Tense Verdict Looms: Court to Rule on 12 Senior NACC Officials in 'Uncle Bom' Luxury Watch Cover-Up Case

The Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct, Division 1, will deliver its verdict on May 27, 2025, in a case brought by Veera Somkhwamkit, secretary-general of the People's Anti-Corruption Network (PANCN), against NACC Secretary-General Nivatvichhai Kasemmongkol (defendant 1) and former NACC Secretary-General Voravit Sukboon (defendant 2), along with 10 other defendants. The 12 defendants in total are: Nivatvichhai Kasemmongkol, Voravit Sukboon, Pol. Gen. Watcharapol Prasartrajkij, Precha Lertkomlamats, Pol. Gen. Sataporn Luawthong, Nrong Ratamurit, Supha Piyajitti, Wittaya Akampitaksa, Suvanna Suwannjuta, Pol. Gen. Bunvawat Kruahahngsong, Natchakra Patmasing na Ayutthaya, and Suchat Trakulkaemsukhit.

All 12 defendants are accused of concealing documents related to Pol. Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan's luxury watch during his period as Deputy Prime Minister. The court has accepted the case (Case No. 95/2567 Black) with a verdict hearing set for May 27.

According to reports, Veera has progressively withdrawn charges against multiple defendants after discovering new facts. Two defendants—Suchat Trakulkaemsukhit and Suvanna Suwannjuta—voted in the minority on December 6, 2566, in favor of full disclosure of the watch investigation documents to Veera, with only names of involved officials redacted. However, Veera did not withdraw charges against them, leading the court to dismiss charges against both. Veera has also withdrawn charges against defendants such as Natchakra and Precha, though the court has not permitted withdrawal against Supha Piyajitti and Pol. Gen. Watcharapol Prasartrajkij.

Reports suggest Veera's prosecution may constitute abuse of legal process, as the filing coincided with the selection of a new NACC president. During preliminary hearings, it became clear that Suchat and Suvanna did not commit the alleged offenses, as their lawyers presented meeting minutes showing their minority vote in favor of disclosure. Despite this evidence, Veera refused to withdraw charges until the court dismissed them.

Observers note the pattern of Veera selectively withdrawing charges against some defendants while the court rejected others raises questions about his motives. Sources suggest that if the court issues a final verdict, some defendants plan to immediately sue Veera for malicious prosecution, viewing his actions as a targeted vendetta that caused damage to their reputations.