Full judgment Yingluck, 10 billion baht to pay about the G2G scandal

The Supreme Administrative Court found in a plenary session of its judges that the cabinet approved the implementation of the rice from Reis from 2011/12, the travel harvest from low season from 2012, the main office of 2012/13 and the main plant from 201333. The execution of the project comprised four important steps: (1) Review and certification of the authorization of farmers to participate; (2) promise and save the rice trial; (3) grinding and saving the processed rice; and (4) distribute the rice.

At this point, the plaintiff 1 held the position of the Prime Minister and was also chairman of the National Rice Policy Committee (NRPC) with authority in accordance with Section 11, Paragraph 1 (1) of the Act of Administrative Procedure from 1991, responsible for monitoring the implementation of guidelines, measures and approved projects.

With regard to the question of travel stock management, the state examination office and the national anti-corruption commission showed reports on the operation of the rice promise for previous production seasons to plaintiff 1. Both reports agreed that the project had significant problems, which led to significant losses in the national budget, whereby corruption took place on a political level in several stages. They recommended that related agencies react these results. However, plaintiff 1 did not take any measures, although he had appointed a subcommittee that was commissioned to implement the directive for travel promises and was not pursued whether the subcommittee reported problems with the execution of the project.

During the implementation of the rice promise outside of the season for 2012, the parliamentary deputies questioned plaintiff 1 in their capacity as Prime Minister on March 29, 2012, and on November 26, 2012, a non-confidence debate took place in relation to topics in which farmers were cheated. The plaintiff 1, as Prime Minister and NRPC chairman of the corruption problems in every phase, was aware of the subcommittee, which she has instructed to monitor and examine the project in order to examine these accusations or report results for further measures.

The plaintiff 1 thus neglected the warnings and recommendations of supervisory authorities and allowed the travel promise system for seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14. This neglect formed the failure to carry out their authority to prevent corruption and made it possible to enable fraud fraud on the lower level. This was considered an unauthorized action that was damaged by the accused 6 (the Ministry of Finance) in accordance with Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

With regard to the extent of the liability of plaintiff 1 to compensate for defendant 6, the court found that the plaintiff observed 1 corruption problems in the phase of travel sales by government to government (G to G), but did not monitor or monitor these contracts properly. Remarkably, the plaintiff 1 only assumed a NRPC meeting with regard to these matters, which reflected a lack of an oversight.

It is clear that the plaintiff 1 as Prime Minister and Chairman of the National Rice Policy Committee (NRPC), who had the obligation to monitor and monitor the implementation of the guidelines, neglect, ignore and not follow up, or instruct the relevant agencies, to report on the inspection results to clarify the facts and prevent preventive measures avoid. In view of the position of plaintiff 1, it was predictable that they should have taken into account the facts and details described in the examination agencies in order to determine whether the reported damage had occurred or that the government of government (G to G) performed or monitored rice sales process. Instead, the plaintiff 1 did not take these responsibilities into account or neglected, so that corruption occurs during the sales level of G-to-G rice. This led to delayed travel sales and led to longer storage, a deterioration in quality and a loss. In addition, plaintiff 1 ignored the objections and recommendations of agencies that are responsible for monitoring state projects and the guarantee of efficient and effective public budget expenses.

Such behavior of the plaintiff 1 represents a gross negligence in fulfilling its duties, which leads to a damage to the defendant 6 (the Ministry of Finance). Therefore, plaintiff 1 is obliged to compensate the accused 6 in accordance with Section 10, paragraph one in conjunction with Section 8, paragraph one, the official liability for the Tort Act 2539 (1996). The damage caused by corruption in G travel sales included contracts that were signed at the prices below the market value, which enabled illegal profits from the price difference over four contracts, which led to a comprehensive compensation of 20.057,761.66 baht.

After learning corruption in the rice promise scheme, plaintiff 1 could not examine, monitor or instruct the relevant agencies, to report clear knowledge of the problems emphasized by examination centers. The plaintiff 1 only informed the responsible officials to continue and waited for their reports. When the officials did not report corruption, the plaintiff 1 accepted their reports despite considerable discrepancies in the findings of the auditors. The compensation from G to G travel turnover resulted from unauthorized acts of several civil servants, which were only obliged to compensate for their respective share.

As Prime Minister and NRPC chairman, the plaintiff 1 had the direct authority to monitor and control the implementation of the rice promises announced in parliament, and it had legal authority to stop or solve corruption problems during the rice distribution. However, plaintiff 1 did not take such measures due to gross negligence, which caused damage to the government. Accordingly, the liability of the plaintiff 1 should be determined to 50% of the damage from the four g to g to G contracts, which operate a total of 20,057,761.66 baht, which means that the plaintiff is 1 for 10.028,861,880.83 baht.

Therefore, the Ministry of Finance No. 1351/2016 of October 13, 2016, insofar as plaintiff 1 is required to pay compensation from 10.028,861,880.83 baht, an illegal administrative order. Since this part of the order is illegal, the attack and freezing of the assets of plaintiff 1 beyond the amount of 10.028,861,880.83 baht for the auction.

In addition, plaintiff 1 were acquired after they had lived together as a husband and wife since November 1995 and they have children together since November 1995. This behavior clearly determines that the plaintiffs lived together and intended together owners of their assets. Therefore, the plaintiff 2 is entitled to legal protection as a co-owner of these assets in accordance with Section 1357 of the Civil and Commercial Act, although the name of the plaintiff 2 does not record as the owner.

Accordingly, the plaintiff 2 has the right to claim the assets from the auction, which was carried out by the enforcement officer of the office of the citizen Bangkok 6 (accused 9). The defendant 6 rejected the applicant's application by the constant secretary of the Ministry of Finance (accused 4) as the co -owner of the confiscated and frozen assets of the plaintiff 1, which represented an illegal act and an unauthorized act against plaintiffs.

The Supreme Administrative Court changed the judgment of the lower administrative court as follows:

In order to revoke the Ministry of Finance of Order No. 1351/2016 of October 13, 2016 in relation to compensation, provided the plaintiff 1 has to pay compensation of more than 10.028,861,880.83 baht, the date of the present order is effective.

In order to revoke all commands, announcements and measures of the accused 7 to 9 in relation to the plaintiff's assets, such as the administrative enforcement in accordance with section 57 of the administrative procedure for the administrative procedure for the administrative authority of 2539, which are dated the Ministry of Finance from the Ministry of Finance No. 1351/2016, but only in October 2016, but only in October 2016, but in the 10.028,861,880.83 baht, effective from the date of the order.

To order accused 4 and the defendant 6 in order to grant the necessary measures to issue the application of plaintiff 2 by 37 seized assets for the auction and to recognize the rights of plaintiffs 2 as co -owners. You must instruct the defendant 7, to prepare accounts about receipts and expenses for this partition and report the results to the plaintiff. 2. This process must be completed within 60 days of the date of this judgment.