[ad_1]
The Supreme Court ruled according to the Court of Appeals, 50 years in prison, Juthamas, former governor of TAT, accepted bribes, held a film festival of the 40-year-old daughter.
On November 16, 2020, Matichon reported that in the Central Criminal Court, the case of corruption and misconduct The court reads the judgment of the Supreme Court, case number Black Or Tor. 46/2016 that the Prosecutor of the Case Office Special 2 is the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. Ms. Juthamas Siriwan 73 years old, former governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) and Ms. Jitti Sopasiriwan 46 year old daughter
As the defendant 1-2 in the crime of being an employee to claim or accept property OR any benefit for oneself OR someone else unfairly For any action on duty Regardless of whether it likes or is illegal, an employee refrains from performing their functions illegally to cause harm OR perform tasks dishonestly, be an official of a government agency, perform any action with the aim of not conducting fair price competition to facilitate any bidder being a contractor for a government agency.
And he is a supporter of wrongdoing under Articles 6, 11 of the Government Agency Employee Offenses Act 1959 and the Proposed Government Agencies Related Crimes Act (Hua Auction BE2542, Section 12
Of the case of receiving compensation for the husband-wife of the United States Film entrepreneur Have the rights to organize the Bangkok International Film Festival 2002-2007 (or year 2002-2007) worth more than 60 million baht.
Prosecutors filed a lawsuit on August 25, 2015, which both defendants denied.
In this case, the Court of First Instance reads the verdict of March 29, ’17 according to which the conduct of Mrs. Juthamas, the first accused, is the act or refraining from performing functions illegally. What is an offense? Act on bidding to government agencies (Hua Auction) BE 2542, Section 12 and wrongly claim to receive assets under the Law on crimes in organizations or agencies. State of the state in 1959, Section 6, 12 to incarcerate Ms. Juthamas, the 1st defendant for a total of 11 counts, 6 years each, for a total of 66 years.
But by including the punishment for all charges according to the law Up to 50 years in jail
And the imprisonment of Ms. Jittisopha, the second defendant, a total of 11 charges as well, each krathong for 4 years, with a total of 44 years for confiscating the crimes of US $ 1,822,494 and the resulting interest for the state as well. Where the money is deposited in a foreign bank The court determined the value of the property ordered for confiscation. The total value is 62,724,776 baht.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals, Department of Corruption and Misconduct Cases With the judgment of May 8, 62, the sentence was modified to imprison Ms. Jittisopha, second defendant, for a total of 10 charges (of the Court of First Instance sentenced to 11 kratongs), each for 4 years, totaling 40 prison terms. year
As for Mrs. Jutamas, the first accused would be imprisoned according to the judgment of the Court of First Instance, 11 charges every 6 years and a total of 66 years in prison. The maximum sentence of imprisonment for 50 years and the confiscation order of the Court of First Instance for confiscation of crimes exceeding US $ 1.8 million in foreign accounts was dismissed.
Because it was a diagnosis beyond the request Due to this case, the prosecutor and the plaintiff did not have a request for confiscation of the medium or money at the end of the action and the transitory provisions under Section 52 of the Criminal Procedure Law for Corruption and 2016 Misconduct sets out all corruption and misconduct cases filed prior to date. This law enters into force. To enforce the law that was in use first
Therefore, this case must comply with the provisions of ordinary criminal law. Applies to this case the order of the Court of First Instance that applies the measure of confiscation of property in the dishonest case, whether the plaintiff has a request or not in accordance with Article 31 (2), Article 32 (2 ) and article 33, paragraph one. It is a judgment beyond the request at the end of the plaintiff’s claim.
For today the court was presented Ms. Juthamas and Ms. Jittisopha, accused 1-2, was detained at the Central Correctional Institution for Women. Without reaching the court bail
The Supreme Court examines the case for consultation and has a valid verdict according to the Court of Appeal.
[ad_2]
