The Criminal Court acquitted Thanathorn in the Article 112 case concerning his live criticism of the vaccine, stating that it referred to the Prayut government and was not an expression of hostility toward the monarchy in any way.
At Criminal Court courtroom 814 at 09:00 on 28 May 2026 GMT+7, the court heard the verdict in the defamation case number A.875/2022. The criminal prosecution division 5 charged Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, leader of the Progressive Movement, with defaming, insulting, or showing hostility toward the monarch under Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act.
The case involved a Facebook live broadcast on 18 Jan 2021, during which the defendant criticized the government's procurement of COVID-19 vaccines in a segment titled "Royal Vaccine: Who Gains and Who Loses?" The prosecution alleged that the broadcast distorted information, misled the public, and implicated the monarchy concerning Siam Bioscience company and vaccine procurement. The defendant denied the charges, contested the case, and was granted bail.
On the verdict day, Thanathorn arrived to hear the court's decision. Upon entering the Criminal Court building, reporters asked how confident he was. Thanathorn smiled, raised his fist, and said, "I'm feeling positive," before entering the courthouse.
Meanwhile, a group of Thanathorn's supporters gathered outside the Criminal Court to offer encouragement. Among them was Amarat Chokepamitkul, former party-list MP of the Move Forward Party, who also attended the verdict hearing.
The Criminal Court recently acquitted Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, finding him not guilty under Article 112. The court concluded that the live broadcast referred to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's management of COVID-19 vaccines, not the monarchy as the prosecution claimed. Regarding the reference to Siam Bioscience, the court found the statements factual and not defamatory.
Regarding whether the Prime Minister could be held accountable for vaccine management errors, the court noted that if mismanagement occurred, the public suffers the loss. Therefore, the defendant's actions did not constitute defamation or hostility under Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act. The court ruled to acquit.