Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has ordered former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra to pay ฿10 billion ($300 million) to the Ministry of Finance, in recompense for losses incurred by her government’s rice subsidy policy. The verdict overturns an earlier judgement from the Central Administrative Court, and also seems to contradict a prior ruling by the Supreme Court.
Yesterday’s announcement from the Supreme Administrative Court came on the eleventh anniversary of the coup that deposed Yingluck in 2014. Writing on Facebook, Yingluck challenged the judgement and said: “The debt of 10 billion baht is impossible for me to repay in a lifetime”.
Starting in 2011, Yingluck’s Pheu Thai government bought rice from farmers at up to 50% above the market rate, intending to withhold it from the world market and thus drive up the price. The result, however, was that other countries such as India and Vietnam increased their rice exports, the government was left with vast stockpiles of rice that it could not sell, and therefore it could not pay the farmers for the rice they had supplied.
Charges relating to Yingluck’s role in the rice scheme were originally filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission in 2014. As a result, she was impeached in 2015, and the Attorney General launched a criminal investigation into charges of dereliction of duty. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sentenced her to five years in prison, though she fled the country before the verdict was announced.
In 2016, the Ministry of Finance ordered Yingluck to repay ฿37.5 billion ($1 billion), though she appealed against that decision and her appeal was granted by the Central Administrative Court on 30th March 2021. That appeal verdict was quashed yesterday by the Supreme Administrative Court, though Yingluck’s fine was reduced to ฿10 billion.
The Supreme Court case related specifically to contracts for rice sales to private Chinese companies, arranged by the Thai Ministry of Commerce, which were falsely designated as non-competitive government-to-government deals. In its 2017 judgement against Yingluck, the Supreme Court ruled that she was aware that the government-to-government deals were fraudulent, though — in contrast to yesterday’s Supreme Administrative Court verdict — it did not hold her personally accountable for the financial losses incurred.
Yesterday’s announcement from the Supreme Administrative Court came on the eleventh anniversary of the coup that deposed Yingluck in 2014. Writing on Facebook, Yingluck challenged the judgement and said: “The debt of 10 billion baht is impossible for me to repay in a lifetime”.
Starting in 2011, Yingluck’s Pheu Thai government bought rice from farmers at up to 50% above the market rate, intending to withhold it from the world market and thus drive up the price. The result, however, was that other countries such as India and Vietnam increased their rice exports, the government was left with vast stockpiles of rice that it could not sell, and therefore it could not pay the farmers for the rice they had supplied.
Charges relating to Yingluck’s role in the rice scheme were originally filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission in 2014. As a result, she was impeached in 2015, and the Attorney General launched a criminal investigation into charges of dereliction of duty. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sentenced her to five years in prison, though she fled the country before the verdict was announced.
In 2016, the Ministry of Finance ordered Yingluck to repay ฿37.5 billion ($1 billion), though she appealed against that decision and her appeal was granted by the Central Administrative Court on 30th March 2021. That appeal verdict was quashed yesterday by the Supreme Administrative Court, though Yingluck’s fine was reduced to ฿10 billion.
The Supreme Court case related specifically to contracts for rice sales to private Chinese companies, arranged by the Thai Ministry of Commerce, which were falsely designated as non-competitive government-to-government deals. In its 2017 judgement against Yingluck, the Supreme Court ruled that she was aware that the government-to-government deals were fraudulent, though — in contrast to yesterday’s Supreme Administrative Court verdict — it did not hold her personally accountable for the financial losses incurred.