The Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for a well-known lawyer who fled and failed to attend the verdict, along with ordering the forfeiture of bail money, following a lawsuit by Benz Racing's mother accusing him of false testimony and embezzlement.
On 7 Jul 2026 GMT+7, at courtroom 609 of the Criminal Court at 09:30, the court scheduled the reading of the Supreme Court verdict in case number Aor.3452/2019. Mrs. Supornphen Worawornjaroendej, mother of Mr. Akkarit Worawornjaroendej, known as “Benz Racing,” was the plaintiff suing Mr. Siwavit Samretphon, a former lawyer, for false accusation and false testimony.
The plaintiff's complaint summarized that on 15 Nov 2017, the defendant presented false claims against the plaintiff in Criminal Court case number Aor.3534/2017 concerning justice-related offenses causing damage and defamation, alleging the plaintiff had stolen a contract document. On 6 Oct 2017, the plaintiff allegedly used this contract as false evidence in a civil court case, though in fact, the plaintiff neither took nor used false evidence. At the time of the defendant’s lawsuit, he was a lawyer but was later removed from the lawyers' registry on 8 Feb 2018. The defendant’s actions were fraudulent and intended to criminally punish the plaintiff. Furthermore, on 5 Mar 2018, the defendant gave false testimony in case Aor.3534/2017, which the court ultimately dismissed.
The trial court sentenced Mr. Siwavit to two years in prison, a verdict later upheld by the appellate court.
Before entering the courtroom, Mr. Akkarit, or “Benz Racing,” said he came with his mother to hear the Supreme Court verdict as the plaintiff who filed suit against the lawyer he had hired for bail matters but who failed to return 3.1 million baht. The civil court had previously ordered full repayment, but no money was returned, only a bankruptcy order. Subsequently, after the repayment order, Mr. Siwavit counter-sued his mother for filing unauthorized documents, but the court dismissed this due to lack of merit. He said this was harassment by a lawyer who used his legal knowledge to maliciously accuse his mother criminally. He did not remain passive and filed counterclaims for false accusation and false testimony. The trial court in 2022 sentenced the defendant to two years for false testimony and one year for false accusation; the appellate court reduced this to eight months. Both parties are appealing to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Akkarit added that he viewed this case as significant because the defendant was knowledgeable and a lawyer, a consultant to a parliamentary committee, and a recipient of a distinguished leadership award. Such a person should not abuse their position or power to harass citizens or exploit others’ legal troubles. Someone like this should not have a place in society. Previously, Mr. Siwavit never attempted mediation but only harassment, prompting Mr. Akkarit to file a police report for protection. Initially, he chose this lawyer on recommendation, not personally knowing him. The lawyer falsely claimed connections to powerful people who could help with cases. At that time, Mr. Akkarit had little legal knowledge and trusted the lawyer, but was ultimately deceived and lost a large sum. He believes justice exists but takes a long time, as this case has been ongoing since 2019.
When the scheduled time arrived, only the plaintiff’s lawyer and the plaintiff were present in court, while the defendant, who had received the summons for the verdict, did not appear.,The court ordered that since the defendant was properly notified but failed to appear and was unreachable, constituting flight, an arrest warrant was issued and the bail money was fully forfeited. The verdict hearing was rescheduled for 7 Aug 2026 GMT+7 at 09:00, with the court to announce any arrest results before delivering the verdict.
After the court adjourned, Mr. Akkarit said that since the defendant did not appear for today’s verdict, the court issued an arrest warrant and forfeited the bail, rescheduling the verdict for 7 Aug 2026 GMT+7. He believes the defendant has likely fled. He urged the defendant to face the verdict at the next scheduled hearing, reminding him that while he dared to deceive before, he should now have the courage to attend the final verdict.