Full judgment released "South Bangkok Criminal Court" sentenced to death two Uyghur men accused of planting a bomb at the Erawan Shrine at Ratchaprasong intersection
At 09:00 on 11 June 2026, in courtroom 601 of the South Bangkok Criminal Court, the court read its judgment in case number Black 2742/2019. The South Bangkok Criminal Prosecutor acted as plaintiff, charging Bilal Mohamed, also known as Adem Karadak, defendant number 1, and Miraili Yusufu, defendant number 2, with multiple offenses including jointly possessing explosives without a license, using explosives illegally, murder, jointly carrying weapons in a city, attempting to cause an explosion, attempted premeditated murder, causing an explosion resulting in death and serious injury, premeditated murder, property damage, illegal possession of explosives and war materials, and for defendant 1, illegal entry and residence in the Kingdom.
On 23 November 2015, the Bangkok Military Prosecutor charged both defendants at the Bangkok Military Court under the National Council for Peace and Order Announcement No. 50/2014. Later, on 14 November 2019, the Military Court ordered the case transferred to the South Bangkok Criminal Court. The plaintiff charged and amended charges stating that the two defendants, with others at large, committed various offenses as follows:
Charge 1(a): Between mid-July and 17 August 2015, the two defendants and others jointly possessed two sets of homemade improvised explosive devices, which are explosives used exclusively for warfare and which the registrar cannot license.
Charge 1(b): On 17 August 2015, during the day, the two defendants and others jointly carried one set of the explosives mentioned in charge 1(a) to the Chao Phraya Princess pier within the city without reasonable cause.
Charge 1(c): Defendant 1 placed the explosives from charge 1(b) at the Chao Phraya Princess pier, after which defendant 2 detonated the bomb as planned to kill the public present. However, the detonation failed due to a malfunction, so no explosion occurred and no one was killed there.
Charge 1(d): On 17 August 2015, around 18:00, the two defendants together carried another set of explosives as per charge 1(a) to the Erawan Shrine at Ratchaprasong intersection within the city without reasonable cause.
Charge 1(j): Following offenses in charges 1(a) and (d), defendant 2 handed the explosives from charge 1(d) to defendant 1, who then placed them at the Erawan Shrine. Defendant 2 detonated the bomb as planned, causing an explosion that killed 20 people, seriously injured 53, and caused bodily harm to 73 others, as well as damaging multiple properties.
Charges 1(k), (l), and (m): Between mid-July and 29 August 2015, the two defendants and others jointly possessed chemicals, detonator caps, and aluminum powder, which are explosives and war materials that the registrar cannot license, or which require licenses, all possessed illegally and without authorization.
Charges 1(n) and (o): Around May 2015, at an unspecified time,
it is clear that defendant 1, a foreigner, entered and stayed in the Kingdom without permission. Punishment is sought under the Penal Code sections 32, 33, 80, 83, 91, 221, 225, 289, 358, 371; the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and Imitation Firearms Act B.E. 2490 (1947) sections 4, 38, 55, 74, 78; and the War Material Control Act B.E. 2530 (1987) sections 15 and 42; and the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) sections 11, 12, and 81. The plaintiff also seeks confiscation of explosives and war materials and joint compensation from the defendants totaling 16,000 baht to the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority, 364,500 baht to the Police Hospital of the Royal Thai Police, 530,000 baht to Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, and 594,471 baht to the Bangkok Traffic and Transportation Department.
The defendants denied all charges. The court needed to determine whether the defendants had jointly committed the alleged offenses. It found that the defendants jointly possessed one set of explosives that the registrar cannot license, as per charge 1(a); jointly carried weapons into a city, village, or public place without reasonable cause, as per charge 1(d); jointly caused an explosion likely to endanger others or property resulting in death and serious injury; jointly committed premeditated murder; jointly attempted premeditated murder; jointly caused property damage; and jointly used unlicensed explosives to commit premeditated murder as per charge 1(j). Defendant 1 was also charged as a foreigner illegally entering and residing in the Kingdom.
The plaintiff presented 12 witnesses whose testimonies were consistent regarding events before, during, and after the incident, without suspicious signs of fabrication to frame anyone. Police Colonel Nopphasin Poolsawat (then rank) testified about the investigation method using CCTV footage at the scene and nearby areas, showing before the incident a man in a yellow shirt placing a backpack on a bench near the Erawan Shrine. After this man left, an explosion occurred. The court reviewed the CCTV evidence submitted by the plaintiff, showing the man in yellow alighting from a tuk-tuk near the Grand Hyatt Erawan Hotel, walking to the shrine, sitting on the bench, placing the backpack, standing up as if taking photos, then leaving at 18:53. No one returned to the bench until the explosion at 18:56.
The plaintiff's evidence showed that before the explosion, the man in yellow traveled to various places and met a man in a purple shirt; they exchanged items at Hua Lamphong Railway Station. A taxi driver witness confirmed that the man in yellow was defendant 1, whom he drove from Soi Charoen Nakhon 61 to Hua Lamphong Station. A tuk-tuk driver witness who transported the man in yellow from Hua Lamphong to the blast site also identified him as defendant 1. Another tuk-tuk driver who took the man in purple from Hua Lamphong to CentralWorld shopping mall near the blast site identified him as defendant 2; these identifications were confirmed during the trial.
Although a motorcycle taxi driver who transported the man in yellow from the blast site to Lumphini Park did not confirm him as defendant 1, after the man changed clothes from yellow to gray in a restroom in Lumphini Park, CCTV showed the man in gray was not at a convenience store near Soi Sihaburanukit in Minburi district at 21:05. The court reviewed CCTV submitted by the plaintiff showing defendant 1 wearing the gray shirt as described by witnesses. The gray shirt was later seized at Pulon Apartment, defendant 1's residence, matching the shirt worn on the incident day. CCTV also showed defendant 2 in the purple shirt passing by cameras. Mobile phone usage records showed the defendants communicated during this period.
Additionally, several plaintiff witnesses testified about the defendants' mobile phone purchases and communications before and after the incident, without signs of fabrication. The defendants confessed during investigation and indicated the crime scene during confession, supporting the plaintiff's timeline of events.
The defendants claimed residence and alleged torture during interrogation, asserting the investigation was unlawful. These claims arose only during trial without evidence of misconduct by investigators. The defendants' evidence lacked weight to refute the plaintiff's evidence.
The plaintiff's evidence was accepted without doubt that the defendants jointly committed offenses of possessing unlicensed explosives as per charge 1(a); carrying weapons in public without cause as per charge 1(d); causing an explosion resulting in death and serious injury; premeditated murder; attempted premeditated murder; property damage; and using unlicensed explosives to commit premeditated murder as per charge 1(j). Other charges relating to 1(b) and (c) were considered doubtful and benefit of doubt was given to the defendants according to criminal procedure law.
While the court accepted the defendants' involvement in the above offenses, the evidence for charges 1(b) and (c) was limited to testimony regarding CCTV showing defendant 1 traveling by taxi to Soi Charoen Nakhon 61 and then to Chao Phraya Princess pier. However, no footage showed defendant 1 placing explosives at the pier, nor were explosives recovered there. Therefore, reasonable doubt existed, and the defendants were acquitted of these charges.
Regarding charges 1(k), (l), and (m), the plaintiff presented forensic experts testifying about chemical and explosive materials found during searches of rooms 412 and 414 at Pulon Apartment. Forensic evidence identified these as explosives and war materials. Apartment management testified that defendant 1 lived in room 412, with room 414 locked before the incident. Defendant 2 had resided in both rooms. Latent fingerprints from the rooms matched the defendants. Additional witnesses testified about defendant 2 purchasing the chemicals. The defendants admitted discovery of evidence during investigation. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the defendants jointly possessed unlicensed explosives and war materials. Evidence from room 9106 in Maimun Garden Home dormitory was excluded as not in the charges.
Finally, regarding charge 1(n) and (o), the plaintiff presented witnesses confirming defendant 1 purchased a mobile phone on 1 August 2015, and that defendant 1 used this phone multiple times before, during, and after the incident. Witnesses saw defendant 1 residing at Pulon Apartment and defendant 1 admitted illegal entry and residence in the Kingdom. The court accepted these facts as true.
The court sentenced both defendants under Penal Code sections 221, 224 paragraphs 1 and 2, 289 (4), combined with section 80, and sections 358 and 371; the Firearms and Explosives Act B.E. 2490 sections 38, 55, 74, and 78 paragraphs 1 and 3; the War Material Control Act B.E. 2530 section 15 paragraph 1; combined with Penal Code section 83. Defendant 1 was also sentenced under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 sections 11, 62 paragraph 1, and 81. Their actions constituted multiple offenses; all charges were punished per Penal Code section 91. They were found guilty of jointly possessing one set of unlicensed explosives as per charge 1(a).
They were also found guilty of jointly causing an explosion likely to endanger persons or property, resulting in death and serious injury; jointly committing premeditated murder; jointly attempting premeditated murder; jointly causing property damage; and jointly using unlicensed explosives to commit premeditated murder. These acts constitute a single act violating multiple laws; the defendants were punished for premeditated murder, the most severe offense under Penal Code section 90, and sentenced to death.
For carrying weapons into public areas without cause, they were fined 1,000 baht each. For possessing unlicensed explosives and war materials, they were sentenced to five years' imprisonment each, as these offenses constitute a single act punishable under Penal Code section 90. Defendant 1 was sentenced to six months for illegal entry and six months for illegal residence in the Kingdom.
Considering the circumstances, the defendants committed their crimes amid large crowds worshipping at the Erawan Shrine and nearby areas, resulting in 20 deaths, 126 serious and minor injuries, and significant damage to private and government property, threatening national security, safety, and public order.
Although the court considered the defendants' confessions during investigation as part of the evidence, it did not mitigate their sentences. Since they were sentenced to death for premeditated murder, other prison sentences were not combined. Thus, the defendants were sentenced to death only, fined 1,000 baht each, and ordered jointly to compensate property damages totaling 16,000 baht to the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority, 364,500 baht to the Police Hospital of the Royal Thai Police, 530,000 baht to Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, and 594,471 baht to the Bangkok Traffic and Transportation Department. If fines are unpaid, enforcement follows Penal Code sections 29 and 30. Confiscation of explosives and war materials was ordered, and other charges were dismissed.