The Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit against the Department of Revenue, demanding that Satit Rungkasiri pay 854 million baht.

The Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit against the Department of Revenue. Issuing a legal order requiring former Director General Sathit Rungkasiri to pay 854 million for joint corruption cases to approve tax refunds 3,000 over a million after the previous one in the criminal cases section The Criminal Court for corruption cases sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On June 1, 2023, Matichon reported that the Administrative Court read the judgment of the Central Administrative Court in Black Case No. 1163/2561 in Mr. Satit Rungkasiri, former Director General of the Department of Revenue. file a legal case against the Department of Revenue with 2 people asking to annul the order of the Department of Revenue that the plaintiff must pay compensation In case of corruption, return VAT to legal persons In the case of the Department of Revenue with 2 people

Order No. 650/2560 Wor. the lawsuit alleges The plaintiff when he was Director General of the Department of Revenue Relating to cases of fraud where the Bangkok District Revenue Office returned 22 VAT to legal persons who falsely claimed VAT refunds. causing damage to the government the plaintiff has appealed against such order but the result of the consideration of the appeal has not been notified So bring the case for prosecution.

The indictment states that Mr. Satit Rungkasiri used to serve as the Director General of the Department of Revenue. suffered damage from the Department of Revenue by the Director General of the Department of Revenue (Defendant in An order from the Department of Revenue dated 20 December 2017 required the plaintiff to be liable for compensation.

Because the Ministry of Finance has a book. Inform the 1st defendant to take action in accordance with the NACC decision stating that the plaintiff’s guilt was affected when he was the Director General of the Revenue Department and Mr. Professor when he was Bangkok Metropolitan District Revenue Service 22. Fraudulent benefits operating in fake VAT returns from Bangkok District Revenue Office It is a serious disciplinary action.

by allowing the accused to pay damages The second defendant ordered the appointment of an investigative committee on tort liability. the defendant 2 We considered and agreed with the opinion of the committee mentioned above who decided that the plaintiff must be liable to pay compensation. 1/3 of the 80 percent of the value of the damage

The amount was 854,943,021 baht on April 27, 2017 and was reported to the Ministry of Finance for review. The 2nd defendant ordered the Department of Revenue to compel the plaintiff to pay compensation. The complainant disagreed and sent a letter of appeal against such an order to the complainant. 2 but was not informed of the outcome of the consideration of the appeal The plaintiff then brought the case to court on June 7, 2018, asking the court to give a judgment or order to revoke the order of the Department of Revenue.

The case has issues that must be decided whether the 1st defendant by the 1st defendant 2 Is there a dispute order which is an illegal act? The complainant referred to the reasons for the illegality of the procedure for issuing the order. In case there is a problem that must be considered first that the said order is illegal for the reasons mentioned or not as follows:

1. Ms. B. The chairman of the investigation into the facts of tort liability is impartial. Because Ms K. used to inspect the work of the SorTor.Bangkok 22 and had a written report of the negative opinion presented to the complainant.

It was found that Ms.’s letter was not B. but a report to the plaintiff about the operation of SorTor.Bangkok 22 and has offered an opinion for fact checking only. the complainant has an opinion that is consistent with the proposal In this case, there is no reason for not being neutral.

2. The chairman of the fact-finding committee and the NACC investigative sub-committee have the same surname, so it is prohibited according to the principle of neutrality He is of the opinion that the question of neutrality must be a relationship between the administrative officer and the party to be considered. Therefore the principles of neutrality do not prohibit relations between officials.

3. The complainant does not have authority to consider and approve the VAT refund. which causes the offence, he considers that the complainant is the supervisor and therefore has the power and duty to inspect the work related to the VAT refund.

4. The dispute order did not state the facts required by law, and that order was considered to give reasons with relevant facts. law referred to considerations and support for the use of discretion

5. The disputed order was published on December 20, 2017. Therefore, he did not like it because of the statute of limitations when publishing the order It was seen that in this case, when the second defendant knew about the violation and knew the official which was supposed to Compensation was used from the date of receipt of the notification of the decision of the NACC identifying offenses on January 13, 2016, the prescription of two years, thus starting from that date. In the event there is no cause of illegality

6. The two defendants did not supervise the Tort Liability Investigation Committee to carry out an investigation to the end of all matters, considering that the Investigation Report was in accordance with the objectives of the appointment of the Investigation Committee.

7. The two defendants did not disclose the facts of the investigation. Therefore, it was not in accordance with the form and procedure required by law It was seen that it was a request for disclosure after the plaintiff had been ordered to pay compensation. The complainant must be given the right to appeal accordingly. Government Information Act

If there is a problem that must be considered further Did the plaintiff breach conditions on the 1st defendant and be liable to pay compensation to the 1st defendant? There is a group of 25 companies that are exporters of scrap metal and metal ore that are not actually operating but have applied for VAT refunds.

Mr Athro approved the VAT refund to the group of companies mentioned above. Subsequently, when Ms B. sent a letter to inform the plaintiff of the irregularity of SorTor’s tax refund. Bangkok22, the plaintiff As the Director General, he has the authority to supervise and must examine the operations related to tax refunds to be correct and in accordance with the law. by immediately suspending the said VAT refund

to prevent possible damage and when the facts appeared from witness statements and those involved Especially Mr. Prof., who gave the statement that the plaintiff left the false name of the group of companies claiming the VAT refund. Even if it is a unilateral claim However, from the plaintiff’s behavior that did not prevent the VAT refund as proposed Ms opinion. K.. The fact that the plaintiff visited the SorTor.Bangkok 22

Providing guidelines for tax refunds to new entrepreneurs immediately without having to delay for 6 months, including the transfer of 179,869,250 baht to buy gold bars in the name of the prosecutor is good In addition, it does not appear that the bars gold mentioned above is property which the plaintiff has rightly acquired from other sources. So, it can be heard that it is a gold bar which is linked to the money of the said group of companies.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.