Prosecutors seek higher illegal hunting penalties for Premchai and gang

[rooster59]

Prosecutors seek higher illegal hunting penalties for Premchai and gang

 

 

Public prosecutors appealed to the Appeals Court today against the verdicts and sentences imposed on construction tycoon Premchai Karnasuta and three others, demanding higher penalties for illegal hunting in the Thungyai Naresuan wildlife sanctuary in which one panther and other protected wildlife species were killed.

The Thong Phaphum provincial court on March 19th handed down a 16-month prison term to Premchai, CEO of Italian-Thai International Development Plc, after finding him guilty of carrying firearms in public without a permit, being an accessory to illegal hunting and possession of a pheasant carcass.

He was acquitted on charges of collecting forest flora and fauna and of being in possession of a panther carcass.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/prosecutors-seek-higher-illegal-hunting-penalties-for-premchai-and-gang/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2019-05-25

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[neeray]

He’s getting a much lighter sentence than the panther got. 

[Vacuum]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Prosecutors seek higher illegal hunting penalties for Premchai

Good luck with that. He have already delivered the necessary envelope/s.

[klauskunkel]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

He was acquitted on charges of collecting forest flora and fauna

a collector of forest flora and fauna he is:

 

[toofarnorth]

Previous topic and I was looking at a lush burger , now I see this big ugly mug , panther burger ? Not for me !

[Just Weird]

1 hour ago, neeray said:

He’s getting a much lighter sentence than the panther got. 

And why not?  So far there has been no evidence that he killed the animal, has there?

[rkidlad]

46 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

And why not?  So far there has been no evidence that he killed the animal, has there?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. 

 

The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. See also hearsay.

 

Semantics will only get you so far. 

[hotchilli]

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

And why not?  So far there has been no evidence that he killed the animal, has there?

He was among others caught in a national park, with guns and with the dead skinned animal... they should all be charged equally guilty of the offence regardless of who pulled the trigger!

[1duckyboy]

A higher monetary penalty means nothing to him, he needs more jail time.

[emptypockets]

7 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. 

 

The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. See also hearsay.

 

Semantics will only get you so far. 

As evidenced by Islamic sharia law

Not for me buddy.  Show me incontrovertible proof before you hang someone 

[rkidlad]

39 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

As evidenced by Islamic sharia law

Not for me buddy.  Show me incontrovertible proof before you hang someone 

But can they handle the truth, Just Weird? 

[chama]

1 hour ago, 1duckyboy said:

A higher monetary penalty means nothing to him, he needs more jail time.

You mean a penalty that really hurts him? That's anti envelope talk! That would shake up the entire system!!!

[Just Weird]

20 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. 

 

The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. See also hearsay.

 

Semantics will only get you so far. 

Thanks, I know what circumstantial evidence is, I don't need your partial explanation copy and pasted from Wikipedia. 

 

I did not mention circumstantial evidence.  My implication was that the prosecution clearly did not have enough evidence to even charge him for the killing.

 

Semanticism did not come into my comment and your inability to understand it yet still lob it into your comment will get you even less far.

 

[Just Weird]

18 hours ago, hotchilli said:

He was among others caught in a national park, with guns and with the dead skinned animal... they should all be charged equally guilty of the offence regardless of who pulled the trigger!

Why?  Doing that when there's no specific evidence against one individual risks destroying the prosecution's case.

[Vacuum]

19 hours ago, hotchilli said:

He was among others caught in a national park, with guns and with the dead skinned animal... they should all be charged equally guilty of the offence regardless of who pulled the trigger!

That would be in an ideal world. The thing is that the fat guy is a very wealthy and influential person, hence 'no' (or minimal) charges against him.

[Dexlowe]

So far the plot is going as I expected. So, my prediction for what comes next?

 

The Appeal Court will indeed increase the penalty to burnish the lie that justice is being served. The case will then go to the Supreme Court, which will continue to find the def guilty, but will reduce the sentence back to close to the original, then suspend it because the def cooperated. 

 

No jail time will be served.

[rkidlad]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

Thanks, I know what circumstantial evidence is, I don't need your partial explanation copy and pasted from Wikipedia. 

 

I did not mention circumstantial evidence.  My implication was that the prosecution clearly did not have enough evidence to even charge him for the killing.

 

Semanticism did not come into my comment and your inability to understand it yet still lob it into your comment will get you even less far.

 

No, you implied they would need evidence tantamount to a man holding a loaded gun with smoke coming out of the end after just shooting an endangered animal. Caught on CCTV. 

 

If that sort of level of evidence was needed every time there was a crime, there would be very few convictions. That’s why we use ‘circumstantial evidence’.

 

The reason why he’ll do zero jail time (something I said from the very beginning) is because he will pay his way out.  

 

Again, he will do zero jail time because he has money.