Bangkok: No surprise! Academics point out that the NACC's dismissal of the "Saksiam" case is consistent with the same standard applied by the prosecutor's decision not to indict the "Thanathorn" case, emphasizing that the same principle applies.
According to Thai News Agency, Assistant Professor Dr. Wanwichit Boonproong, a lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, Rangsit University, commented on the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)'s decision to dismiss the complaint against Saksayam Chidchob. The complaint involved allegations of intentionally concealing his asset declaration. Dr. Boonproong stated that this is not an unusual case, as similar incidents have occurred before involving politicians' shareholdings, whether concealed shares or media shares. A notable example is the case of Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, where the Attorney General's Office dropped criminal charges against him regarding his media shareholding, despite a prior Constitutional Court ruling that disqualified him from his status as a Member of Parliament.
Academics highlight that both cases share a key commonality: the Constitutional Court ruled on their qualifications. However, when these cases proceed to other organizations like the NACC or the public prosecutor's office, they must address different legal issues, with the Constitutional Court's ruling not automatically serving as a conclusion in other cases.
In Mr. Saksiam's case, the Constitutional Court found that he still held a partnership status in Buricharoen Construction Limited Partnership, leading to the termination of his ministerial position. However, when reviewed by the NACC, the investigation focused on whether he intentionally concealed assets, a separate issue. The NACC evaluated evidence, including share transfers and subsequent circumstances, concluding that no wrongdoing occurred.
Additionally, an investigation into allegations of abuse of power involved numerous witnesses and documents from various agencies, yet no clear evidence of direct interference or favoritism was identified.
In Mr. Thanathorn's case, although the Constitutional Court deemed media shareholding as disqualifying for a parliamentary candidate, the prosecutor's office required proof according to criminal standards. This included establishing intent with full knowledge of lacking qualifications, necessitating clear and irrefutable evidence. The prosecutor found insufficient evidence and decided not to prosecute.
Associate Professor Dr. Wanwichit Boonproong asserted that both cases demonstrate the justice system's consistent standards. The Constitutional Court ruled on qualifications, while the NACC and public prosecutor demanded proof of intent and the circumstances of the offense, requiring a higher standard.
The academic clarified that the absence of prosecutions at the NACC and prosecutor's levels for both Mr. Thanathorn and Mr. Saksiam aligns with legal and judicial processes. However, scholars note that social criticism may involve "selective case-by-case viewing," potentially leading to misunderstandings about justice standards in different organizations.