Failure to take action against corruption in the government-to-government (G2G) rice sales was cited as the key factor behind the Supreme Court's decision to hand down a five-year prison sentence to former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions said in its ruling that it found Yingluck was aware of irregularities in the rices sale contracts but failed to take action, allowing others to exploit the policy for personal gains.
According to the ruling, her inaction and failure to suspend the scheme was in violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Code and the 1999 constitution's section on corruption prevention and suppression.
The court cited an Aug 25 ruling in the G2G case which found the rice contracts to be unlawful.
The guilty ruling was limited to Yingluck's role in the G2G rice contracts only, and not the domestic implementation of the scheme.
The court also found that damages incurred by the rice scheme, including missing stockpiles and rotten grains, occurred during the implementation of the Yingluck administration's rice-pledging policy.
But the National Rice Policy Committee which was then chaired by Yingluck rolled out measures aimed at preventing such damages and made adjustments when problems arose, the court said.
So it could not determine whether damages incurred during the pledging scheme's implementation were also caused by Yingluck's negligence, according to the court.
The court said it was not convinced by Yingluck's legal argument that the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) was not authorised to investigate her because the rice-pledging scheme was a government policy declared before the House and she was required to implement it.
The court said while it was not within its jurisdiction to rule if the rice-pledging policy was legitimate or appropriate, Yingluck's use of power was governed by the checks-and-balances principle.
"Even though the rice scheme was implemented in line with the policy statement, irregularities that occurred during its implementation were subject to examination.
"In this case the defendant was accused of malfeasance in office, not of implementing a flawed policy. So it was within the NACC's jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry against the defendant. And the prosecution was authorised to file a lawsuit," said the court.
On July 17, 2014 the NACC voted unanimously to endorse its findings.
The commission alleged that Yingluck had committed dereliction of duty by looking the other way as irregularities plagued the rice scheme.
The NACC forwarded a summary of its investigation against Yingluck to the Office of the Attorney-General, along with the recommendation that she be indicted in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions.
The prosecutor made its indictment decision on Feb 19, 2015.
Yingluck had denied all charges and was released on bail with a surety of 30 million baht.
