The Department of Special Investigation’s (DSI) move to quickly link opposition People’s Party (PP) MP Pawoot Pongvitayapanu to a financial trail in the illegal forex trading controversy has triggered public suspicions.
The unusual and abrupt timing of its report appears to be a counterattack against those who challenged the Digital Economy and Society Ministry’s TH-AI Passport scheme, including Mr Pawoot.
It seems evident that the way the DSI is handling the case is questionable.
The agency, while insisting that Mr Pawoot was not a suspect, highlighted his name, as if to suggest that he was on a list, while keeping the real suspects’ identities confidential.
To support its allegation, the agency said there were dubious transactions totalling 28 million baht from the firm in question to the MP’s accounts a few years ago.
Shortly after, a video clip allegedly showing Mr Pawoot discussing trading with the QSR firm and the benefits he gained was circulated online.
As forex trading is illegal in Thailand, with the Bank of Thailand not issuing licences to any retail brokers, the clip could land the MP in serious legal trouble.
The immediate effect of the report, which discredits the opposition MP, could be perceived as shifting public attention from the 1.6-billion-baht TH-AI Passport scheme.
The DSI denied allegations of foul play in the move, saying it is not politically motivated.
Instead, the agency said it has followed the case for six months and that the release was just a coincidence. For those who criticise the government and its public policies, the DSI’s move could be perceived as legal harassment.
On Wednesday, the agency said it had formally accepted the forex investment fraud case as a special investigation under the Computer Crime Act 2007 and Mr Pawoot, together with some other figures, is summoned to meet investigators on July 2.
The DSI’s case caused a commotion in the PP.
Mr Pawoot posted on his Facebook page yesterday, explaining that he has disappeared from the public eye because he needs time to compile supporting documents from banks and other financial institutions to clear his name.
As the public watches the case proceed with suspicion, it should not be forgotten that the DSI’s enthusiasm in this case appears to be in sharp contrast to other cases it has handled, ie, senate poll misconduct, Khao Kradong land grab, illegal pork import, petrol oil hoarding, to name but a few. And that is a disappointment.
This doesn’t mean that the MP should not be scrutinised, as long as the procedure is fair, transparent and free of political bias.
The DSI must prove that it can handle the case professionally, calling a spade a spade, to maintain public trust and confidence.
Anything less than that and the agency will have to face the public and risk being perceived as a political weapon.
