The Appeals Court overturned the conviction and acquitted Nipon Bunyamanee in the case of non-payment for vehicles, concluding that his exercise of authority to conduct inspections was for the benefit of the government and found no intent to harass the private company.
18 Aug 2026 GMT+7 The Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct delivered the Appeals Court judgment in the case where the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) prosecuted Nipon Bunyamanee, former Chief Executive of Songkhla Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO), charged under Penal Code Section 157 for failing to authorize payment for two multi-purpose maintenance vehicles worth over 50 million baht. The payment was to be made to the contracted company. The Appeals Court overturned the lower court’s decision and acquitted Nipon after determining that the evidence did not prove intent to commit misconduct or to harass the company to cause damage.
The Appeals Court ruled on a key issue: Nipon’s order to conduct further inspections and tests on the two vehicles was carried out in his role as Chief Executive of Songkhla PAO, the head of the local government’s executive branch, with authority to supervise and act to protect government interests. Especially given the vehicle procurement was over 50 million baht but had only one acceptance certificate, there was reasonable cause to verify facts and correctness before proceeding.
The court found that ordering the inspection was not an arbitrary cancellation of the acceptance results but a directive by the local government chief to ensure the vehicles met specifications and purposes for government use. He was authorized to order system tests on the two vehicles. Moreover, before ordering the tests, Nipon summoned relevant officials to provide information and clarify facts. This conduct indicated no intent to harass the contracted company but rather a fact-finding process before decision-making as an administrator.
Regarding the vehicle testing timeline, it appeared that on 18 Dec 2013 the defendant signed for the company to bring the vehicles for system testing, and the company did not dispute this order. Later, the company notified the test would occur on 7 Jan 2014. Therefore, delays in testing could not be attributed to stalling by the defendant. Also, the company did not claim that ordering the tests violated regulations at that time. The court thus held the inspection and testing orders were within the defendant’s authority and carried out with government interest as the priority.
Witness Likit, a prosecution expert from the Comptroller General’s Department, testified that the defendant could order vehicle tests if deemed beneficial to the government. Furthermore, when complaints about procurement processes were under investigation, payments could not be processed normally. Disbursing funds amid suspicions of irregularities could implicate the approver in collusion or complicity.
The Appeals Court also examined payment procedures, noting no formal “payment request” was submitted to the defendant according to Ministry of Interior regulations. The procurement unit only submitted a memorandum about the vehicle inspections and tests, but no official request was presented to the Songkhla PAO chief executive for payment approval. According to local government financial regulations, payments must follow proper procedures and have correct documentation. Without a formal request, the defendant could not approve payment. Using memoranda or other documents instead of a formal request to approve disbursement would contravene regulations and expose the approver to liability.
Regarding suspicions about the procurement process, the court noted that after complaints were made about specification setting, favoritism toward contractors, and possible bid rigging, the legal department proposed setting up a fact-finding committee. Subsequently, the Songkhla provincial governor issued a letter instructing the PAO to investigate and, if wrongdoing was found, to pursue civil and criminal actions.
Considering all circumstances—from summoning officials for inquiry, ordering vehicle tests, investigating procurement complaints, to the absence of a formal payment request—the Appeals Court found no evidence the defendant intentionally abused power or neglected duties to harass the contracted company. Thus, Nipon's actions did not fulfill the elements of misconduct under Penal Code Section 157 as charged. The court overturned the lower court’s ruling and acquitted Nipon Bunyamanee.