The Criminal Court for Corruption Cases sentenced Chaiwat Limlikit-aksorn to 3 years in prison for neglecting to perform his duties according to The Anti-Corruption Act, Section 123/1, in the case of the disappearance of Karen “Billy” since 2014. Before bail was granted in the amount of 8 hundred thousand baht, as for the other three subordinates, the court dismissed the case, revealing that important evidence on the left temple bone found underwater at Kaeng Krachan Dam still did not clearly indicate that it was Billy. While the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Director-General of the National Parks Department Prasanong confirmed that this case has no problem with Chaiwat’s work because the case is not yet final.
At the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases on Sept. 28, the court handed down a verdict in the prosecutor’s case. The Special Prosecutor’s Office, Special Case Division 1, is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against Mr. Chaiwat. Limlikit Aksorn Director of the National Park Office, defendant number 1 and four people in the case of the disappearance of Mr. Porlajee or Billy Rakchongcharoen, a human rights activist of Karen descent. After being attacked by National Park Protection Unit officials Kaeng Krachan No. 6 (Khao Ma Rao Dan), Phetchaburi Province, detained on charges of forest theft. The middle item was wild honey. Then Mr. Porlajee Or did Billy disappear? While the arrest team claimed they had already been released. The incident occurred in April 2014.
In this case, the plaintiff alleges that in 2014, the four defendants worked together to arrest Mr. Porlajee or Billy, but the four defendants did not act according to their authority. Mr. Billy was not detained with the consignment. Kaeng Krachan Police Station or the official who has the power to take legal action. But Mr. Billy was detained along with the confiscated items to an unknown location. Using a gun to restrain someone in a pickup truck is rape, restraint, or confinement without freedom of the body. Later, the four defendants jointly killed Mr. Billy with premeditation. Because the first defendant had conflicts and anger with each other before. The four defendants then jointly cremated the corpse and collected the remains from the cremation in a 200 liter oil drum and dumped them into the water near the suspension bridge. Kaeng Krachan Dam In order to destroy evidence to conceal the case, the incidents that occurred in Huai Mae Phriang Subdistrict, Kaeng Krachan District, Phetchaburi Province and Phi Nong Subdistrict, Kaeng Krachan District, Phetchaburi Province are related to each other. In this case, all four defendants deny it. During the consideration, Mr. Billy’s child and mother asked to join as plaintiffs with the prosecutor.
The court has considered the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant along the way of investigation. It is seen that the plaintiff sued for wrongful performance or omission of duty. Don’t bring Mr. Billy. Along with the seized items, they will be sent to the authorized officials to take legal action. To cause damage to anyone or act or refrain from performing duties dishonestly. The evidence of the plaintiff and co-plaintiffs can be heard that the first defendant did not act according to his authority. Defendant No. 1’s actions were guilty as per the charges. Defendants No. 2-3 had no special intention to commit the crime, and Defendant No. 4 had no intention to support the commission of the offence. Therefore, there is no offense of conspiracy to commit rape. Detain or imprison etc. Although the statements and behavior of the four defendants were suspicious in many respects In addition, the route that the four defendants claim to have traveled after Mr. Billy’s release. CCTV cameras on the route that had to be passed did not detect the car that the four defendants drove past. But returned to find the car that the four defendants used to run to the Khao Sam Yot checkpoint on another route. But only the statements of the four defendants which are dubious will not be used to punish the defendants.
Proving guilt requires solid evidence to prove that a wrongdoing has been committed and that the four defendants are the perpetrators. The evidence of the plaintiff and co-plaintiff consisted only of CCTV footage indicating that the statements of the four defendants were dubious. But the CCTV footage from the route to Khao Sam Yot checkpoint was not clear enough to confirm wrongdoing. In addition, there is no evidence, including personal witnesses, physical evidence, or forensic evidence, to confirm that the four defendants took Mr. Billy to the Khao Sam Yot checkpoint. The evidence was therefore not weighty enough to establish that the four defendants committed the crime of conspiring to kill Mr. Billy with premeditation. As for the results of the mitochondrial DNA test, A left temporal bone fragment found underwater in Kaeng Krachan Dam belongs to a person who passed it down from mother to child. But it could not be determined which person it belonged to. Analysis of the bones found to be of a person aged 20 years or older was unable to reveal gender, height and ethnicity, which are important elements in establishing a person’s identity. The use of a family tree in the results of a mitochondrial DNA test also involves the fact that it is not circumscribed, can cause inaccuracies, and cannot be confirmed by a doctor or forensic examiner. Therefore, it was not possible to determine that the left temporal bone belonged to Mr. Billy. It cannot be proven that Mr. Billy has died. causing the elements of the offense of murder to others to be incomplete. The offense was charged with conspiring to burn a corpse.
When it could not be proven that the bones found belonged to Mr. Billy In addition, the plaintiff and the three co-plaintiffs have no testimony or close witness evidence or connection that the four defendants dumped the seized oil tanks in the dam. Therefore, there were no witnesses to punish the four defendants as well.
The verdict was that the first defendant was guilty of an offense under the 1999 Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, Section 123/1. The first defendant’s actions were a single offense against many laws. Punished according to the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption Act of 1999, Section 123/1, which is the section of the law that has the most severe punishment, so he was sentenced to 3 years in prison and the charges against defendants 2-4 were later dismissed. Mr. Chaiwat applied for bail. The court granted permission in the amount of 800,000 baht along with an order prohibiting anyone from leaving the country unless permission was granted by the court.
After hearing the verdict Mr. Chaiwat revealed that Thank you for the kindness of the court and thank you to the lawyer team. who was bailed with a security of 800,000 baht, the original condition was not to leave the country Always confirmed that it was not related to Mr. Billy’s disappearance. But he was punished for releasing Mr. Billy in the middle of the road, to 3 years imprisonment without parole. He is preparing to file an appeal regarding the offense of Section 157 in refraining from taking the accused to hand over to the investigating officer. By the behavior of general park department officials There is a risk that everyone will be guilty of an offense according to Section 157 because we live in that community and try to live with the community without quarreling. For example, in this case it was about wild honey, which according to the old law, villagers or communities could not sell the forest products. But now a new law has been passed giving people the right to farm. Collecting forests is subject to the law.
“I confirm that I have no intention of harming anyone and that I have never arrested an ethnic group. Even those who harmed the forest I was caring for until it was in ruins. In this case, I still have a chance to fight at the appeal level according to the procedures,” Mr. Chaiwat said.
While Mrs. Phinnapha or Muenor Prueksaphan, wife of Mr. Billy To the point of crying after hearing the verdict. Confirmed that he wanted to find her husband to relieve his frustration. Where has Mr. Billy gone? As for the co-plaintiff’s lawyer, he confirmed that he would definitely appeal this case. Because the court punished only the offense of Section 157 in the case of not taking Mr. Billy to the investigative officials according to the legal procedures after the arrest. This case goes back to the beginning, that Mr. Billy is still a missing person. It is the duty of government officials to prove Mr. Billy’s disappearance.
On the same day, Mr. Atthaphon Charoenchansa, Director-General of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, revealed the case of corruption and misconduct at the Criminal Court. Read the verdict in the murder case of Mr. Porlajee or Billy Rakchongcharoen, with Mr. Chaiwat ordered to be imprisoned. Limlikit Aksorn for 3 years without parole: He has already reported it. In this case, there is no problem for performing duties because the case has not yet ended. You can still fight in court.
Mr. Chatuporn Buruspat, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, said that in terms of performing his duties as Director of the National Park Office There shouldn’t be a problem because it is a court of first instance. And the case that was decided was Section 157, a matter of not taking Mr. Billy to the police. It was not a matter of carrying and destroying a corpse as charged and the court granted bail. You can fight in other courts.
“As Mr. Chaiwat is a subordinate. I gave encouragement to continue working. The agency will provide assistance as appropriate. Mr. Chaiwat is a person who is determined and dedicated to his work,” Mr. Chatuporn said.
2023-09-28 22:22:00
#Jailed #years #Chaiwat #case #Billys #disappearance #mistreatment #acquitted #abduction #murder
