The court dismissed the charges against “Rong Aof”, Am Cyanide's ex-husband, not guilty of all charges.

January 26, 2024

23

Nakhon Pathom Court acquits “Rong Aof”, Am Cyanide's ex-husband, on all charges of fraud, receiving stolen property, and forging documents, stating that there is no evidence of involvement in wrongdoing.

Miss Thannicha Ek Suwannawat or Attorney Pat revealed that on December 28, 2023, Nakhon Pathom Provincial Court There was a verdict in the case. The Nakhon Pathom Provincial Prosecutor, the plaintiff, and Mr. Narongchai, the co-plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Pol. Lt. Col. Witoon. Rangsiwutthaporn or Rong Aof, former husband of Ms. Sararat Rangsiwutthaporn or Nong Am, is a defendant on several charges.

In this case, the plaintiff alleges that on April 23, 2022 – March 28, 2023, the defendant and his associates jointly received stolen property by helping to hide it, selling it, taking it away, pawning it, or accepting it in some other way. any One three-seat passenger car, Chevrolet Captiva model, white, is the property of TISCO Bank Public Company Limited, which is a juristic person under the law. While in the possession of Mr. Satirathorn Victim No. 1 kept from Mr. Chanwut. who embezzled the said car The defendant and his associates already knew that It is property obtained from the commission of an embezzlement crime.

Ms. Sararat used to pawn the car. and redeemed the car every time, even though Ms. Sararat had deposited 47,000 baht in cash into the defendant's account, but it was after Ms. Sararat had already pawned the car with the co-plaintiff.

When there is no evidence that there was a division of duties or that the defendant was involved in Ms. Sararat's actions, it cannot be considered that the defendant joined with the co-plaintiff to defraud. Even though the defendant used to be the husband of Ms. Sararat, it cannot be assumed that to the defendant's detriment that the defendant was involved in committing the offense as charged.

The evidence of the plaintiff and co-plaintiffs therefore still has reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant committed the crime as charged or not. The benefit of the doubt must be given to the defendant according to the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 227, paragraph 2. There is no need to further examine the defendant's witnesses.

When the facts cannot be established that the defendant joined with those who committed the crime according to the complaint, the trial As for the civil case, the court must therefore consider the facts as they appear in the judgment of the criminal case. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 64, it must be heard that the defendant did not commit a violation. There is no need to pay compensation to the co-plaintiffs. The judge dismissed the case.