"Big Joke" sent his lawyer to file a complaint under Section 157 against the team handling the 246-baht gold bribery case, including Deputy Mooh, Deputy Tao, Deputy Oh, and the entire investigative staff, over the failure to prosecute Police Colonel Pakpoom Pismay, who came forward to expose the case.
At 10:30 a.m. on 6 Jan at Phahonyothin Police Station, lawyer Sanya Phatchara Samart, authorized by Police General Surachate Hakparn, known as Big Joke and former Deputy Commissioner of the Royal Thai Police, met with Police Lieutenant Colonel Nopadol Dorsrichan, Deputy Superintendent (Investigation) of Phahonyothin Police Station, to file a complaint against Police Major General Jaroonkiat Pankaew, Deputy Commander of the Crime Suppression Division, and Police Major General Thinkorn Rangmat, Deputy Commander of the Technology Crime Suppression Division, along with the entire investigative team handling the 246-baht gold bribery case. They are accused under Section 157 of the Criminal Code for dereliction of duty or corruptly neglecting duties to the detriment of others, specifically for failing to prosecute Police Colonel Pakpoom Pismay, Big Joke’s subordinate who exposed the case, who was not charged.
Sanya Phatchara said that on 26 Dec 2024, he attended the investigation of the gold bribery case where Police General Surachate was informed of the allegations. Today, he filed a complaint against two investigative teams: one led by Police Major General Thinkorn Rangmat per Police Order 580/2568, including Police Lieutenant Colonel Ekachai Wichian, Deputy Commander of the Special Investigation Division of Region 9; and the second team per Crime Suppression Division Order 343/2568 dated 24 Dec 2024, led by Police Major General Suwat Sangnum and Police Major General Jaroonkiat Pankaew along with all investigators.
On 26 Dec, Police General Surachate learned he was among six accused in the case and went to meet investigators. Police Major General Jaroonkiat then notified him of the charges. During the investigation, it emerged that Police Colonel Pakpoom Pismay, Surachate’s former subordinate, admitted to handing gold to a National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) commissioner, accepting this as fact. He implicated six others who have yet to be proven or evidenced. The investigators relied on video clips involving Pakpoom in their probe. This raised questions about whether proper investigative procedures began before quickly forwarding the case to the NACC yesterday. No charges were filed against Pakpoom. According to police regulations, a witness must be notified as a suspect first, and investigations involving senior officials with serious penalties should be handled by the NACC, not police investigators. The police orders came from the national police chief, and all investigators are considered Surachate’s opponents and subordinates of the police chief. There is no guarantee of fairness if the case is sent back to them.
After Police General Surachate was informed of the charges on 29 Dec 2024, both he and Sanya Phatchara filed a petition for fairness, requesting an investigation into Pakpoom’s confession of guilt, while the other six accused remain unproven but have not been charged.
Meanwhile, Pakpoom claimed he acted for the sake of his subordinates. However, Sanya noted from news reports that Pakpoom himself has pending cases at the NACC, as do his wife, sister-in-law, and his coffee shop manager, all involved in money laundering investigations. This raises the question of whether Pakpoom acted for his subordinates or for his own family interests.
Sanya Phatchara added concerns about the origin of evidence and testimony implicating Police General Surachate. He questioned whether the investigators merely based charges on video clips. If the clips circulating in the media today are accurate, they do not show or mention Police General Surachate at all.
He also questioned whether the clips have been legally verified as authentic, whether the gold shown still exists, and who received it. He did not claim the clips were staged but asked if they have been legally validated as genuine evidence. He worried that if the clips were edited, crucial moments might have been lost. He also noted that one of the six accused, a security officer for the NACC commissioner, was reportedly forcibly taken for questioning, raising concerns about potential violations of the enforced disappearance law, which could undermine the legality and weight of the testimony against Police General Surachate.
Similarly, regarding the release of the video evidence today, Sanya questioned its legality, especially since the case file has already been sent to the NACC. He asked why the clips were not released before forwarding the case. He viewed the public release of evidence today as non-transparent and improper conduct by the investigative team. Overall, the investigators’ actions violated legal principles concerning the legitimacy of the investigation, the source of evidence, and the process, resulting in unfairness to Police General Surachate. This prompted him to file the complaint against the investigators today.
He expressed concern about the justice system in Thailand, believing that if the police followed regulations and the law from the start, subsequent court proceedings would be straightforward. However, if investigators deliberately targeted or harassed any individual, this would be highly inappropriate and should not happen in Thailand’s justice system.
He confirmed that Police General Surachate denies all allegations, stating the claims are unfounded. Surachate insists he was unaware and did not order any wrongdoing. He also contends the investigation was highly unfair to him. Regarding the other five accused, he has no knowledge as he only represents Surachate. He also has issues with Police Colonel Pakpoom but will review evidence and case files carefully before commenting further.
Since this case involves senior government officials and carries severe penalties, it should be the NACC’s responsibility to press charges, not the police investigators, according to Section 61, Paragraph 2 of the NACC Act. Therefore, he plans to appeal to the NACC to reject returning the case to the police investigators, insisting the NACC should handle the case moving forward.