The Supreme Court dismissed the Roadshow case and revoked the arrest warrant for Yingluck.

Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Politicians Unanimous resolution dismisses roadshow case From the hearing of evidence There is no circumstance of neglecting to perform duties - malfeasance in performing duties - benefiting the private sector. By using a special method of hiring the private sector. Ready to revoke the arrest warrant for former Prime Minister "Yingluck Shinawatra" Supreme Court Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions There was a unanimous vote of 9 to 0 to dismiss the case filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, or NACC, as the plaintiff. Miss Yingluck Shinawatra, former Prime Minister, and a group of 6 people consisting of Mr. Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisarn, Mr. Suranan Vejjajiva, Matichon Public Company Limited, Siam Sport Syndicate Public Company Limited. and Mr. Rawi Lothong and ordered the revocation of the arrest warrant for Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra for offenses related to the proposed roadshow project. which is not an urgent case While holding the position of Prime Minister Use discretion to order approval of the central budget. There is a common intention to hire by special methods which is an improper use of discretion. There is also a joint effort to get the Cabinet to pass a resolution exempting signing contracts before receiving periodic payments, even though the conditions are not met. Caused damage to the Secretariat of the Prime Minister in the amount of 239,700,000 baht. The court pointed out that defendants 1-3 are not guilty under the Criminal Code, Sections 151 and 157, and are not guilty under the constitutional law regarding the NACC of 2018, Section 192 and Section 123 /1, including no The offenses related to the Act on Crimes Concerning Bidding to Government Agencies, 1999, Sections 12 and 13, do not appear to involve a conspiracy. Fraudulent or dishonest? Or did anyone give the order? or interfere with the determination of the median price and the hiring committee by special means. And when the matter was known, there was still an order to delay the payment of wages. and points out that defendants 4-6 are not guilty according to the complaint either. without violating Section 86 of the Criminal Code. From the examination of witnesses and evidence, the court pointed out that the defendants 1-3 used the central budget of 40 million baht to organize the roadshow project. It is the implementation of the policy stated to Parliament. The court has the power to decide on the use of the budget in order to comply with government policy and related regulations. This project arose from the joint consideration of various agencies. It is not Ms. Yingluck's decision. and did not set a tight deadline Just to provide a justification for using the central budget. In addition, the Director of the Budget Bureau is of the opinion that it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to approve this central budget. Therefore, it is a judgment made based on the factual information available at that time. In addition, organizing a road show project Happened in a very short period of time. It also mentioned the behavior of Mr. Niwatthamrong Bunsongpaisarn and Mr. Suranan Vejjajiva that it does not appear that they were involved or wrongfully advised. In the process of proposing and approving the central budget in action and there was no evidence of joint intervention or orders Select Matichon Company and Siam Sport Company as project contractors in advance before starting the contract. Nor does it appear that any specific characteristics have been specified in order to benefit or specifically select or discourage other bidders. At the same time, from the investigation of the facts, it was found that It was seen that Mr. Suranan did not act. in a way that directs or motivates or provides special support And no one ordered the selection of the two private companies as contractors. which the procurement process uses special methods It is in accordance with the conditions of the project's implementation in a short period of time. which is a condition that can be achieved according to lega l regulations Therefore, the bidding method was not used. According to the allegation, there is therefore a lack of special intent. In performing or refraining from performing duties regarding project approval. to cause damage to the Prime Minister's Secretariat Most importantly After the coup d'état The Secretary-General of the Prime Minister ordered the appointment of a committee to examine the said project. The committee saw that the roadshow project It complies with the regulations of the Office of the Prime Minister regarding supplies. Therefore, disbursement was approved. Consistent with the investigation of tort liability. It was found that there were no officials who violated government agencies. Therefore, it can be heard that Mr. Suranun did not refrain from performing his duties. For projects in another 10 provinces with a budget of 200 million baht, it is a very short process. There is not enough time to use the tender method. and meets the conditions according to the regulations of the Office o f the Prime Minister and Minister regarding supplies as well. As for defendants 4-6, from the facts of the investigation it cannot be heard that the defendant was a supporter of the offence. In the case of dividing the provinces of Matichon Company and Siam Sport Company, Follow the procurement process and to prepare presentations. Therefore, it is not considered to be a mutual agreement between the auction house. Therefore, he is not guilty according to the complaint. The panel of judges unanimously decided to dismiss the case. Source: Thai News Agency