No Legal Due Process

The freezing against of Assets Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra was not made in accordance with the steps and procedures set forth by the laws. The defendants failed to comply with the “legal due process”, i.e. the investigation procedures set by the Ministerial Regulations No. 2, 4, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and the Organic Action Counter Corruption B.E. 2542 (1999).

The Anti-Money Laundry Act, the Counter Corruption Act and the Regulation on Asset Examination issued by the AEC set the steps, conditions and procedures for investigation and witness gathering prior to any freezing of assets. The defendants intentionally ignored all those legal requirements and procedures.

The assets freezing order of the defendants are thus illegal and did not meet “legal due process” as required by laws. The defendants intended to exercise their power to freeze his assets even though the investigations on various matters claimed against Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra have not been completed such freezing was made for political reason to cause damage and harm to Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra.

Prejudice/Double Standards

The asset freezing orders issued by the defendants are made with prejudice against Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra and also involve double standard.

For instance, the defendants made various accusations that Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra involved in the rubber plantations scandal, CTX scandal, Lotto scandal, and though the AEC accused many other government officers and various members of Dr. Thaksin’s cabinet in connection with these accusations, no charge nor asset freezing orders has been issued against anyone except Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra. The defendants only took action against Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra.

Furthermore, after the September 19 coup, the military-appointed government led by General Surayuth Chulanond has conducted exactly the same Lotto program as taken by Dr. Thaksin’s democratically elected government; i.e. the Special 2 and 3 digit Lotto. However the AEC has refused to place any charge against General Surayuth’s cabinet.

False Statement alleging Transfer of Funds

False Statement alleging Transfer of FundsPrior to issue the assets freezing orders, the defendants were fully aware that Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra owns and declared the ownership of all those assets before he entered politics and that those funds in his bank accounts were not derived from any alleged corruption. The Defendants gave statements to the public claiming that Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra had secretly relocate or hidden the funds to avoid future seizure.

The Defendants expect Amnesty Provision

The asset freezing orders made by the Defendants were issued in response to the demand of the Council of National Security (“CNS”). The Defendants failed to comply with “legal due process” and were driven by personal vendetta, expecting that an amnesty provision will be granted in the draft constitution proposed by the military appointed constitution drafting committee. The assets freezing orders were made after the CNS had stated that Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra was supportive the pro-democracy rallies and protests held throughout the country by various groups.

The Litigation Team shall report on further action in due course.