Ruangkrai says the National Anti-Corruption Commission's dismissal of the case against Sak Siam is legally valid, stressing that criminal cases must be free from doubt. He compares this to the Constitutional Court's decision against Yingluck Shinawatra, who lost her prime minister position but escaped criminal charges.
On 2 May 2026, legal expert Ruangkrai Leekitwattana commented on the National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) resolution to dismiss the complaint against Mr. Sak Siam Chidchob, accused of concealing asset declarations. Speaking on the "Kom Chad Luek" program aired on 23 April 2026, he said that the NACC's explanations and disclosed documents are reasonable and based on thorough retrospective examination, especially regarding multiple consistent asset declarations and details of several land sales that align.
Ruangkrai noted that although the NACC has faced criticism from various sides, its decisions must be grounded in lawful authority. When official statements are made, evaluation should rely on facts and evidence. He cited the court ruling in Yingluck Shinawatra's case involving the transfer of Mr. Thawin Chiansi, reflecting that Constitutional or Administrative Court judgments do not bind criminal courts entirely, as they concern different issues.
"The ruling on ministerial status and criminal offenses are distinct matters. The Constitutional Court can remove someone from office but that does not automatically imply criminal guilt."
He explained that criminal cases require a higher standard of proof, demanding absolute certainty; if any doubt remains, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused. This contrasts with cases involving qualifications or ethics, which apply different criteria.
Ruangkrai further pointed out that in Mr. Sak Siam Chidchob's case, the NACC considered the issue of "intentional concealment of asset declarations," which requires clear proof of intent. Without sufficient evidence, criminal prosecution cannot proceed as the case may be rejected by prosecutors or acquitted by courts later.
However, Ruangkrai stated that the ethical aspects are still under NACC's investigation, which is a separate process and may yield different outcomes from the criminal case.
In conclusion, he emphasized that if the public disagrees with the NACC's decision, legal channels exist for review or complaints, but decisions should not be based on emotion. He warned that reopening such cases requires applying consistent standards across all cases to avoid double standards in the justice system.