8/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 125 (No. 6827) 2006
Ms. Vanida Boonjantranon vs. Mr. Pairat Suntreerat

Re: Inheritance

In addition to the intervener and the deceased openly living together as husband and wife in a normal fashion, the inventor also assisted the deceased with his real estate business by guaranteeing his loan as a joint debtor and also assisted paying taxes. Being a joint debtor gives the intervener the right to take recourse from the estate of the deceased to recover the lost capital and other damages plus interest because the deceased is indebt to the intervener. The intervener is therefore a party who is affected and has a role in the distribution of the assets of the deceased. This means that the intervener may request for the court to appoint an executor of the estate according to Part 1 Section 1713 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

8/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 191 (No. 7853) 2006
Public Prosecutor vs. Mr. Eakkapong or Eakkapong or Mod Boonjea

Re: Rape of a Minor; Multiple Sexual Offenses

The wrongful act of separating a girl under 15 years of age from her parents as separation for the purposes of sexual abuse according to Paragraph 3 Section 317 of the Criminal Code: The defendant had the intention to carry out a wrongful act against the parents of the Thailand injured party which is one sexual offense which is separate from the wrongful act of taking another person to sexually abuse them according to the first paragraph of Section 285 of the Criminal Code.

The wrongful act of raping a girl who is less than 15 years of age according to Paragraph 3 Section 317 of the Criminal Code and the wrongful act of taking another person to sexually abuse them according to Paragraph 1 Section 317 of the Criminal Code: The defendant had the same intention, that is to take the defendant to a place where he could rape her.  The action of the defendant is the same wrongful act which violates many different laws.

The problem is whether the actions of the defendant were one sexual offense or many different sexual offenses.  This is therefore a question of the order of the law.  Although the parties did not appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has the power to consider the case according to Paragraph 2 of Section 195 and Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

8/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 220 (No. 9145) 2006
Public Prosecutor of Satun Province vs. Hmad Mahad

Re: Exhibition and Dispensation of Marijuana

The Illegal Drug Act defines "dispense" as to sell, distribute, pay, exchange and give therefore the meaning is broader than "to sell" as defined in the Civil and Commercial Code.  Although "to pay" and "to distribute" do not come with any compensation they are still defined as "dispensing".  This demonstrates the transfer of products is important.  Although there was an agreement for the sale and purchase of marijuana, the spy still had not transferred the money to the two defendants and the defendant had only taken the marijuana out of its hiding place and exhibited it to the spy.  The defendants had not yet transferred the marijuana to the spy when a police officer arrested the defendants.  The marijuana which was detained is only 40 kilograms and not the 50 kilograms the spy had agreed to buy from the two defendants.  The spy was only shown marijuana.  This can not be considered a transfer of marijuana.  The sale-purchase of marijuana between the defendants and the spy was not complete.  The actions of the two defendants are therefore a wrongful act of trying to dispense exhibited marijuana.