Bangkok: Academics point out that the "Saksiam" case is subject to the same standards as the "Thanathorn" case, emphasizing that the same principle applies.

According to Thai News Agency, academics have highlighted that the National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) dismissal of the Sak Siam case aligns with the standard applied by the public prosecutor in not indicting Thanathorn, underscoring the consistent application of principles.

Assistant Professor Wanwichit Boonproong, a lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, Rangsit University, commented on the NACC's decision to dismiss the case against Mr. Saksayam Chidchob concerning allegations of intentionally concealing his asset declaration. He noted that such occurrences are not unusual, drawing parallels to other political cases involving concealed shareholdings. He referenced the case of Mr. Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, where the Attorney General's Office dismissed charges related to media shares, despite a previous Constitutional Court ruling disqualifying him as a Member of Parliament.

Both cases share a commonality: the Constitutional Court's rulings on qualifications. However, when entering other organizational processes like the NACC or the public prosecutor's office, different legal issues must be considered. The Constitutional Court's ruling cannot be automatically used as a conclusion in these cases.

Assistant Professor Wanwichit further explained that, in Mr. Saksiam's case, the Constitutional Court found him still holding a partnership status in Buricharoen Construction Limited Partnership, leading to his ministerial position's termination. When reviewed by the NACC, the focus shifted to whether there was intentional asset concealment. The NACC assessed evidence, such as share transfers before office assumption, and concluded no wrongdoing. Concurrently, they are investigating allegations of power abuse, but no direct interference evidence has been found.

In Mr. Thanathorn's case, despite the Constitutional Court's ruling on media shares, the prosecutor's office required proof of intent and knowledge of qualification lack. The evidence was deemed insufficient, leading to a non-prosecution order.

Assistant Professor Wanwichit emphasized that both cases illustrate the justice system's consistent standards. The Constitutional Court addressed qualifications, while the NACC and public prosecutor focused on intent and offense circumstances, which demand higher proof standards. The non-prosecution of Mr. Thanathorn and Mr. Saksiam at these levels aligns with legal principles.

Academics also noted that social criticism might focus on "case-by-case analysis," potentially causing misunderstandings about justice standards across organizations.