DSI clarifies information on the return of the exhibited Lamborghini car

DSI clarifies information on the return of the exhibited Lamborghini car

       According to the DSI’s announcement of the result of prosecution against the group of persons importing expensive (luxury) cars by falsely declaring the price lower than their actual price in the case of the Lamborghini car, Aventador, vehicle identification number ZHWEC1ZD6DLA02280, engine number L53901702 (the special case no. 199/2560) possessed by Pol.Col. Thitisan Utthanaphon (Superintendent of the Mueang Nakhon Sawan Provincial Police Station) and the questions from various mass media about the management of the exhibits in the special case, the DSI inspected information as appeared in the following details.

       1. In its special case no. 199/2560, the group of 8 alleged offenders were prosecuted for the offences under the Customs Act, B.E. 2560 (Sections 27 and 115 of the Customs Act, B.E. 2469), the Excise Tax Act, B.E. 2560 (Sections 165 and 167 of the Excise Tax Act, B.E. 2527), and the Criminal Code. The aforesaid car was seized as the exhibit. While prosecuting the case and during inquiry, the then possessor or the right-entitled person (Pol.Col. Thitisan Utthanaphon) was allowed by the special case inquiry official team to make the contract for car maintenance subject to Section 85/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

       2. The special case inquiry official team submitted its inquiry file of the case along with the 8 alleged offenders and the list of exhibits to the public prosecutor of the Department of Special Litigation on August 22, 2021, stating at the end of its inquiry report that “for the car in the list of exhibits, Section 166 of the Customs Act, B.E. 2560 prescribed that unpaid duty goods, prohibited goods, restricted goods or goods that have not been passed through a customs formality shall be forfeitable under this Act, which is in accordance with the offence under Sections 243, 244 and 242 of the Act, and Section 17 of the Customs Act (No.9), B.E. 2482, prescribed that the exhibits be forfeited to the court. Thus, in order to comply with the government revenue principles and to protect the domestic automobile industry, which is the intent of the customs law, it was deemed appropriate to request the court to issue its order to forfeit the cars named in the list of exhibits of this case” and to prosecute against the alleged offenders nos.1-8 as the accomplices in the import of the said car, 8 persons in total.

       3. The public prosecutor considered the inquiry file and decided that the companies as the alleged offenders nos.1-7 were involved in the procedures of import of the exhibited cars into the Kingdom and falsely declaring the price lower than their actual price for tax evasion, and issued the prosecution order against 7 alleged offenders and non-prosecution order against one alleged offender (the man named Sor). Later, the Director-General of the DSI submitted the dissenting opinion against the non-prosecution order to the Attorney-General on January 28, 2021 for final decision.

       4. The Executive Director’s Office of Special Litigation 4 sent the letter no. AorSor. 0017.4/4, dated January 5, 2021 to the Director of the Regional Operation Bureau of the DSI (the inquiry file owner) stating that “the public prosecutor has already made the opinion and the orders of the case and the exhibits seized by the inquiry officials as listed in the enclosed list of exhibits are not the property that is an offence by possession or the property used or possessed for use in the commission of an offence or acquired through commission of an offence. Therefore, the inquiry official must proceed in accordance with Section 85 of the Criminal Procedure Code”.

       5. For the opinion in Clause 4, by law is regarded as the public prosecutor issuing the prosecution order against the alleged offender, at its discretion, to the court, but not requesting the court to forfeit the exhibited car as requested by the special case inquiry official. The special case inquiry official therefore returned the exhibited car to the legal possessor or the right-entitled person.

       The DSI assured that the case proceeding by the special case inquiry officials is in the form of the special case inquiry team with public prosecutors from the Department of Investigation of the Office of Attorney-General joining in inquiry and special case advisors joining in information prior to jointly making decision of every procedures. Its investigation and inquiry in every step comply with the provisions of laws. For transparency in its works, the DSI will answer questions and disclose its case proceeding information in every step of case proceedings as allowed by law.

       This is for your information.

August 30, 2021