RICE CASE TESTS LEGAL NORMS

Re: “Yingluck case needs more time” ( BP, Dec 11).

This story reveals problems in the civil compensation claim against the former prime minster, and that further time is required to gather evidence. This is unsurprising.

It is alleged that she breached section 123 of the Organic Act on Counter-Corruption 1999. This means she failed to perform an act so that another acquired an illegitimate gain.

It requires her to have acted with intent to assist others in obtaining corrupt gains from the rice scheme.

It is also alleged that she breached section 157 of the Penal Code by omitting to perform her function, causing injury to another.

Both are criminal offences that require a high degree of culpability for causing losses to the scheme.

The rice scheme was implemented and abused by others. The former prime minister was not responsible for its dayto-day operation, and has not been implicated in benefitting from the scheme or committing corrupt acts herself.

If prosecutors cannot convince a court that she has a degree of blameworthiness that is more than careless or negligent, then it will be very hard to successfully claim compensation from her. There are serious legal hurdles that prosecutors will struggle to overcome.

On the other hand, if prosecutors do have success, the case will set a strict precedent.

It would be the moral equivalent of criminalising former president George W Bush for failing to rein in sub-prime mortgage lending that led to the subsequent global financial crisis, or the current American congress for failing to implement stricter gun legislation that would have saved lives in the United States.