Bangkok, The Corruption Criminal Court sentenced four former Huai Khwang police officers to 5 years in prison for extorting money from Taiwanese internet idols. Electronic cigarette knot Not carrying a passport; charges against 2 other former police officers dismissed

The Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct cases read the verdict in the prosecutor’s case. The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Suppression of Corruption is the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit. Pol. Lt. Col. Yodrit and a group of six people, former police officers from Huai Khwang Metropolitan Police Station, are defendants on charges of acting or neglecting to perform their duties illegally. join together to receive or agree to receive property or any other benefits

In the case on January 5, 2023, all the defendants were police officers on duty at a checkpoint. In front of the Chinese Embassy, the 2nd defendant noticed a car with suspicious characteristics and signaled to stop for the 4th and 6th defendants to inspect, with the 1st and 3rd defendants living together in the area. It was found that A group of passengers had three e-cigarettes in their possession, which are prohibited goods from entering the Kingdom of Thailand according to the Customs Act. and being a foreigner cannot present a passport or any other evidence that Have you entered the Kingdom of Thailand legally or not?

Then defendants 1-6 jointly requested to receive the money. Or agreeing to receive property in the amount of 27,000 baht in cash from Mr. P., who is one of the above group of foreigners, in order to avoid being prosecuted, Mr. P. is therefore forced to deliver the amount of 27,000 baht to the third defendant. Then, the defendant no. 1-2 therefore ordered the release of Mr. P. and his group from the checkpoint without taking legal action against Mr. P. and his group in any way. Please punish the defendants according to their crimes. And request that the amount of 27,000 baht that defendants 1-6 obtained from the offense be confiscated to belong to the state if the 6 defendants are unable to deliver the said amount because of the nature of the things that the court will order to confiscate or have. Orders forfeited, cannot be delivered, are lost or cannot be recovered for any reason. or the thing has been sold or transferred or the pursuit of compensation will be unreasonably difficult. Or if there is any other appropriate reason, please order all six defendants to jointly pay the amount of 27,000 baht instead.

The case has a problem that must be determined as to whether the six defendants committed the offense or jointly committed the offense as per the charges. It was seen that the plaintiff had Mr. P., the victim, as an important witness who testified in accordance with the recorded testimony given to the investigative officer, stating that On the night of the incident, the witness and his friend were searched by police officers stationed in front of the Chinese Embassy. From searching witnesses and friends Three e-cigarettes were found, and when asked to check their passports among the witnesses, only one person was carrying the original passport. The rest had photos on their cell phones. The police officer informed that Witnesses and those breaking the law are in possession of e-cigarettes. Those who do not carry a passport must be taken to the police station and may be detained for 2-3 days or may be imprisoned. The witness tried to negotiate with the police to release the witness and the group. Until finally, the police officer told the witness to pay 8,000 baht each for having 3 e-cigarettes in his possession, and the witness and 3 people who did not carry their passports another 3,000 baht, totaling 27,000 baht. In exchange for the witness’s release, he paid. 27,000 baht was given to the said police officer.

Witnesses were able to recognize the faces of three police officers who came to negotiate with witnesses, namely defendants 2-4. In addition, while coming to testify at the court, Mr. P. identified defendants 2-4 through the video conferencing system. Accurately

As for the first defendant, although he claimed that at the time of the incident he was on duty in a patrol car 30 meters away, he did not come to talk or know about the incident. But it appears from the testimony of the 3rd defendant that while searching Mr. P., the 3rd defendant walked up to the 1st defendant to report it to the 1st defendant, who is the leader of the operation team. After that, Defendant No. 1 said that Defendant No. 2 could use his discretion to make decisions because Defendant No. 2 was also the leader of the group. The facts therefore indicate that the first defendant, as the head of the operation, must be aware of and be responsible for the incident that occurred and cannot deny responsibility.

As for the 4th defendant, it appears that the 4th defendant was the one who searched the victims. In addition, Mr. P. responded to the question of the 4th defendant’s lawyer who asked the court for permission to ask: While Mr. P. was talking and negotiating with the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant, the 4th defendant walked around and sometimes came to talk to Mr. P. and others that Singaporeans traveling to Thailand must apply for a visa, so he believed that The 4th defendant was aware of and participated in the wrongdoing through the actions of the 1st and 4th defendants. It is therefore an offense of being a joint official, demanding, receiving or agreeing to receive property or any other benefit for himself or others without like to act or not act in any way in the position Whether it is right or wrong according to duty or neglecting to perform duties illegally to cause damage to any person or acting or refraining from performing duties dishonestly According to the Criminal Code Sections 149, 157 and the Organic Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption B.E. 2018, Sections 172, 173, when the actions of defendants 1-4 are offenses according to the Criminal Code Section 149 and the Organic Act on With the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption Act 2018, Section 193, which is a specific provision, there is no need to adjust Section 157 and Section 172, which are general provisions.

As for defendants 5-6, it appears from the investigation that According to the date and time of the incident, the fifth defendant was on duty at the front of the checkpoint. His duty was to screen suspicious cars and pass them on to police officers who were about 35 meters from the rear. The fifth defendant was the one who called for the car in which the four victims were riding to request a search. After signaling the car to stop, the police officer received the car and proceeded with the operation. The 5th defendant performed his duty at the point for which he was responsible and did not walk to the checkpoint behind him until the checkpoint was abandoned from the evidence that appeared. There are no facts to indicate that the fifth defendant was closely involved in the wrongdoing that occurred. As for the case of defendant number 4, he testified that on January 12, 2023 at 12:45 a.m., defendant number 5 brought cash in the amount of 3,000 baht but did not say what kind of money it was. Seeing that this fact alone is about money Whether it’s true or not In the case where it is not clear what money was obtained and how it was obtained, this fact alone cannot be used to prove the rightness or wrongness of the 5th defendant.

As for the sixth defendant, it appears that According to the date and time of the incident, Defendant No. 6 was responsible for stationing at the checkpoint and searched cars and persons along with Defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 6 was the one who informed the group of victims to get out of the car and search. During that time, the female victim used her cell phone to take pictures. The 4th defendant and the 6th defendant forbade her to take pictures and asked to delete the information until an argument ensued, until the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant walked in to talk. with the group of victims instead, the 6th defendant then separated himself and searched the car on the middle of the road, approximately 30 meters away, until 3:15 a.m. when he returned to the same place. The group of victims could not be seen, and it was seen that from the evidence that appeared, it was insufficient to show that the 6th defendant was also involved in committing the offense as charged.

The verdict was that defendants 1-4 were guilty under the Criminal Code, Section 149 of the Criminal Code Act. The Constitution on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, 2018, Section 173, together with the Criminal Code, Section 83, the actions of defendants 1-4 are a single act, are violations of many laws. Punishment according to Section 149 of the Criminal Code, which is the most severe punishment. According to the Criminal Code, Section 90, imprisonment for 5 years each, acquitting defendants 5-6, forfeiting 27,000 baht that defendants 1-4 received from committing an offense against their position or official position, this case shall belong to the state if defendant 1- 4 The said amount cannot be delivered. Because of the nature of being unable to deliver, lost or unable to be traced back for any reason. or has been combined with other assets or the item has been sold, paid, transferred, or the pursuit of recovery will be unreasonably difficult. Or is there another reasonable reason for defendants 1-4 to jointly pay 27,000 baht?

Source: Thai News Agency