Criminal court denies bail for lawyer Sittha’s wife due to flight risk

It was reported that Sittha did not submit a request for temporary release. As for his wife, she requested bail in the amount of 500,000 baht and agreed to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

However, the court considered the case's circumstances, and the investigators objected, citing concerns that she might flee, interfere with the evidence, and that the victims opposed the bail, fearing she would escape and avoid compensating for the damages. Additionally, with 10 more witnesses needing to be questioned, the investigation could be hindered or damaged. The court ruled to deny bail until the investigation is completed.

Afterward, the authorities took both suspects to the Bangkok Special Prison and the Central Women's Correctional Institution during the detention period.

According to reports, in the first detention request, the petition stated that before the incident, the victim, Jatuporn Ubonlert, had hired Sittha as her legal advisor.

Subsequently, Sittha deceived the victim by providing false information and hiding the truth, leading her to transfer money to him on several occasions for different purposes.

Sittha misled Jatuporn into investing in the online sale of government lottery tickets, claiming she needed to pay 2,000,000 euros for programming services. The victim signed a contract for the program, which led her to transfer the specified amount to his bank account, totaling 71,067,764.70 baht.

The victim also asked Sittha to purchase a Mercedes-Benz G400. He falsely told her that the car could be purchased for 12,900,000 baht, including 30,000 baht for window tinting, bringing the total to 12,930,000 baht.

In reality, the car's price was only 11,400,000 baht, with no cost for window tinting. Sittha thus profited 1,530,000 baht from the price difference and tinting fee.

Sittha also deceived Jatuporn by claiming that a company had been hired to design a hotel that the victim intended to build. He falsely stated that the design fee would be 9,000,000 baht. In fact, Sittha had hired a different company to design the hotel for only 3,500,000 baht.

The victim, believing the deception, transferred 9,000,000 baht to the company's bank account, which was then withdrawn and given to Sittha. He thus gained 5,500,000 baht from the design fee difference.

Sittha's actions constitute fraud under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and investigations revealed that both suspects were involved in handling assets from these criminal activities, which are considered money laundering.