[ad_1]
Later, Mr. Watchara revealed that he received this sentencing document in the mail. Addressed to him Without the name of the sender, who 2 people were already convicted in the year 62, is an official of the Crown Property Bureau and guests Mediator
However, if the document is summarized for ease of understanding, it is actually agreed at 500 million baht, but 20 million baht is the initial operational fee in coordination.
When asked if there really was bribery Related people trying to bribe Why is there no demand? This is the question that comes back to the prosecutor, Mr. Prayuth said that after the incident, he immediately examined the case, it seems that when the spokesman took the phrase to look briefly at that phrase, the Sheriff’s Office sent it to the prosecutor’s office. Special The Department for the Suppression of Corruption 4 considered in the sentence that there were two accusations: Mr. Prasit Apai Phonchan, the first accused who was an official of the Property Office, and Mr. Surakit Tangvituwanich, the second accused, was a independent land broker without Mr. Sakul’s name. Dharma in idioms
In principle, when there is no name of Mr. Sakulthorn in the expression, therefore, say that The prosecutor did not sue Mr. Sakulthon, so this is not true. Because the prosecutor will consider the individual case of the accused that the investigator has compiled and presented to the prosecutor. We cannot consider other expressions.
And in the investigator’s report it was clearly recorded that Mr. Sakulthon was in the process of collecting evidence for further actions, which means that the expression had been split. When separated, prosecutors are not required to recommend prosecution in this regard.
In today’s press conference it was clarified that In the part of the accused, 2 people who ordered it. He had confessed Joint falsification of official documents and use of falsified official documents AND jointly demand, accept or accept to receive property or any other benefit For you or others In exchange for motivating OR has induced fraudulent officials OR illegal To fulfill or not in their duty , when confessed, the court can judge at all Without finding out, the verdict that was read earlier is a reading of the prosecutor’s accusation. Because there is no questioning of witnesses
And on Mr. Sakulthon’s part, it’s not that the prosecutor didn’t prosecute. Don’t order, don’t sue But this is a case that does not appear in idioms. And the investigating officer made it clear that Separate procedures And that is asked Has requested the official investigation or not. I must clarify that Investigation officer’s investigation process As an independent power I cannot go to the hemlock
Watchara asked that when the verdict was drawn up according to the prosecutor’s indictment, it was suspected that when the prosecutor made it clear that Mr. Sakulthorn was the person who would give the 20 million money listed in the prosecutor’s indictment, he would have to have the name of Mr. Sakul. Thur was in the language of the investigating officer from the beginning. So why didn’t the prosecutor order the police? Or investigative officer Possessive idioms That when it became clear that Mr. Sakulthon gave money to said government officials, why not sue as a sole expression, why not protest?
Prayuth stated that the prosecutor’s work There will be a law that The prosecutor will consider the expressions of the investigation. And I won’t be able to sue anyone other than the defendant who was in the expression and asked if he saw that there was a reference to Mr. Sakulthorn, why wasn’t it picked up at the same time? I should explain that. When investigating officer completes expression AND makes cover investigation report What’s the story in summary? Who should you sue? Or not to sue anyone In which Mr. Sakulthon has concluded that Separate Operations, and this is clearly said to be separate You cannot order this piece Because the exam is not over yet AND is in the process of collecting evidence.
When asked, but at trial Mr. Sakulthon’s behavior will be described in detail, Mr. Prayuth stated that this fact is the fact that the second defendant’s testimony must also hear Mr. Sakulthon. You must have the investigating officer make the expression before
But when you were involved with Mr. Sakulthon, why didn’t Mr. Sakulthon come to confirm it? Why can’t it be included in the same sentence? Two of the defendants named, the investigating officer, we saw that Mr. Sakulthorn was referred in the prosecutor’s criminal proceeding, who claimed that it was a related case? If necessary, prosecute Then advise the investigating officer to prosecute that person by filing the procedure. But on this issue, if the attorney general should recommend prosecution. But that is not recommended Because the police said Separate investigation
When asked on what date the police made the complaint filed against the two defendants, in what month, Mr. Prayuth said that April 2019
What Mr. Watchara Said From that day until today, almost a year Mr. Prayuth, who was curious if the prosecutor ordered the investigating officer to follow up on the case, said that the prosecutor would not retract the prosecution process. investigation by the investigating officer. But if the sentence has been sent, there are issues that need to be investigated. Prosecutors will order. Also, there is no law to do so.
