On May 21, 2025, Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court ordered former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra to pay 10 billion baht in compensation for financial losses stemming from her administration’s rice-pledging scheme, a decade-old agricultural subsidy programme. Yingluck, who has lived in self-imposed exile since 2017, responded to the ruling by asserting her lack of direct responsibility and criticizing the legal process as unjust.
The court based the compensation amount on an estimated 50% of the 20.06 billion baht in losses linked to government-to-government (G-to-G) rice sales. This ruling follows an appeal by the Ministry of Finance, which originally sought 35.7 billion baht in damages. The Central Administrative Court had previously declared the compensation order unlawful, citing a lack of clear evidence that Yingluck was directly responsible for the alleged mismanagement.
In a detailed response posted on her official Facebook page, Yingluck maintained that she neither designed nor implemented the full scope of the rice-pledging scheme and could not have been involved in every operational detail. She said the programme—launched as a signature policy of her Pheu Thai Party-led government—was aimed at enhancing rural livelihoods by supporting rice prices for approximately 20 million farming families.
The scheme, however, faced intense scrutiny for alleged corruption and mismanagement. Investigations found issues including substandard rice storage, misuse of foreign rice stocks, and falsified G-to-G contracts. According to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions, Yingluck was guilty of negligence in her supervisory role, a judgment that contributed to Thursday’s administrative ruling.
Yingluck disputed the fairness of being solely held accountable, arguing that multiple government agencies were involved in executing the scheme. She also questioned the post-coup management of rice stockpiles, claiming that nearly 19 million tonnes of rice were sold at steeply discounted prices after her government was ousted in May 2014, which allegedly resulted in greater financial losses—an action she says has not been investigated.
Despite the ruling being final, it remains unclear how the former prime minister will pay the ordered compensation. Some of her assets have been seized, including a Bangkok property, but no public auction has taken place.
Yingluck concluded her statement by reaffirming her intention to seek justice. “If an elected prime minister cannot access true justice, there won’t be any guarantee for the people,” she wrote. The court decision adds to a string of legal challenges she has faced since fleeing the country ahead of a five-year prison sentence handed down in 2017.
Officials and representatives from the Ministry of Finance and the Administrative Court system were present for the ruling in Bangkok. The case has drawn attention from both domestic and international observers as a test of Thailand’s handling of political accountability and judicial independence.
