The case against Thaksin

FT reports on the case against Thaksin and extradition procedures:

Seksan Bangsomboon, the chief prosecutor, said: "We set up a special taskforce to handle Thaksin's extradition process some time ago. Tomorrow we will come and get the verdict and have it translated into English and then send it with our request to the British government asking for the extradition of Thaksin."

The court's verdict relates to a case which began in 2003, shortly after Mr Thaksin became prime minister.

Mrs Pojaman bought a prime plot of land in Bangkok from the central bank's Financial Institutions Development Fund for 772m baht ($22.5m, €17.1m, £13.3m), outbidding two real estate developers in a process that observers say was clean.

The prosecutors' argument was not that the deal was corrupt, but that it contravened the National Counter-Corruption Act, which says that officials and spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts with state agencies under their supervision.

Mr Thaksin said he was unsurprised by the verdict. "I have been informed of the result. I had long anticipated that it would turn out this way," he said.

Legal experts said his conviction, even in absentia , might streamline the extradition efforts, as the government would not have to show the former prime minister had a case to answer, as is usual in most extradition requests based on criminal charges or accusations. However, Mr Thaksin would still be free to challenge extradition on other legal and human rights grounds.

In August, the couple absconded to Britain, from where Mr Thaksin faxed a letter to media outlets saying he feared for his life if he returned and that the charges were part of a politically motivated witch-hunt.

Mr Thaksin has been banned from politics for five years, and is still facing at least 10 more charges.

He accuses the judicial system of being part of the politically motivated programme designed to remove him and his allies from office. His opponents say the courts are exercising new-found independence since escaping Mr Thaksin's autocratic rule.

Bangkok Pundit examines the court's findings. The verdict raises questions in his mind:

I still find it odd that she gets off, but he doesn't. Fonzi has some comments on this too. I think applying a criminal law standard is difficult to such cases, i.e. he is guilty because she bid on the land and he knew of this - was this before or after she bid? So he had knowledge she was doing something which is legal, but this makes it illegal for him?

Fonzi referring to a report in The Nation and one at Thai Rath, looks at the evidence and blogs:

The judgment in Thai actually sounds even more stupid than it does in English.

No evidence of abuse of power. No criminal conspiracy to defraud the state.

Put simply, here is a quick summary of the court's judgment in my own words: Thaksin, you are a bad and evil man, because you were prime minister when your wife made a land deal. We will not hold your wife culpable for what she did, only you, because you are a bad and evil man who should have known better. Therefore, we sentence you to two years in jail.