6 years in prison without probation for former Pheu Thai MP Anurak in bribery case

Bangkok, The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the 6-year prison sentence without suspension for former Pheu Thai MP Anurak in the case of bribing the Director-General of the Groundwater Department, who was dejected when he entered prison. The court read the verdict in the red case number Am.Oth.5/2567, which the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Mr. Anurak Tangpanitanon, former MP for Mukdahan, Pheu Thai Party, the defendant, for misconduct in his official position in the case of demanding a 5 million baht bribe from the former Director-General of the Department of Groundwater Resources. In this case, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions ruled on April 25, 2023, sentencing him to 6 years in prison and dismissing him from his position from April 19, 2022, permanently revoking his right to run for election and not being eligible to hold any political position, and revoking his right to vote for 10 years, as previously ruled by the Supreme Court in a case of violating ethical standards, granting bail at 1 million baht. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court's general assembly. The Appeals Panel found that initially, the officers had the authority to conduct an investigation to find out the details of the allegations regarding the accused persons and their positions. The complaint letter contained preliminary information identifying the individuals involved sufficient to conduct an investigation. The investigation the day after receiving the complaint letter by the NACC, by questioning Mr. S. to find out about the accused persons, was not aimed solely at prosecuting the defendant. In the event that it was necessary to investigate a political office holder, the NACC was required to conduct the investigation itself or to appoint at least two committee members and other persons to conduct the investigation committee. The order of the NACC appointing the investigation committee for this case was in accordance with the law and was therefore correct. The fact that the inves tigation committee did not call for the evidence requested by the defendant did not appear to be an action that violated the law. According to the investigation report, evidence was examined and collected, including 17 witnesses and 10 documentary evidence items. This was considered an investigation to obtain the facts that were correct and in accordance with the actual events, sufficient to determine the basis of the defendant's guilt. The investigation committee therefore had the discretion to issue an order. The investigation by the NACC was therefore properly conducted. As for the issue of whether the defendant committed an offense according to the verdict of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions, the Appeals Panel, by majority vote, considered that the testimony of Mr. Prof., Director-General of the Department of Groundwater Resources, who was the only witness, but Mr. Prof. testified about the details of the incident that occurred as he had found it in accordance with the steps from the consideration of the budget of the Department of Groundwater Resources at the ministry level to the department level in the meeting of the Special Committee to the Subcommittee on Integrated Plan 2, revealed the defendant's behavior. In the observation and questioning of the budget specifically for the Department of Groundwater Resources throughout, the nature of emphasizing the Department of Groundwater Resources project was not in the nature of a normal inspection of the budget usage of government agencies, but rather to create pressure and concern for those being considered whether or not the budget would be cut or reduced in order to use it as a bargaining chip to seek benefits, which revealed the motive for the defendant to call Mr. S. through the contact of Ms. N., Secretary of the Subcommittee on Integrated Plan 2. On the night of the incident, Mr. S. and the defendant spent the first conversation for more than 9 minutes and the second conversation for more than 6 minutes, which is consistent with the mobile phone usage data. The text messages exchanged on the phone started with the request for 5 million baht. When Mr. S. refused, it changed to asking for work instead, in exchange for not cutting the budget. There was a negotiation back and forth, which was very detailed. It is difficult to make up a coherent story. In particular, the text messages exchanged about asking for work were consistent with the defendant's observations and inquiries in the meeting, which focused specifically on the artesian well drilling project that had a direct budget. The defendant claimed that the defendant called Mr. S. to ask for blueprints and price estimates to check the direct budget spending, which must be done through relevant officials according to the meeting regulations and practices that relevant parties have investigated. This is unreasonable. Therefore, it is suspicious and unreliable. As for Mr. S.'s statement to the Subcommittee on Integration and his testimony to the Committee on Law, Just ice and Human Rights that the conversation was recorded, it is believable that he continued speaking out of dissatisfaction and showed that he had solid evidence to accuse the defendant. By recording the explanation of the facts, the testimony and the testimony, Mr. S. has consistently confirmed the facts regarding the defendant's behavior of calling to demand money or work. Therefore, the testimony in this part may be slightly different, but the essence of the case has not changed. Such differences are merely a matter of chance. The defendant's observations and questions and Mr. S.'s explanation were in accordance with his duties. Normally, conflicts can occur. If there is some dissatisfaction during the meeting, it is normal. It should not be so serious that he would have to fabricate a story to accuse the defendant. Furthermore, on the same night, almost immediately after the incident, Mr. S. called Mr. P. and Mr. S. via the Line application to tell them about the demand for money. There was no time to thi nk and fabricate a story. In this part, the plaintiff also had Mr. P. and Mr. S. testify to confirm that Mr. P. also called the defendant. There was questioning leading to the conversation about asking for work from the department. And on the next day, Mr. S. also called Mr. N., a member of the House of Representatives, to tell him about the defendant asking for money. Although Mr. P., Mr. S., and Mr. N. knew each other as friends and subordinates, they were all high-ranking civil servants and members of the House of Representatives and had no reason to be angry or have conflicts with the defendant before. The three witnesses also testified in a way that was related to what Mr. S. testified, so it is believed that his testimony was based on the truth. The plaintiff's circumstantial evidence, which was close to the incident, would support Mr. S.'s testimony. The witness's testimony is even more substantial. The defendant's phone call to ask for money or benefits from the budget preparation project of the Depar tment of Groundwater Resources was an opportunity taken advantage of in his position where he had the power and duty to propose budget reductions. Therefore, it was a failure to perform his duty honestly, which was seeking undue benefits for himself or others, and was a request, demand, acceptance, or agreement to accept property or other benefits in order to act or refrain from acting in the defendant's position, regardless of whether such action was appropriate or improper, which is an offense under The Anti-Corruption Act B.E. 2561, Section 173 and the Criminal Code, Section 149 When the case is heard as stated, the defendant's appeal on this point is also not valid. As for the judgment of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions, the Appeals Panel, by a majority vote, agreed and upheld the judgment. After hearing the verdict, prison officials prepared to take Mr. Anusak to the Bangkok Special Prison for further detention. Source: Thai News Agency