After Thaksin was deposed by a
military coup, the junta-appointed Assets Examination Committee accused her of irregularities in the purchase of government-owned land. However, the
Bank of Thailand, which supervised the sale of the land, claimed that the sale was conducted properly. In January 2007, the Financial Institutions Development Fund complied with the
Assets Examination Committee request to file a charge against Thaksin and his wife over their purchase of four 772 million
baht plots of land from the FIDF in 2003. The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time,
Bank of Thailand Governor
Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin. Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency. Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value. The case went to the Supreme Court on 10 July 2007.
Verdict On 21 October 2008, the
Supreme Court of Thailand's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions delivered a
verdict on the Ratchadaphisek Land purchasing case, ruling that: As Thaksin and wife [Potjaman] defended themselves that the FIDF was not an
administrative agency or
state enterprise, and Thaksin, as the Prime Minister, had no powers and duties to supervise, scrutinise or monitor the Fund, resulting that the land purchasing case was not a
conflict of interest. The Court: By unanimous resolution, holding that the Fund was the administrative agency under Section 100, Subsection (1), of the National Counter Corruption Organic Act, BE 2542 (1997). By 6:3, holding that Thaksin was a
de facto supervisor of the Fund. By 7:2, holding that Potjaman was not a holder of political position or
public authority prohibited under Section 122 of the Organic Act. And by unanimous resolution, holding that the purchased land and all other properties gained in this case could not be seized under Section 33, Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, Thaksin was found guilty of abusing his power to help his wife purchasing the land at a knock-down price, being sentenced to two years in imprisonment. All accusations against Potjaman in the case shall lapse together with the arrest warrant whereof. However, as Thaksin was dwelling aboard, the arrest warrant was issued to bring him back to the domestic punishment. Soon after the verdict was handed down, Thaksin gave a telephone interview to
Reuters, stating he had expected the imprisonment term. He was quoted as remarking that "I have been informed of the result. I had long anticipated that it would turn out this way", and adding that the case was politically motivated. ==Judgment==