Ex-Lawyer Convicted of Fraud Gets 3-Year Sentence
A former lawyer disbarred in 2018 was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for filing false lawsuits and making false statements in court to defraud clients of 3 million baht.
Benz Racing and his mother Helen, a former lawyer who allegedly defrauded clients of 3 million baht, have been arrested and sentenced to three years imprisonment without awaiting appeal finality. On August 3, 2026, the Criminal Court on Ratchdamri Road scheduled the reading of the Supreme Court's verdict in case number Aor. 3452/2562, filed by plaintiff Suparpen Vorojarajarajadet against former lawyer Siwawit Samredsophon on charges of filing false lawsuits and making false statements in court proceedings.
According to the plaintiff's complaint, on November 15, 2017, the defendant filed false charges against the plaintiff in criminal case Aor. 3534/2560, alleging obstruction of justice and defamation. The plaintiff claims the defendant falsely alleged she had unlawfully taken a service contract document. However, on October 6, 2017, the plaintiff presented the same contract as evidence in a civil case—evidence the plaintiff denies ever using falsely. The defendant, a lawyer at the time, was later disbarred by the Bar Association on February 8, 2018.
The trial court found the defendant guilty of multiple offenses: one year imprisonment for filing false charges and two years for making false statements in criminal proceedings, totaling three years. The Appeals Court reduced the sentence to eight months. When the Supreme Court scheduled the verdict reading on July 7, 2026, the defendant failed to appear, leading the court to issue an arrest warrant and forfeit bail.
On the date of this report, Muang Pathumthani police arrested the defendant and presented him to the court per the arrest warrant. The Supreme Court examined the case and found that the trial court had dismissed charges against the plaintiff's son regarding drug offenses, convicting the defendant only on money laundering charges. The court determined that because the plaintiff had removed the defendant from the legal profession and used documents in litigation until the suit was dismissed—documents the defendant never actually used—the defendant had legitimate grounds to demand the return of his service contract.
