The female lawyer opposing 'Lawyer Kaew' affirmed that at the time of the incident, the victim was 18 years old. She revealed the timeline of events and said that after the incident, a public prosecutor called to negotiate a settlement. She emphasized that the victim's father still feels angry and that no positive mediation atmosphere has been observed so far.
On 22 Jan 2026, Mr. Arnop Boonsawang, the lawyer representing the woman opposing Mr. Monchai Jongkairattanakul, or 'Lawyer Kaew,' who is accused of sexual harassment, stated that he learned the facts from the victim and her father on 26 Dec 2025. After learning about the case, he investigated and confirmed that the victim was 18 years old at the time of the incident.
In this case, he collected evidence from the store staff and related parties and filed complaints with police in several jurisdictions but did not disclose details, as he wants investigators to gather evidence to complete the case file first. Initially, he considers it may constitute the offense of indecent acts in public.
This offense does not allow settlement, so thorough examination is needed to proceed with the case according to legal rights. Preliminary inquiries with the victim confirm non-consent, but the facts from Lawyer Kaew's side must also be heard since the lawyer has so far only heard the victim's side.
It is known that the harassment incident occurred on 12 Sep 2025 inside Lawyer Kaew’s car. Lawyer Kaew had arranged to have coffee with the victim at a shopping mall in the Rama 3 area. While traveling from the mall to a noodle shop in Ladprao, Lawyer Kaew reportedly touched the victim inappropriately on her thigh, chest, and genital area. At the restaurant, there was also hugging. However, there is a conflict in accounts: the victim said there was kissing, but Lawyer Kaew said it was only a cheek kiss.
The touching involved sexual contact, so it must be determined whether the acts were consensual or if one party misunderstood permission. Justice must be fair to Lawyer Kaew, including questioning his observations of the victim’s reactions during the incident. Further details will not be disclosed.
Regarding leaked LINE chat images showing personal and work-related conversations, he reserved these details for inclusion in the case file.
As for the relationship between the victim and Lawyer Kaew, they met through the victim's father on 8 Sep 2025 at the father's store. The father invited Lawyer Kaew to help make promotional video clips for the store. They exchanged LINE contacts to discuss the video editing, communicating secretly without the father’s knowledge. They arranged to meet just four days after meeting, on 12 Sep 2025.
He questions whether a relationship could have progressed to physical contact in just four days. The victim stated she felt uncomfortable with the touching and tried to fend it off reasonably. She was shocked and worried that if she told others, no one would believe her because the alleged perpetrator is well-known. Therefore, she only revealed the incident months later.
Regarding the money mentioned, there were attempts to negotiate compensation ranging from 10 million, 5 million, to 2.5 million baht. He knows that a mediator was involved, leading to money discussions over the phone. He would ask Lawyer Kaew whether the money was offered to prompt the victim’s side to request compensation or was an actual offer.
On the day he was present, he confirmed hearing Lawyer Kaew offer about 2.5 million baht in compensation to the victim. After the incident, he is aware that a public prosecutor tried to contact the victim's father to negotiate a settlement. However, he believes this is a non-settleable case and fears justice may be compromised because the negotiator is a public prosecutor.
Furthermore, Mr. Arnop said he has yet to see any positive mediation atmosphere because the victim's father remains angry. Previously, Lawyer Kaew was trusted, respected, and liked by the father, even hired as his personal lawyer. Although Lawyer Kaew apologized since the incident, no clear responsibility has been shown by the opposing party to date.