Court orders arrest of ‘Kamnan Sia’
An arrest warrant for former Democrat Party MP Pracha Phothipipit, alias Kamnan Sia, and his wife was issued yesterday after the couple failed to report to the Supreme Court to hear a ruling on their alleged encroachment on more than 50 rai of state land.
The allegedly encroached land is l ocated i n Kanchanaburi’s Bo Phloi district.
In the event the couple do not turn up in court and the police are unable to track them within 30 days, the Supreme Court will hand down the ruling in absentia, according to an informed source.
Previously, the two were charged in a separate case in connection with a bidding price collusion. In that case, the Supreme Court on Jan 25, 2016 had sentenced the 75-year-old Pracha to five years in prison, and his wife, Khemporn Tangjaiyen, 52, to four years in jail.
Pracha alone faced another arrest warrant in a previous land encroachment case involving more than 1,199 rai of state land in Kanchanaburi’s Dan Makhamtia district and Ratchaburi’s Suan Phung district.
The Supreme Court on April 18 last year sentenced Pracha to two years and eight months in prison in the Dan Makhamtia land grab case. The court’s ruling was delivered in absentia as Pracha is on the run.
The court read out its sentence against Pracha, who was charged with encroaching on 1,199 rai of Treasury Department land — of which 299 rai is in Kanchanaburi’s Dan Makhamtia district and 900 rai in Ratchaburi’s Suan Phung district — between 1990-2004.
In the latest land encroachment case, the lower court on Mar 24, 2015 sentenced Pracha and Khemporn each to 11 years and four months in prison and ordered them to leave the encroached land.
The lower court also ruled that the prison sentences for the two be combined with the jail term handed them in another land encroachment case in Makham Tia district.
The two successfully sought bail while appealing against the lower court’s ruling in the latest case. They were released on bail with a surety of 1 million baht each.
However, the Appeal Court had to postpone its ruling twice due to the two’s no-shows. The court on Aug 8, 2016 read its ruling in their absence.
The court reversed the lower court’s ruling, reasoning that there were grounds for the two to misunderstand that they had the right to make use of the land, so their occupying of the land was not considered an act of encroachment.
The court has rescheduled handing down the decision to Jan 17 next year.