[ad_1]
The prosecutor explained that “Sakulthorn Juangroongruangkit” has not yet been charged with bribery cases.
Date Dec 09, 2020 at 1:20 PM
The prosecutor explained that “Sakulthorn Chuengroongruangkit” had not yet been charged with bribery cases. Reveal Sheriff’s Resume Exam, Establish Separate Case, Accept 2 Defendants in First Case, Apply for “Adult Blocked” Payment 20 Million Baht
On December 9 and 20, Mr. Itthiphon Kaewthip, spokesman for the Attorney General, Mr. Chanchai Chalanon Niwat. And Mr. Prayut Petchkhun, deputy spokesman of the Attorney General’s Office Co-announces the case to present news, the prosecutor ordered not to sue and not to prosecute Mr. President of Real Asset Development Co., Ltd. Bribery of Royal staff Property Bureau Rey amount 20 million for said case This is a case between Mr. Isara Jaruwanichakul, the defendant and Mr. Prasit Abhai Phoncharn, the first defendant, Mr. Surakit Tangwituwanich, the second defendant.
Uploaded Joint falsification of official documents and teacher use. False government official AND demand, accept or jointly accept to receive property or any other benefit For you or others In exchange for motivating OR has induced fraudulent officials OR illegal Acting or not acting in their functions The incident occurred from March to November 2017 He continued in the area of Dusit Sub-District, Dusit District and Bang Kapi Sub-District, Huai Khwang District, in which case the court ordered the imprisonment of the first and second suspects on November 27, 62
Mr. Itthiphon said that in the early 1960s Mr. Prasit, who accused people 1 and Mr. Surakit, accused No. 2, jointly forged two copies of the official letter from the Government Property Office and They presented it to Mr. Sakulthon That the Property Office has land for rent for 2 commercial lots in Soi Ruamrudee and in the Chidlom Telephone Organization Headquarters area
Mr. Sakulthon Chuai agreed to hire Mr. Surakit, the second defendant, to act on the matter. For the employment contract amount of 500 million baht for Mr. Surakit to contact Mr. Isara Claim to be used to pay wages “Adult Lock” with the first payment in January. 60 for the amount of 5 million baht by Mr. Prasit, the first defendant, brought to the property office staff to make a false document and sent to Mr. Surakit to take to Mr. To confirm that the property has passed to the tenant
“On November 5, 2017, Mr. Sakulthon paid another 5 million baht and arranged an appointment for a contract that stated that Mr. Sakulthorn had the right to lease both land and asked the second defendant to expedite the process. Together with the issuance of documents inviting the company to attend the meeting That is why he makes Mr. Sakulthorn pay the second defendant in the amount of 10 million baht, total payment of 3 times, the amount of 20 million baht, but It turns out that on the date of the appointment, the meeting was canceled, Mr. Sakulthon made a refund. For the second defendant He has reimbursed 7 million baht, “said a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office.
Mr. Itthiporn said that the Property Office later became aware of the matter and therefore asked Mr. Isara to file a complaint with the Sheriff’s Office and issued warrants to arrest the two suspects, Mr. Surakit and Mr. Prasit. In which the defendant pleaded guilty The court ruled on November 27, 62, that the two defendants were imprisoned for 6 years and reduced to 3 years each because the defendants pleaded guilty to the benefits. On the part of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Special Forces for the Suppression of Corruption, 4 it has proposed to the Prosecutor of the Superior Court not to appeal. And he sent an opinion statement, a non-appeal order to the chief of police for his consideration, that the commander approved the order not to appeal the case, thus the final sentence
Mr. Chanchai said that the facts of the case, there were two suspects in relation to Mr. Sakulthorn. The prosecutor has ordered the two defendants on the charge to receive bribes. Mr. Sakulthorn is a witness butWhen it appears in court that Mr. Sakulthon may not be a legal victim. The investigating officer has prepared another case and is investigating the circumstances of Mr. Sakulthon, guilty of bribery or not. The prosecutor still cannot proceed if the investigating officer has completed the case and presented it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor was able to order additional examinations, so it appeared that the prosecutor did not prosecute or order to sue Mr. Sakulthon. Is not true
The reporter asked, were there any questions for the investigating officer about the current progress? Mr. Chanchai said that the police investigation process was independent. And it is a different part of the prosecutor That the prosecutor could not enter to pass the child But in the end, the results of the police investigation must be presented to the prosecutor so that he can also issue an opinion.
When asked whether the judgment of the court in the first sentence can be used as evidence against Mr. Sakulthorn or not? Mr. Chanchai said The court can decide to the extent that the prosecution or prosecution. As for the events that appear later, the investigator is investigating. And you can’t bring the trial as part of the witness. But the same facts can be followed by witnesses who seem to gather evidence.
Mr. Prayuth said that the news that the prosecutor ordered not to sue or prosecute Mr. Sakulthon was inaccurate because Mr. Sakulthorn was not the defendant at sentencing. If you ask why, I do not recommend additional tests. Because the investigating officer is working Therefore, unable to intervene And important things, the court’s verdict only has two defendants, who the defendants confessed. Therefore, there is no questioning of witnesses, so the new case will not be at trial.
[ad_2]
