Prosecutor explained, “Sakulthorn Juangroongruangkit” was not yet accused of bribery cases.
Date 09 Dec 2020 at 1:20 PM
–
Prosecutor explained, “Sakulthorn Chuengroongruangkit” was not yet the accused of bribery cases. Revealing the Sheriff’s Resume Examination, setting up a separate case, accepting 2 defendants in the first case, calling for payment “Locked Adult” 20 million baht
On December 9, 20, Mr. Itthiphon Kaewthip, a spokesman for the Office of the Attorney General, Mr. Chanchai Chalanon Niwat. And Mr. Prayut Petchkhun, Deputy Spokesman for the Office of the Attorney General Co-announces the case of presenting the news, the prosecutor ordered not to sue and not prosecute Mr. Sakulthorn Jungrungruangkit President of Real Asset Development Co., Ltd. Bribing staff at the Royal Property Bureau King amount 20 million by the said case It is the case between Mr. Isara Jaruwanichakul, the accused, and Mr. Prasit Abhai Phonchan, the first accused, Mr. Surakit Tangwituwanich, the second accused.
Charged Jointly forging official documents and using the master Fake government official And jointly demand, accept or accept to receive property or any other benefit For yourself or others In return for motivating Or has induced fraudulent officials Or illegal To act or not to act in their duties The incident occurred March – November 2017 Continued in the area of Dusit Subdistrict, Dusit District and Bang Kapi Subdistrict, Huai Khwang District, with such cases, the court ordered the imprisonment for the 1st and 2nd suspect on November 27, 2019.
Mr. Itthiphon said that in the early 60’s Mr. Prasit, who accused the people 1 and Mr. Surakit, accused No. 2, jointly forged two copies of the Government Property Bureau’s official letter and presented to Mr. Sakulthon That the Office of Property has land for rent for 2 plots of business in Soi Ruamrudee and in Chidlom Telephone Organization Headquarters
Mr. Sakulthon Chuai agreed to hire Mr. Surakit, the second accused, to act on the matter. In the amount of employment contract of 500 million baht for Mr. Surakit to contact Mr. Isara Claiming to be used to pay wages “Adult lock” with the first payment in January. In the amount of 5 million baht, Mr. Prasit, the first accused, brought to the property office staff to make a forged document and sent to Mr. Surakit to take it to Mr. Sakulthorn. To confirm that the property has passed the tenant
“On November 5, 2017, Mr. Sakulthon paid another 5 million baht and made an appointment for a contract stating that Mr. Sakulthorn had the right to lease both land plots and asked the second accused to hasten the process. Along with issuing documents inviting the company to attend the meeting Therefore makes Mr. Sakulthorn Pay the second accused 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 appointment date, the meeting was canceled, Mr. Sakulthon made a refund. By the second accused Has refunded 7 million baht, “said a spokesman for the Office of the Attorney General.
Mr Itthiphon said that later the Property Office learned about the matter, therefore asked Mr Isara to complain with the Sheriff’s Office and issued warrants to arrest the two suspects, Mr. Surakit and Mr. Prasit. In which the accused pleaded guilty The court ruled on November 27, 62, the two defendants were imprisoned for 6 years and reduced to 3 years each because the defendants pleaded guilty to the benefits. By the Prosecutor’s Office of the Special Forces Suppression of Corruption 4 has proposed the Prosecutor of the High Court not appeal. And sent an opinion statement, an order not to appeal to the police chief for consideration, which the commander approved the order not to appeal the case, therefore the final judgment
Mr. Chanchai said that the facts of the case, there were two suspects in connection with Mr. Sakulthorn. The prosecutor has ordered the two defendants for the charge of receiving bribes. Mr. Sakulthorn is a witness butWhen it appears in court that Mr. Sakulthon may not be a legal victim. The inquiry official has set up another case and is investigating the circumstances of Mr. Sakulthon, guilty of bribery or not. The prosecutor is still unable to proceed if the investigation officer has completed the case and submitted it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor was able to order additional examinations, so as it appeared that the prosecutor did not prosecute, or did not order to sue Mr. Sakulthon. Not true
The reporter asked whether there was an inquiry to the inquiry official about the current progress, Mr Chanchai said the police investigation process was independent. And is a different part of the prosecutor Which the prosecutor could not go in to pass the child But in the end, the results of the police investigation must be submitted to the prosecutor to make an opinion as well.
When asked if Can the judgment of the court in the first phrase be used as evidence against Mr. Sakulthorn or not? Mr. Chanchai said The court can decide to the extent that the allegation or prosecution. As for the facts that appear after that, the inquiry official is investigating. And cannot take the judgment as part of the witness But the same facts can be followed by witnesses that appear to gather evidence.
Mr. Prayuth said the news that the prosecutor ordered not to sue or prosecute Mr. Sakulthon was inaccurate because Mr. Sakulthorn was not the accused in the sentence. If asking why, I do not recommend additional examinations. Because the inquiry official is working Therefore unable to intervene And important things, the verdict of the court has only two defendants, which the defendants confessed. Therefore there is no examination of witnesses, so the new case will not be in the judgment
– .
