Court seized estate car wit a loyal German mother, Andrea. Lawsuit loans 4.2 billion

Court seized estate car wit a loyal German mother, Andrea. Lawsuit loans 4.2 billion

Court seized estate car wit loyal German mother

Court seized estate car wit loyal German mother

Court seized estate car wit a loyal German mother, Andrea. Lawsuit loans 4.2 billion. Demonstrative evidence to debunk is not enough.

When the news media reported that July 7 2559 civil court. Ratchadapisek Rd., have read the judgment of the Court of appeal when the July 6 in the case of public prosecutor appeals, Mrs. Phakhini Turbo Suwanphakdi. Mr. Atwit’s mother Suwanphakdi Former Rep. Phakprachathipat objector, Ms. Onphak Suwanphakdi The daughter who objected, Mr. Atwit Suwanphakdi Objector, and Mr. Natphong Suwanphakdi Sons who objected to 4.

For the provision Arising from the Committee against money-laundering (built in 2005). Check that Mrs. elder sister has credit to Mr. Suthep Cherinphonphanitkun group, which has total debts of 8 million when including 4,278 Thai 5,195 million baht. While she was Director, management of Metropolitan banks set credit limit is considered fraud under the law on commercial banks and the anti-money laundering Act b.e. 2542 therefore asks the court seized the assets of 4 items, part of the land include land and buildings 3 list securities co., inthon insurance (public) co., Ltd., the number of shares for a total value of approximately 333 6,765,300 baht.

Later, the District Court judge, land and buildings 3 conversion of bangkhen district land. Section 333 shares securities to objector that the objector all pretrial appeal.

After that, the Court of appeal had to examine whether Mrs. elder sister got credit, Mr. Suthep group without the financial analysis. There is no margin calls worth of debt is considered a fraud that damage to the Bank, the Bank has not received payment of over 4 billion.

In addition, there is a criminal action against the objector 1 base escape Bangkok southern Criminal Court’s arrest warrant a year 2549, including monitoring of the next. Found that the objector 1 estate and multiple securities acquired after the culprit. By it did not appear that sufficient to purchase the land. Does not correspond to the income and property section as disputed 2-4, received from an objector 1 dishonest property therefore need to disprove this presumption, but the evidence just doesn’t weigh enough to debunk? Therefore, the judgment of the Court of appeal stands.

Loading...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*