Bangkok Legal Service

The defendant, Dao, committed an offense due to failing to pay the check as stipulated, in violation of Section of the Check Act, issuing identical checks totaling the same amount on an account with insufficient funds. The compromise agreement was entered into with Den, involving the transfer of outstanding debts owed by Dao, whereby both parties agreed to create a written record, granting Den all rights to the aforementioned checks and prohibiting him from pursuing legal action against Dao, both criminally and civilly, until the case reached its final resolution. Den then reported the matter to the police as an authorized representative of Den. Den sued Dao as a defendant, issuing a check to Den with the intention of non-payment of the check during the court proceedings. Subsequently, Suriya, husband of Den, petitioned the court for the inheritance rights of Den. Den objected, arguing that Suriya had died and therefore had no right to pursue this case on behalf of Den, as Den had transferred all rights, including the right to pursue this criminal case, to himself. If this court were to consider Suriya’s petition for inheritance and Den’s objection, what is your answer, referring to the compromise agreement which states that Den requested and Den pursued criminal and civil actions against Dao until the case reached its final resolution, resulting in Den being granted the authority to pursue and sue Dao as a defendant in the criminal case of intent to dishonor a check.

Regarding the compromise agreement, it is stated that Den requested and pursued criminal and civil actions against Dao until the case reached its final resolution, thereby granting Den the authority to pursue and sue Dao as a defendant in the criminal case of intent to dishonor a check, even though there was a transfer of claims. Such a transfer does not constitute a transfer of the right to pursue a criminal case. Therefore, Den’s authority to pursue the aforementioned case has terminated according to the Civil Code and Suriya, being the husband of Den, has the right to pursue the case on behalf of Den pursuant to Section 2 of the Civil Code. Den’s objection is dismissed. The court orders the admission of Criminal Procedure Act Section 29 to allow Suriya to prosecute the case on behalf of Den, totaling 1495. The court may rule that the marriage between Mea and Fai was a fraudulent marriage, therefore Fai does not lose the right to obtain assets due to the marriage, which includes inheritance, according to the Civil and Commercial Code Section and the precedent judgment 1924/2522. Consequently, as a legal heir, Fon and Fai have the right to receive money from the company in the amount of 50,odd baht (referring to precedent judgment 1924/2522).

Civil Procedure Law, Civil Procedure Law, Evidence Law