Assawin, a business man
Latest Update: 02/12/2016
Defendant
Assawin
Case Status
On trial in Court of First Instance
Case Started
2010
Complainant / Plaintiff
Mrs. Sakawdeun Chariyakornkul, who claimed to be the owner of Erawan Resort project, gathered evidence and filed a report to the police officers. (However, she was not an eyewitness in the case)
In this case, Assawin asserted that he and Sakawdeun have had business conflicts prior to the case and there have been several lawsuits between them regarding issues of trespass, malicious mischief, fraud, etc.
Table of Content
Assawin is accused of lèse-majesté for 3 counts from his business partner. The first count is insulting the Crown Prince, the other two counts are stealthy referring to the King's influence to buy a land. The defendant denies all charges.
Defendant Background
Mr. Assawin was a businessman in Chiang Mai Province.
Offense
Article 112 Criminal Code
Allegation
Mr. Assawin was accused of lèse-majesté under Section 112 of the Criminal Code for 3 counts, in different circumstances as follows:
The first count occurred in the period between 2000 – 2003. The date and time were unidentified. Mr. Assawin uttered statements deemed offensive to the Crown Prince of Thailand, Maha Vajiralongkorn, heard by Mrs. Sakawdeun.
The second count happened in September, 2003. Mr. Assawin spoke to Mrs. Kalaya Thanmaneewattana in a manner likely to claim himself as a friend of His Majesty the King and cited that he used to play badminton with His Majesty. He told that he wants to develop a pond area in Erawan Resort to be a residence for His Majesty. This assertion was counted as defamation.
The third count took place in October, 2003. Mr. Assawin asserted to Mrs. Anchalee Nildetch, housing supervisor at Erawan Resort, that the king used to say that the land in the resort was beautiful and suitable for residence; therefore, he decided to buy the land and develop it. Moreover, he asked Mrs. Anchalee if she would dedicate a house in the resort as a gift to His Majesty or not. These were considered as defamation as well.
The defendant denied all charges.
Circumstance of Arrest
On 15 December 2006, Mr. Assawin surrendered himself to the investigation officer and was released on bail.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ.1271/2553
Court
ศาลจังหวัดเชียงใหม่
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
13 July 2010
The Chiang Mai Provincial Court accepted the case as a Black Case No. อ. 1271/2553.
25 September 2012
The case was sent to the Criminal Court in Bangkok for the plaintiff’s witness hearing, comprising 2 witnesses: Mrs. Sakawdeun Charirakornkul, the case’s complainant, who claimed to be the owner of Erawan Resort, and a police officer, who was one of the Committee that considered prosecutions under Section 112.
4 February 2013
The Criminal Court sent the case back for witness hearings of the defendant at Chiang Mai Provincial Court, but the court later announced that the case report has not arrived yet. The hearings, then, was postponed until 10 June 2013.
10 June 2013
The Chiang Mai Provincial Court conducted a witness hearing of the defendant.
Maj Gen Pichai Pichainarong, 71-year-old retired government official and former Army Specialist, has been a friend of the defendant since 1997. Maj Gen Pichai testified that he and his family had stayed with the defendant during 2003 and had recognized the dispute between the defendant and Mrs. Sakawdeun regarding the issue of sale and purchase land in Erawan Resort. The defendant made a land sale and purchase agreement with Mrs. Sakawdeun; nevertheless, she failed to give him the title deed and avoided meeting him. Later, when the defendant moved into the resort, he faced with various kinds of mischief such as cutting the electricity and water supply, destroying personal properties, and threatening by a gang, and also numerous lawsuits have piled up since then.
Maj Gen Pichai further stated that Mrs. Mayura Saritsombat, plaintiff’s witness who claimed to hear the defendant delivered the statements complained of, was a wife of Lek Sarakam. Both of them often came to the defendant’s house for eating as well as drinking and asked for help from the defendant several times such as asking him to subsidize the repair cost of his crashed car; however, for their house, the defendant did not help them to prevent it from being forfeited. This seemed to make the couple feel unsatisfied and stopped coming over his house since then.
Maj Gen Pichai attested that he has never heard the defendant said as being sued and has seen that the defendant has absolute loyalty to the monarchy institution as his family’s name is Bunnag which was the family that had served the royal family for a long time and if the defendant had truly said like the charge, he himself would certainly not bear it or Mrs. Anchalee Nildetch would have reported it to the police at that time.
The court scheduled the hearings of other witnesses of the defendant on 31 August 2013 and 14 September 2013 in order to avoid a large number of hearings of other cases held on weekdays. During the hearing, observers of the case were asked by the court whether who they were and got involved with the case or not. When the court realized that the observers were not directly related to the case, it asked them not to write any memo during the trial.
31 August 2013
The court examined 2 more witnesses of the defendant.
As a witness himself, Assawin testified that he and Sakawdeun had a business dispute over the land sale and purchase issue since 2003 and 2004. He further cited that Sakawdeun had a gang of ruffians threaten him in order to oust him from the resort. Also, she filed several other charges against him such as obscenity, trespass and malicious mischief allegations. Until 2006, Sakawdeun and her friends comprising Mayuree, Anchalee and Kalaya filed a lèse-majesté complaint to a police against Assawin and the police accepted the charge. The defendant presented to acknowledge the charges on 15 December 2006 and he denied all the charges and countersued them for filing a false report (by submitting documents to the court) on 20 April 2007.
Another witness was a relative of the defendant, Maj Gen Anutaj Bunnag, Army Specialist, gave his testimony that the defendant was descended from Bunnag family by shared 12.5% of his ancestors which were Bunnag family who had served Chakri dynasty since the reign of King Rama IV and V. Also, the defendant’s father named Willis Bird Sr., who was a former member of Seri Thai Movement, had served for Thailand for several years. The work of the defendant, as well, was involving with the national security according to Siamese strategy plan.
14 September 2013
The court set to hear 3 other witnesses of the defendant.
Ms. Sriwai, 48 year-old, the defendant’s wife, stated that she has lived with the defendant for 28 years, having 2 children with him. She claimed that she knew Toy or Mrs. Mayura Saritsombat, the plaintiff’s witness, who usually came to visit their house with her husband, Lek Sarakam, Sakawdeun’s brother working as a radio jockey. Mrs. Mayura always helped her cooking food. She intimately knew Mrs. Mayura, whereas, the defendant was not much acquainted with her. After the defendant refused to help the couple redeem back their house that was about to be confiscated, Mrs. Mayura and her husband stopped coming over to their place ever since. The incident took place in 2003. Lastly, Ms. Sriwai additionally affirmed that the defendant had utmost respect to the monarch institution.
Mr. Thanas Wiengkamfah, 41 year-old, the defendant’s driver, testified that he worked as a driver for the defendant since 1992 when they were living at Wiengkamfah resort. He asserted he knew that Mrs. Sakawdeun filed a theft charge against the defendant’s employee as the electric wire was cut; however, the case was later dismissed by the court in 2006. The witness saw Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh came to see the defendant for scrutinizing the issue of Hmong refugees because the defendant, at that time, was a president of the Hilltribes Foundation Thailand which made him involved in the certain matter. Also, the witness insisted that the defendant was utterly loyal to the king institution.
Mr. Saengtawan Taptoong, 37 year-old, the defendant’s lawyer, testified in court that he has been a lawyer of the defendant since 2004, representing him in the Hmong case as well as other civil cases. He said there were many accusations between the defendant and Mrs. Sakawdeun. The defendant has submitted several documents of each case of the defendant accused by Mrs. Sakawdeun to the court e.g. trespassing case, already dismissed, or the case of smuggling and offering a residence to alien which was later dismissed by the court as well. In total, there were almost 20 documents submitted by the defendant’s lawyer to court.
The judgement was dated 13 December 2013 at 9.00. The court notified both parties that, first and foremost, it has to submit the case report as well as its draft judgement to the Office of the Chief Judge of Region 5 for revision as the case was regarded as a delicate issue, and simultaneously, there were a number of judgements of other cases to be rendered as well.
13 December 2013
The judgement delivered by Chiang Mai Provincial Court
Based on the judgement, the facts in the case could be preliminarily identified as follows; Mrs. Sakawdeun Chariyakornkul was the Erawan Resort owner and Mr. Manasak Intrakomarnsut was the owner of the house No. 73/6 in the resort. On 18 March 2003, Mrs. Sakawdeun made the sale and purchase agreement of land together with premises in Erawan Resort with the defendant for 120 million baht. The first payment of 12 million baht was paid to Mrs. Sakawdeun, while a remaining sum would be paid by installments according to the agreement. Later, Mrs. Sakawdeun accused the defendant of defaming the King and the Heir. On 15 December 2006, the defendant presented himself to the investigation officer denying all accusations.
In the judgement, the issue to be addressed was whether the defendant said statements according to the charges or not. The plaintiff’s witness, Mrs. Mayura Saritsombat, testified during the trial that while the defendant verbally made a defamatory statement, there were other people witnessed the incident as well but they wished not to testify; therefore, their names were refrained from mentioning. The court saw if the defendant had truly done the act, the witness should have given their names or described appearances of those seeing the scene for the sake of pursuing them to show up as witnesses. This was deemed in her ability to take action; however, she failed to do so. When the investigation officer further asked about it, the witness said she did not know their names. It indicated that the witness testimony was not conformable. As a result, merely the verification of Mrs. Mayura without additional evidence made the testimony doubtful and weightless.
For another witness, Mrs. Kalaya, testified to be an advisor of Mrs. Sakawdeun. The witness was informed by her advisee that she agreed to sell the land with premises in Erawan Resort to the defendant. The witness asserted that she first met the defendant in September 2003 and had total private conversation for approximately less than one hour which signified that the witness has never known the defendant before. To act as a reasonable person, if an individual wishes to utter any statement that is considered a serious offence to another individual, he would tend to speak to an intimate one who is trustworthy and avoid uttering certain issue to strangers since it will make an individual at stake to be sued. Therefore, it was weighed up as difficult that the defendant would deliver such speech with her. The testimony was considered unreasonable.
Mrs. Anchalee Nildetch, another plaintiff’s witness, attested to the court that she was appointed by Mr. Manasak to take care a land as well as a house in the resort. Around September 2003, the witness said she found a group of Hmong people at Mr. Manasak’s house saying that the defendant ordered them to improve the house. The witness therefore reported to the police. Later on, in October, the witness came to the defendant’s house in the resort with the police officers and found him with Gen Winai Thansri and Maj Gen Pichai Pichainarong. The witness asked the defendant why he allowed many people into the house and he said that he was going to build a school for the hill tribe people. The witness told him that it was impossible since the house was Mr.Manasak’s property but the defendant referred to the king on the matter.
The court saw the witness and the defendant had controversy over the issue regarding the hill tribes who broke into Mr. Manasak’s house; thus, to hear the witness had to be done carefully. The court considered that, to act as a reasonable man, an individual tends not to defame others in front of someone he has dispute with. If the defendant truly stated as being complained, the witness should have immediately reported to the police officers accompanying her which was in her ability to manage doing so but she didn’t.
Despite the witness testimony that the defendant delivered such speech in front of Gen Winai and Maj Gen Pichai, Gen Winai who presented as a plaintiff’s witness attested that he did not hear such statements claimed by Mrs. Anchalee, while Maj Gen Pichai, the defendant’s witness, also testified that the defendant never uttered the statements claimed of. The court has seen that Gen Winai and Maj Gen Pichai were in the Royal Thai Armed Forces and have served the government service in important positions; therefore, they certainly had absolute loyalty to the monarchy. If the defendant had uttered the statement claimed of, Gen Winai and and Maj Gen Pichai would probably have heard it and felt dissatisfied with the act of defendant; however, they didn’t. The testimony of Mrs. Anchalee seemed to be suspicious.
Neither Mrs. Mayura nor Mrs. Anchalee were the accusers of the case, whereas Mrs. Sakawdeun who was known having conflict with the defendant and providing just hearsay evidence became the one filing the report to the investigation officer. This was perceived as unusual. The rest of the witnesses provided all hearsay evidence which were prohibited from production of evidence, without any exception according to the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, Section 226/3 paragraph 2. Also, the defendant counter-testified that he did not deliver any speech as being claimed.
In consequence, after examining the case, the court had a doubt whether the defendant uttered the statement or not; therefore, the benefit of the doubt would be given to him by virtue of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, Section 227 paragraph 2. Therefore, the case was dismissed by the court.
10 July 2014
The Court of Appeals Region 5 would deliver the judgement at 9.00.
The court summon to notify the date of the court appointment was not received by the defendant since the summon issued was mailed to an address in which he was no longer residing. Hence, the defendant party became no-shows in the court.
The case observers helped coordinating the defendant’s lawyer to make him acknowledged the court appointment. The lawyer of the defendant thus made a statement to the Chiang Mai Provincial Court to declare why the defendant failed to attend the court by sending the declaration copy through fax from the Criminal Court, Bangkok.
The Chiang Mai Provincial Court saw that the defendant’s name was still shown on the former house registration; therefore, the court mailed the summon to his former domicile and since according to the law, it would perceivable as the defendant had two domiciles and was responsible to receive the summon. Afterwards, the court issued an arrest warrant as well as arranged him to hear the judgement within a month but if the defendant could come to the court at his convenience, he could make a request to hear the judgement at once.
15 July 2014
At 13.30, Chiang Mai Provincial Court, Trial Room No. 5. the defendant made an appointment to hear the judgement passed by the Court of Appeals. The defendant, his lawyer as well as his family attended the court while the plaintiff’s public prosecutor did not present at the court.
At 13.45, after sitting on the bench, the judges informed the defendant and his companies that the arrest warrant issued has been dismissed already due to the defendant’s presence. Before the court opened the sealed judgement of the Court of Appeals Region 5, it ordered police officers who were onsite to handcuff the defendant stating that it was done according to regulations.
When the court read its judgement for about one minute, it stopped before announcing the attendants that the case was related to the national security; therefore, the judgement must be delivered confidentially. The court asked other attendants to leave the trial room to remain only the defendant and his lawyer in the room.
At 14.10, the court finished rendering judgement. The court saw that the appeal of the plaintiff were considered reasonable in some parts, consequently, it reversed the judgement of the Court of First Instance and sentenced the defendant 5-year jail term. Then, the defendant was brought to a court detaining room.
The lawyer submitted a petition to bail out the defendant with the property valued 1.5 million Baht as a guarantee.
Around 17.20, the Court of the First Instance considered the bail matter should be sent upward to the Supreme Court to exercise within its discretion. The defendant was brought to Chiang Mai Central Prison for a 3-day detention until the Supreme Court issued further order.
The judgement of the Court of Appeal can be summarized as follows:
From its deliberation on the issue: whether the defendant uttered the statement as the plaintiff has complained or not, the court found the plaintiff’s evidence credible to believe that the defendant actually spoke as being claimed.
The court reviewed the period when Mrs. Sakawdeun filed a police report covering misconduct behavior of the defendant which stealthily referred to his majesty the king on 25 January 2004, at that time, the land sale and purchase controversy in Erawan Resort between Mrs. Sakawdeun and the defendant did not take place yet. The fact turned out that Mrs. Sakawdeun and Maj Gen Pichai did not have any disputable issue at that time as well; therefore, it was deemed reliable that Mrs. Sakawdeun reported the police the truth from the hearsay without any intention to persecute either the defendant or Maj Gen Pichai.
Both of the plaintiff’s witnesses comprising Mrs. Kalaya and Mrs. Anchalee affirmed that their testimonies of hearing the defendant uttered the statement was true. Their testimonies was found harmonious with what Mrs. Sakawdeun has reported to the police. Also, the fact has revealed that both of the witnesses did not have any prior dispute with the defendant so there was no reason that they would allege against the defendant with such severe allegation. Moreover, if the statement was untrue, both of them were at risk to be charged with filing a false police report and giving false testimony as well.
Despite the fact that the defendant has never known Mrs. Kalaya before, and due to her supervisor position in the resort project, the manner in which the defendant talked to Mrs. Kalaya seemed as an intention to raise her faith and respect in himself for being regarded as the resort purchaser. In this case, the doubtfulness why the defendant uttered such statement to Mrs. Kalaya as the Court of First Instance had considered became comprehensible.
For the defendant’s witnesses, Maj Gen Pichai Pichainarong and Gen Winai Thansri, the court saw that they were intimate friends of the defendant; thus, they would testify to help him. The court considered their testimony were unreliable and could not disprove the plaintiff’s evidence. Also, it was seen that the testimony of Gen Winai did not conform with the plea in the investigating session, and subsequently could not be considered as the truth.
The court adjudicated the words that the defendant was alleged of saying with Mrs. Mayura who testified that the defendant uttered such statement during 2000 – 2003. According to the truth, it was found that Mrs. Mayura deposed to the investigation officer on 25 May 2006 which was deemed as a late deposition for 3 to 6 years. Also, when Mrs. Sakawdeun filed the police report in 2004, Mrs. Mayura’s testimony did not appear in it. Therefore, the court agreed that her testimony was doubtful as the previous consideration of the Court of First Instance.
For the statement that the defendant was claimed to speak with Mrs. Kalaya saying he was a friend of His Majesty the King regarding the issue of improving the pond area, Mrs. Kalaya thought it was his personal matter, besides, she neither gained nor lost from the operation. Hence, she attested that when listening to his words, she felt that he was just talking drivel and raising up his self-importance. However, it did not persuade her to despise His Majesty which made it uncounted as defamation.
The other statement of which the defendant was accused while talking with Mrs. Anchalee, the court identified it as a stealthy reference to his majesty to threaten Mrs. Anchalee to permissibly transfer the house to the defendant. Additionally, the defendant called and asked Mr. Manasak, who possessed another house in the resort, in the same manner. The act of the defendant might have made Mrs. Anchalee and Mr. Manasak become deprived of their properties or even create hatred of his majesty among the individuals. The words spoken with Mrs. Anchalee were in a manner likely to impair the reputation of the King or to put the King to contempt or hatred any which shall be considered as lèse-majesté offence.
Thus, the Court of Appeals Region 5 disagreed with the Court of First Instance and its dismissal. It saw some parts of the appeal of the plaintiff were reasonable. Then, the court decided to reverse the former judgement and sentenced the defendant to 5 years in prison under a single count of lèse-majesté, Section 112 of the Criminal Code.
18 July 2014
The Supreme Court granted bail to Mr. Assawin with the bail amount increased to 2 million Baht.
Verdict
No information