her for alleged negligence while Boonsong’s damage bill was caused by fake government-to-government rice deals during his tenure.