The court dismissed all charges against Tun Minhlad, pointing out that all evidence was refuted.

Bangkok, The court dismissed all charges against Tun Minhlat, a Myanmar businessman and the son-in-law of Senator Upakit, and others in the drug trafficking conspiracy case. Pointing out that the prosecution's witnesses were still unable to hear that the defendant had done anything wrong. The defendant's evidence completely refuted the plaintiff's evidence. Today (January 30) Criminal Court, Ratchadaphisek Road. Make an appointment to read the verdict in the Minh Lad capital case. Myanmar businessman with drug trafficking conspirators The prosecutor in the Narcotics Case 9 is the plaintiff suing Mr. TUN MIN LATT, a Myanmar businessman, the first defendant, Mr. Dean Yang Chulthura, the second defendant, Ms. Namhom Nettrakul, the third defendant. Ms. Piyada Khamta, the 4th defendant, and Allure Group (PandE) Company Limited, represented by Mr. Min Hlad and Ms. Namhom Nettrakul as the 5th authorized directors, together are defendants 1-5. respectively, the offense of jointly supporting each other to commit dru g-related offenses is a serious offense. criminal organization Circumstances between 22 February - 10 May 2019, the five defendants and those still on the run. And some of the defendants who have already been sentenced by the Thanyaburi Provincial Court were two or more people who planned and divided duties in procuring category 1 drugs (methamphetamine). The defendants took care of depositing money, withdrawing money, transferring money, buying and selling drugs. The drug was credited to the account of the 5th defendant company, claiming that it was to pay the provincial electricity bill. Mae Sai District, Chiang Rai Province, in a concealed manner, concealing the acquisition of the said money, knowing that it was money obtained from drug trafficking. The Company, the 5th defendant, has a duty to take the money obtained from drug trafficking. Addiction is transformed into a product of electricity. Export to Myanmar The incident occurred in Khlong Nueng Subdistrict, Khlong Luang District, Pathum Thani Provin ce and other places. While the defendants denied the case, today all the defendants were withdrawn from prison to hear the verdict. With family, relatives and friends coming to listen to the verdict and join in giving support. The court considered and found that Consider the evidence Concerning the financial routes of six drug network groups that the court previously ruled guilty of. As for the financial routes of the six drug networks, some are linked to currency exchange shops along the border. At the same time, business groups in the Allua Group use the same currency exchange shops. Because it is reliable and the embassy It was checked and found that Has been properly licensed by a government agency in Myanmar. From the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, all six drug network groups confirmed that they never knew the five defendants before and that at the time of the arrest of the drug network group, the five defendants were not present at the event. Also, considering the testimony of witnesses fro m various business groups who came to testify to the court. It must be consistent with being a customer who uses money transfer services. To pay for purchased products Some people have always used the money transfer method. Because it is during the Covid situation. The border is closed, unable to travel between them. It is believed that the currency exchange shop There were 500 accounts using the service, including 22 drug-related accounts that also used the money exchange shop. Representatives of the Myanmar Allua Group Company also use the same currency exchange store deposit account service. Even during the time that defendants 1-4 were arrested, the company of the defendant group Still using the same payment method. which is unusual if arrested In drug-related cases, the same method of payment will be used. As for the second defendant, the son-in-law of Senator Upakit, he has been made a shareholder of Anlua Group Company. Before taking office as a senator so as not to be checked The court considered th e matter and could not accept that the five defendants acted together in a wrongdoing regarding the drug trafficking conspiracy. and transnational criminal organizations The defendant's evidence can completely refute the plaintiff's evidence. The judge dismissed the case. After the court ruled to dismiss the case. Group of relatives of the defendant who came to hear the verdict They all stood up and clapped their hands and cheered loudly throughout the room as the trial proceeded, and cried and embraced the defendant with joy. Mr. Rueangsak Suksiangsri, lawyer for Mr. Dean Young Chulthura, the second defendant, son-in-law of Senator Upakit, and lawyer for Mr. Upakit Pachariyangkun, a senator, revealed that in this case, the financial trails are spread far and wide. Not only Allure Group Company, but the plaintiff sued only the defendant. Therefore, it is refuted that there are other legal entities with similar financial paths to us. If we are involved with other legal entities, they must also be related to drugs, whether it be Carabao, SCG, international schools. It must be related too. Because they use the service to receive money from the same currency exchange shop. that claims to be related to drugs The court has details of the facts. The reasons are very detailed. This judgment will set an example for the police who will arrest anyone. You must look carefully before issuing an arrest warrant. Because the court said that it was very lax, which in this case was punishable by death. It's good that we fought the case and didn't confess. Think about what will happen if you fail. As for Senator Upakit, he was also sued. This judgment must be used. Even though it's not the end yet but will be included in the expression. Because the facts are all the same. Both personal witnesses and evidence In this judgment, Mr. Upakit's name is also included and can be referenced. As for whether it will be useful or not, he doesn't know, but he definitely needs to use it. As for the matter of asking the Attorney General to wi thdraw the case, it may be difficult. Because the lawsuit has already been filed We will fight in court until the end. This case will be an example case. The fact that the defendant in this case had to spend up to 1.5 years in prison was not beneficial. The second defendant worked for a company with a salary of 340,000 baht but had to be fired from his job. Who will be responsible? When asked whether the court had read the circumstances of Mr. Upakit's concealment of being a business owner. Will it affect the position of senator or not? The lawyer replied that it was a matter for the senator to decide how to proceed. But he saw that Mr. Upakit Probably didn't conceal it. This case still has an appeal to the Supreme Court. Source: Thai News Agency