Corporate Check Fraud Investigation and Prosecution Proceedings
The company Donchai Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. Don, a director authorized to sign on behalf of the company as per its registration certificate, issued a check when the due date arrived. Donchai Co., Ltd. then took the check to collect the money, but the bank according to the check refused to pay. Donchai Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. Wan and Mr. Dee, two directors, had issued a power of attorney to Mr. Keng to complain to Donchai Co., Ltd. regarding the aforementioned check and Mr. Keng went to file a complaint with the Investigation Office.
The Investigation Office prosecuted Donchai Co., Ltd. and Mr. Don for offenses arising from the use of checks, B.E. 2534 (1991), which was a criminal investigation case. The investigating officer interviewed Mr. Wan and Mr. Dee, setting a complaint deadline, which both individuals affirmed that they had granted power of attorney to Mr. Keng. The investigating officer prosecuted Donchai Co., Ltd. and Mr. Don to conduct investigations and gather evidence. There was an opinion to indict Donchai Co., Ltd. and Mr. Don, the second defendant, pursuant to the Check Act B.E. 2534 and forwarded the case to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for consideration. The Public Prosecutor has the power to indict any defendant and this case is a charge that Donchai Co., Ltd. and Mr. Don, the defendants, jointly committed offenses under the Check Act B.E. 2534, which is a claim for damages case, whereby the plaintiff must file a complaint against the defendant(s). The investigating officer therefore has the power to investigate and prosecute according to Section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The defendants according to Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the plaintiff, Donchai Co., Ltd., a victim, granted power of attorney to Mr. Keng to file a complaint and the power of attorney stated that power of attorney was granted to file a complaint and pursue legal action. This indicates that the plaintiff intended to pursue legal action only against Donchai Co., Ltd. as a legal entity. It intended to pursue legal action against Mr. Don as an individual as well, with Mr. Keng in the role of representative. Therefore, he has the authority to file a complaint and pursue legal action only against Donchai Co., Ltd. as a legal entity, the second defendant. There is no authority to file a complaint and pursue legal action against Mr. Don, the second defendant. The fact that Mr. Keng filed a complaint to pursue legal action, and against Mr. Don, the second defendant, is a complaint made while he was in the role of recipient of power of attorney, therefore, his actions have the same effect as Donchai Co., Ltd., the plaintiff, not filing a complaint against the second defendant. It appears that in the course of the investigation, the investigating officer interviewed Mr. Wan and Mr. Dee, the directors authorized to sign on behalf of Donchai Co., Ltd., the plaintiff, who both affirmed that they had granted power of attorney to Mr. Keng to file a complaint and pursue legal action against Donchai Co., Ltd. the defendant. The second defendant and the third defendant are considered to have given testimony to the investigating officer, and Mr. Don, the second defendant, is considered to have given testimony as well. This is considered an additional complaint according to Section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the investigating officer has the authority to investigate and prosecute Donchai Co., Ltd., the defendant, and the second defendant.
Donchai Co., Ltd., the defendant, and the second defendant.
2. Donchai Co., Ltd., the defendant, and the second defendant.
3. Donchai Co., Ltd., the defendant, and the second defendant.
of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Pol. Lt. Keng conducted investigations and findings that Mr. Lak was a .