False Debt Claim and Perjury in Asset Division Proceedings
An amount of five hundred baht, without any actual debt existing, and Mr. Pong had executed a loan agreement. The Court ordered settlement, requiring Mr. Teung to pay off Mr. Pong’s debt. Subsequently, Mr. Pla sold assets belonging to Mr. Teung in the proceedings regarding the division of assets between Mr. Teung and Mr. Pong, during which both Mr. Pong and Mr. Teung testified that they had indeed entered into a loan agreement, and Mr. Pong presented the aforementioned loan agreement as evidence. It is necessary to determine whether Mr. Teung and Mr. Pong are liable for any offenses.
The fact that Mr. Teung executed a loan agreement with Mr. Pong without any existing debt, and subsequently Mr. Pong filed a lawsuit and requested the division of assets in the proceedings overseen by Mr. Ruay, the creditor of Mr. Teung, who seized the assets, constitutes an attempt to falsely claim a debt on behalf of himself, resulting in partial repayment of the debt. The actions of Mr. Teung and Mr. Pong are therefore those of a debtor, pursuant to Article 351 of the Criminal Code, in conjunction with Article 83.
The fact that Mr. Teung and Mr. Pong testified during the proceedings regarding the division of assets that they had entered into a loan agreement, which is a material issue in the case and is false, constitutes Mr. Teung and Mr. Pong being liable for perjury, which is a material issue in the consideration of the case by the Court, pursuant to Article 177 of the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Pong presented the false loan agreement as evidence in requesting the division of assets, paragraph one, constitutes a violation of Article 181, paragraph one, of the Criminal Code, regarding the presentation of false evidence, which is a significant issue.