The Supreme Court has temporarily released a criminal case against the politicians “Somying Buabutr”, a member of the Amnat Charoen Pheu Thai MP, after the Attorney General filed a lawsuit. along with Hua’s auction to improve the futsal field
On 22 September, in the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Positions the Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Somying Buabutr, Pheu Thai MP. The State of Amnat Charoen, together with 12 people, are the defendants of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Offices. According to Black Case No. 18/2565
The plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant held the position of MP Amnat Charoen, the 2nd defendant held the position of general secretary of the Basic Education Commission, and the 3rd defendant was the director of the district office. Amnat Charoen Primary Education Area
Between November 2011 and January 2013, the 1st defendant together with the 2nd defendant considered the request for an additional budget for the 2012 financial year from the Office of the Basic Education Commission. State of Amnat Charoen to receive the budget allocation (Revised Budget) 15 places, established an account to manage the balance, inviting the school director to attend the clarification hearing, the 12th defendant gave a CD (CD) and sample documents, the 3rd defendant was the Chairman of the Central Pricing Committee The information in the CD was used to determine the middle price, causing the middle price to be higher and more expensive than the market price. The 3rd defendant considered and approved the form of a list of improvements to the stadium (futsal court) and the reinforced concrete stadium plan which was copied from the CD sheet Subsequently, each of the 12 schools issued a request to renovate the stadium by setting the same date and period time. using the service facility The same electronic central market is Pop Network Co, Ltd, which is exactly the same format. According to the information copied (COPY), there are 3 groups of entrepreneurs who submitted bids, namely the 4th defendant by the 5th defendant, the managing partner, the 6th defendant by the 7th defendant, the Managing Director and the 8th defendant by the 9th Defendant. , the Managing Director. who are not eligible and have the circumstance of submitting the offer envelope as a pair to compare prices They both forged documents and used several fake documents when applying. When the 4th and 6th defendants completed the construction work under the contract and executed the work. It appears that a futsal stadium cannot be used for its intended purpose. cause damage to the government
Twelve defendants committed an offense under the Criminal Code, Section 91,151,157 (only the defendants 1,4-12, Section 86 also) Prevention and Control of Corruption Act, 1999, Section 123/1, in conjunction with the Act. on the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, BE 2561, Section 192 (defendants 4-12 only The Criminal Code, Section 86) Offenses Act Regarding bids for government agencies, 1999, Sections 4,7,10-13 of the Criminal Code, Section 86, the twelve defendants came to court. and was temporarily relieved The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Offices will make an appointment to hear the order whether to accept the prosecution or not.