Sararat “Aem Cyanide” Rangsiwuthaporn was acquitted by the Criminal Court on Wednesday in a case involving the alleged cyanide poisoning of a woman in Nakhon Pathom in August 2020. The court's decision was based on the prosecution's failure to demonstrate that Sararat possessed cyanide or had a financial motive behind the alleged crime. The case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence linking her to the possession or use of the toxin.

Get today's headlines by email

The indictment claimed that Sararat poisoned engineer Nittaya Kaewbuppha by mixing cyanide into her drink between August 22 and 23, 2020, with the intention of financial gain. However, the court concluded that the prosecution did not adequately establish how Sararat obtained or maintained cyanide, nor did they convincingly prove any financial motive. These gaps led to the case's dismissal, adopting a benefit of the doubt approach.

Despite being acquitted, Sararat remains in custody, as the charge is severe enough to warrant a possible death sentence. Defense lawyer Thannicha Eksuwannawat highlighted that the court recognized the lack of evidence regarding when, if ever, Sararat possessed cyanide. Although cleared in this case, Sararat's other legal troubles continue, with potential appeals forthcoming.

Sararat's legal challenges are further compounded by her conviction and death sentence in another cyanide poisoning case concluded in November 2024. Moreover, she received a life sentence last month for murdering a policeman, a sentence initially decided as execution but reduced due to her confession. Sararat, 39, faces accusations of administering cyanide to 14 individuals between 2015 and 2023.

Looking ahead, her lawyer plans to use the court's current reasoning to address 10 additional ongoing cases against Sararat. These cases are divided into those occurring before and after she was found to have purchased cyanide on August 9, 2022. The continued legal proceedings will explore the detailed circumstances and evidence behind each accusation.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Bangkok Post · 11 Mar 2026

View full article

This whole Aem Cyanide saga demonstrates just how messy the Thai justice system can be.

She may well be guilty, but police rushed out with their ubiquitous press conference, paraded her as Nittaya's “killer” and fed the media a full narrative even before the case reached court.

Once that happens, everything gets clouded, public pressure rises, lawyers scramble, and the courts end up buried in weak evidence, procedural mistakes, and endless appeals.

People talk about Thailand having a presumption of guilt, but it’s more like a presumption created by police PR rather than solid investigation.

When the case finally reaches the courtroom, half of it falls apart because the groundwork was never strong to begin with. This acquittal is just another example of how the system ties itself in knots.

Sounds like she found a method of murder that went undetected initially and went to town with it for approaching a decade, if the charges are accurate of course.

Defense lawyers are paid to pick holes in the prosecutions case and did their jobs here.

Luckily for the prosecution, she didn't walk free after being acquitted on a technicality.

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Despite being acquitted, Sararat remains in custody, as the charge is severe enough to warrant a possible death sentence.

This is categorically false. She does not remain in custody "as the charge is severe enough to warrant a possible death sentence." - this would imply that innocent people are kept in custody based on the nature of what they're charged with - farcical.

She remains in custody because she was already convicted of another murder.

6 hours ago, WHansen said:

Luckily for the prosecution, she didn't walk free after being acquitted on a technicality

She wasn't acquitted on a technicality, she was acquitted due to lack of evidence!

20 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Despite being acquitted, Sararat remains in custody, as the charge is severe enough to warrant a possible death sentence.

Can someone explain this? On this charge she's been acquitted, yet can face the death penalty on the charge she has been acquitted of.