Supreme Court upholds 50-year jail term for boss who raped employee

[webfact]

Supreme Court upholds 50-year jail term for boss who raped employee
By The Nation

 

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday sentenced an employer to 50 years in jail for raping a female employee on several occasions in 2008.

 

The court found Surachai Wiwattanachart, 41, guilty of raping “Yui”, not real name, an employee of his International Detective Co Ltd, repeatedly from April 19 to August 10 in 2008.

 

The Supreme Court retained the sentence handed down by the primary and appeals courts against Surachai and amended the conviction description from detention to rape.

 

Surachai and his wife, Thanawan Udommeechai, 50, were charged with collaborating to detain and rape the employee and threatening to release video clips of the rapes.

 

The lower courts jailed the wife for 10 years as an accomplice but she jumped bail before the Appeals Court read the verdict. 

 

The Appeals Court issued an arrest warrant for her in 2014 and fined her bail guarantor Bt1 million.

 

The Supreme Court earlier postponed the reading of the verdict twice because the wife was not there to hear it.

 

On Tuesday, the court read the verdict against her in absentia and she was acquitted.

 

Rassamee Waiyanet, the lawyer of the victim, said the victim would sue Surachai in the Civil Court for compensation now that the criminal case was over.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/breakingnews/30313294

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-04-25

[petermik]

Whilst not condoning this terrible act there is a guy enjoying life who killed a policeman here a few years ago....so why doesn,t the Supreme Court act on this....

[sanemax]

43 minutes ago, webfact said:

On Tuesday, the court read the verdict against her in absentia and she was acquitted.

Does that She is now free ?

Despite jumping bail .

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

Does that She is now free ?

Despite jumping bail .

Yeah, that's an odd one.

 

Is it a crime to jump bail if you are later acquitted?

 

[sanemax]

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah, that's an odd one.

 

Is it a crime to jump bail if you are later acquitted?

 

Could be that if the bail money is paid , then that could be seen as the punishment for skipping bail ? if later found to be not guilty

   But, that would be open to all kinds of corruption

[jaltsc]

1 hour ago, petermik said:

Whilst not condoning this terrible act there is a guy enjoying life who killed a policeman here a few years ago....so why doesn,t the Supreme Court act on this....

There are billions of reasons.

[Jaybott]

34 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah, that's an odd one.

 

Is it a crime to jump bail if you are later acquitted?

 

Something like this happened in the US a few years ago. When you post bail you are guarenteeing that you will appear in court until your case is settled, whether you are guilty or not. The guy in the US who was eventually acquitted, had to pay all additional court costs relating to his absence, was fined (in lieu of jail time) for his no show. Also, when he did not show he forfeited his bail, even though he was later acquitted. So he also had to pay his entire bond back to a pissed off bail bondsman. I can just assume that Thailand Law may be similar.

[Eric Loh]

46 minutes ago, jaltsc said:

There are billions of reasons.

Only one reason - just big is your brown envelope

[phantomfiddler]

Is it my imagination, or is there a complete inconsistency regarding the degree of sentencing in this country, depending on who your father is and how much money you have ? Some of the sentences handed out are ridiculously severe, while others are either ridiculously lenient or none at all. Some are even sick, like the dropping of all charges if the rapist marries the girl he raped !!

[Hayduke]

24 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Is it my imagination, or is there a complete inconsistency regarding the degree of sentencing in this country, depending on who your father is and how much money you have ? Some of the sentences handed out are ridiculously severe, while others are either ridiculously lenient or none at all. Some are even sick, like the dropping of all charges if the rapist marries the girl he raped !!

The country’s completely honest leaders are of unimpeachable character and would never allow anything like this. Family connections and wealth are of absolutely no consequence in any legal proceedings and the law is always applied equally and impartially. It must be your imagination.

[sanemax]

31 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Some are even sick, like the dropping of all charges if the rapist marries the girl he raped !!

I think you are refering to some other Country . Malaysia ?

[worgeordie]

"The Appeals Court issued an arrest warrant for her in 2014 and fined her bail guarantor Bt1 million."

now the court has found her not guilty, will they return the 1 Million, I dont think so.

regards worgeordie

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, petermik said:

Whilst not condoning this terrible act there is a guy enjoying life who killed a policeman here a few years ago....so why doesn,t the Supreme Court act on this....

 

Er, the Supreme Court can't act as it hasn't even been to the Court of First Instance yet, let alone appeal.

 

The in-action is being batted like a tennis ball between the police and prosecution. The police need to act, get a warrant issued and file an Interpol request.

[hansnl]

1 hour ago, Jaybott said:

Something like this happened in the US a few years ago. When you post bail you are guarenteeing that you will appear in court until your case is settled, whether you are guilty or not. The guy in the US who was eventually acquitted, had to pay all additional court costs relating to his absence, was fined (in lieu of jail time) for his no show. Also, when he did not show he forfeited his bail, even though he was later acquitted. So he also had to pay his entire bond back to a pissed off bail bondsman. I can just assume that Thailand Law may be similar.

Hence the stupidity of bail.

Posting a bail is not a guarantee for appearing in court.

Arrest followed by detention is.

[Fulwell53]

5 hours ago, petermik said:

Whilst not condoning this terrible act there is a guy enjoying life who killed a policeman here a few years ago....so why doesn,t the Supreme Court act on this....

Surely you arent suggesting one mitigates against the other.

OJ Simpson anyone

[Rhys]

Sadly again this is just another example  ...of....JUST US....

[soalbundy]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah, that's an odd one.

 

Is it a crime to jump bail if you are later acquitted?

 

It is badly written, she was sentenced to 10 years in absentia and the case is now closed ie over, she can't appeal,that's just my take on it