"Former senior executive of a major mobile carrier" and met with Lat Phrao police regarding a hit-and-run case, denying drunk driving and explaining the reason for leaving the accident scene.
At 14:00 on 13 May 2026, Mr. Sarawut, 55, a former senior mobile carrier executive, accompanied by his lawyer, went to meet Police Lieutenant Ekaphon Manee, investigative officer at Lat Phrao Police Station, to acknowledge charges. The complaint was filed by Mr. Ekkalak, an online vendor victim, who submitted video evidence to the "Sai Mai Must Survive" page, alleging the accused rear-ended his vehicle, displayed behavior resembling intoxication by challenging him to fight, then fled the scene without submitting to a breathalyzer test. The incident occurred on Nawamin Road, Nawamin Subdistrict, Bueng Kum District, Bangkok, at 21:00 on 7 January 2026.
Police Lieutenant Colonel Nusorn Kritiyachot, deputy chief investigator and head of the Lat Phrao Police Station investigation team, said today the accused was summoned to acknowledge charges of reckless driving causing property damage and hit-and-run. The summons followed several attempts to arrange mediation meetings between both parties, beginning 27 March, which failed due to missed appointments and communication difficulties, causing delays. The summons today had been scheduled for some time but became news only after the victim filed a complaint on the "Sai Mai Must Survive" page yesterday.
Regarding the accused’s claim that he mistakenly went to the wrong police station for three days before reporting to Lat Phrao Police Station, initially he said he did not intend to flee. The morning after the incident, he went to Khok Khram Police Station by mistake. Three days later, after learning it was the correct jurisdiction, he reported to Lat Phrao police.
As for suspicions from the video that the accused was driving under the influence, the police acknowledged that several months had passed, making alcohol testing impossible. Without scientific evidence such as blood alcohol levels documented in the case file, drunk driving charges cannot be filed.
However, hit-and-run behavior carries penalties of up to three months in prison, fines from 2,000 to 10,000 baht, or both, so the accused can still be prosecuted on these grounds. It is unclear whether the accused’s three-day absence was to avoid alcohol testing, but the hit-and-run charge stands regardless.
Concerning the assault case, the accused filed a counter-complaint against the victim alleging assault. The accused submitted evidence including his dashcam footage, the victim’s video, and a medical certificate from a hospital examination after the incident to investigators. Legally, hospital medical certificates serve only to support treatment for sick leave and cannot be used as forensic evidence in assault cases; only certificates from forensic medical doctors are valid.
Therefore, the accused must undergo examination by a forensic medical doctor to obtain an official medical certificate as evidence for assault charges. Currently, no charges have been filed against the victim in the assault case. Although months have passed, forensic doctors can review medical records and issue forensic certificates accordingly.
Regarding the victim’s claim for damages amounting to 170,000 baht, this is a civil matter dependent on the parties’ negotiation based on actual losses. If negotiations fail, the case will proceed in civil court. Concerning the victim’s suspicion that police influenced the negotiation, police deny directing or favoring either side. They only explained that if the accused had reported the incident to police the night it occurred, he would not be charged with hit-and-run. Since he did not report then, hit-and-run charges apply, carrying penalties up to three months imprisonment and fines up to 10,000 baht.
Police also deny bias or favoritism toward the accused, especially as he is a former mobile carrier executive. The accused himself failed to attend scheduled meetings, prompting a summons. The police affirm impartiality and fairness to all parties. The accused is not personally acquainted with the Lat Phrao police inspector, contrary to the victim’s belief; inquiries confirmed no personal relationship, likely a misunderstanding arising from the inspector’s friendly demeanor, which is customary for public officers.
Most recently, at 16:00, Mr. Sarawut gave an interview after meeting investigators for over two hours, stating this is a traffic case that can be resolved through negotiation and compromise. He said the other party has not engaged in mediation, so the legal process must proceed. Regarding the criminal assault case, it must be handled accordingly. He confirmed that after the incident he went to the wrong police station and was therefore unable to file a police report immediately.
Although he has now been charged with criminal assault, he remains open to negotiation with the victim. He insists he did not consume alcohol on the day of the incident and was not driving under the influence. He explained that he left the accident scene because the situation was tense and crowded, raising safety concerns.