Bangkok: The Secretary-General of the Council of State has revealed that the appeal by the Office of the Attorney-General in Thaksin Shinawatra’s lese majeste case will not impact his request for a suspended sentence. It was emphasized that Thaksin must serve one-third of his sentence, equating to six months, before being eligible for a suspension. The process of asset seizure in the Shin Corp share case will proceed as planned, with assets transferred to the state. The Department of Enforcement will determine the timeline for this transfer.

According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Pakorn Nilprapan, Secretary-General of the Council of State, addressed concerns about the potential impact of the Attorney-General’s appeal on Thaksin’s ability to request a suspended sentence. He explained that while he does not anticipate the suspension of the sentence to be revoked, he has yet to review the details thoroughly. Consequently, he refrained from making definitive statements to avoid possible violations.

Mr. Pakorn further clarified that an appeal does not equate to a verdict, indicating that the case remains within the legal process. He highlighted that his insights were based on limited legal background. The Secretary-General reiterated the requirement that a person must have served a third of their sentence or been imprisoned for six months to qualify for a suspended sentence. This aligns with the principle of serving time before applying for suspension, with no minimum prison term mandated for the procedure.

Regarding the possibility of Thaksin serving as an election campaigner if released on parole, Mr. Pakorn deemed the query speculative and requested further review of the details. He refrained from commenting to avoid potential inaccuracies.

In response to questions about the Ministry of Finance’s actions if the Supreme Court overturns Thaksin’s tax case, requiring him to pay 17.6 billion baht in taxes from the Shin Corporation shares sale, Mr. Pakorn indicated that the Ministry would simply seek an execution order from the court. This step is described as a routine procedure without special stipulations.

On the topic of asset seizure, Mr. Pakorn confirmed that standard legal procedures would apply, with assets becoming state property. This is portrayed as a typical practice rather than an exceptional case.