Bangkok, July 3 – The Supreme Court of Politicians sentenced “Jarupong Rueangsuwan” to a fine of 1.2 cents for accepting East Water air tickets.
Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions Read the judgment of the black case No. 14/2565, red number No. 19/2566, which the Attorney General filed against Mr. Jarupong Rueangsuwan, the former Minister of the Interior, the defendant, who filed the lawsuit on August 18, 2022, alleging that while There was an incident where the defendant held the position of Minister of the Interior and received property or any other benefit which could be calculated as money from the company. Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Company Limited (Management Company) or East Water, which is not a relative By receiving a round trip air ticket between Thailand and the People's Republic of China, the amount is calculated at 39,300 baht, and a round trip air ticket between Thailand and Malaysia is calculated in the amount of 20,780 baht.
Receipt of property with a value of more than three thousand baht which is not property and legitimate benefit Nor is it an ethical acceptance of property or any other benefit under the Announcement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission on Criteria for the Acceptance of Assets or Any Other Benefits Code of Conduct for Government Officials, 2000, Article 5, asking for punishment under the Organic Act On the prevention and suppression of corruption, 1999, section 103, 122 2018 Constitution on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, Section 4,128,169,194 But the defendant did not come to court by appointing a lawyer to act on his behalf and refused. Therefore proceeded to proceed the case without acting in the presence of the defendant.
When the court considered that the investigation of Mr.Ch. The defendant's team or the defendant's son took the money for the airfare to give to the witnesses. unable to hear the truth The testimony also contradicts the testimony of the defendant that the defendant asked the defendant's team to purchase. Air ticket with The facts therefore cannot be heard whether the defendant paid for the plane ticket or had the defendant's team purchase it. Considering the facts about the background of ticket issuance and payment It means that the Executive and Investment Committee of the Management Company Is the operator of the issuance of air tickets by A. Company and R. Is the person who reserves and issues air tickets and collects the airfare. aircraft from the management company Later, the management company Approved the payment of the aforementioned plane tickets from the directors' entertainment fees. (Air tickets to confirm the company's customers) and the evidence from the investigation is true. that the management company is the person who pays for the plane ticket Despite the fact that the Management Company paid for the airfare after the defendant used the airfare to travel
But the aforementioned cause as a result of the operations of the management company In reimbursement of the director's entertainment fee to pay for the air ticket airplane only As for Company A. and Company R. refunding the airfare to the Management Company, it was an action that occurred after the Management Company Already paid for the plane ticket In this case, it does not result in the Management Company not being the person who does not pay for the airfare. At the time of the incident, the defendant held the position of Minister. ministry of interior without being related to the Management Company and according to the details of the cost guideline Certification of the Board of Directors management company unable to reimburse the accused on behalf of the Board of Directors for the reception while the incident occurred in the table of contents system Office of the Minister of the Interior It was not found that the accused had asked for permission to travel abroad.
make the facts sound that At the time of the incident, the defendant did not go on official trips to the People's Republic of China and Malaysia. But it's a personal journey. Both the investigation was obtained from the testimony of Mr. Chor. Executive Director and invest in the management company at the time that The defendant's son took care of the defendant's travels to the Republic. People of China and Malaysia and traveling with the defendant as well therefore believes that the defendant already knew that the management company Is the buyer of the plane ticket for the defendant by the company's directors to approve the withdrawal of money from the entertainment fee of the director Pay for airfare and that the defendant used a round trip air ticket Indicates that the defendant has Intent to accept the plane ticket When plane tickets cost more than 3,000 baht, the facts can be heard that The defendant received a round trip air ticket between Bangkok – Beijing and Bangkok – Kuala Lumpur, which was any other benefit which had a price or value exceeding 3, 000 baht from the management company who are not relatives Therefore, it is an offense according to the lawsuit.
the court ruled that The defendant was guilty under the Organic Act on the Prevention and Corruption Suppression Act, 1999, Section 122. The actions of the defendant are multiple offenses, each of which shall be punished as an offence, according to Section 91 of the Criminal Code. The punishment is a fine of 60,000 baht per count, a total of 2 counts, a fine of 120,000 baht.
Source: Thai News Agency