2/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 19 (No. 268) 2006
Public Prosecutor of Chantaburee vs. Daowrung Intaraseabwong

Re: Separate Offenses

The defendant and friend brought the Thailand foreigner into the Kingdom which is an offense. Next the defendant and friends helped to hide the foreigner to escape from arrest.  This constitutes a second offense in addition to the first offense.  Therefore the defendants' offenses are separate.

2/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 86 (No. 992) 2006
Plalom Kleangklao (Requesting Party) Sawai Midkuntod (Plaintiff)
Lod Pochai (Defendant)

Re: Fraud

According to their marriage certificate the defendant married Sor on 6 January 1981 and government officials issued Title Deed Number 26526 to Sor on 16 August 1999.  It is not apparent how Sor acquired the Thailand real estate.  The land is marital property between Sor and the defendant according to Section 1474 (1) and Paragraph 2 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  The Plaintiff is a creditor of the defendant and has the right to consider the land as an asset according to Section 278 and Section 282 of Civil and Commercial Code when pursuing payment of debt.

The requisitioning party and Sor both have domiciles at Moo 1. Defendant and Sor have been the Thailand married for about 30 years and the requisitioning party knew from Kor, Bor, and Por before entering into a contract to purchase the land that Kor, Bor, Por and their party are currently involved in criminal and civil proceedings against the defendant.  It appears that the requisitioning party bought the land from Sor as part of a fraud conspiracy with the defendant.  The debtor is at a disadvantage according to Section 237 of the Civil and Commercial Code and does not have the right to requisition for relief from land seizure.  

2/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 89 (No. 997) 2006
Winai Chaipanit, Ratchanee Kijprayoon and Requestioning parties

Re: Inheritance

The will of the decedent is void because the deceased did not sign the will in the presence of two witnesses. Also the two witnesses did not sign the will at the same time in the presence of each other as is stipulated in Section 1656 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Therefore the person submitting the requisition cannot receive and manage the estate of the deceased.

While the decedent was still alive he told persons in his village that the fourth person contesting the requisition is his son.  The villagers knew that the fourth person contesting the requisition is his son. The decedent took the fourth person to travel and gave him money for his support; the deceased openly acted as the father of the fourth person.  The fourth person contesting the requisition is the decedent's illegitimate child and according to Section 1672 of the Civil and Commercial Code will inherit the same as the decedent's legitimate children.  The fourth person has the rights to petition that his mother be the administrator of the decedent's estate.