Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the fact that there may be insufficient evidence for an arrest warrant against "Big Joke"? What are we talking about here? I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, that is bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: 30 cops suspected in illegal gambling site dragnet, lawyers say. Quoting directly, and again I urge those who are watching this, and sort of keeping up with this, check that article by Bangkok Post; as per usual and really tip of the hat to them, they are really doing a detailed investigation, I don't know following this in detail, detailed journalism if you will regarding this series of events. So a lot of interesting data points in there. In any event quoting directly: "Pol Gen Surachate's lawyer," (that is Surachate "Big Joke" Hakparn) quoting further: "Nathawit Netijarurote, said the team had checked the available evidence and 34 bank accounts linked to the network but found no connection to Pol Gen Surachate. "A warrant was only sought to arrest a certain suspect,” Mr Nathawit said referring to Pol Gen Surachate, who also goes by the moniker "Big Joke." Quoting further: "Some reports said the court also issued a summons for a high ranking officer, later named as Pol Gen Surachate, over the accusations. However, the lawyers denied this. Police had wanted the court to issue an arrest warrant for him but they had insufficient evidence Mr Nathawit said." 

Okay interesting stuff there. As noted in a prior video made contemporaneously with this one, but I'll dig into it a little deeper, it's noteworthy to first of all understand that there is a difference here between an official summons and an actual arrest warrant. Now let me be clear, I'm an American Attorney; I do have Thai nationality but my training is in the Common Law tradition of law. I have over the years kind of been an avid if you will hobbyist engaging in Comparative Law mostly because I am kind of a law nerd looking at how the Thai system works and comparing it to for example the American Common Law system when it comes to Criminal Law. One data point that sort of jumps out at in this and I think it's useful for foreigners to understand to just give some insight into the Thai criminal procedure system, is there is a difference between a summons in an inquisitorial capacity basically, a summons to discuss, basically to do a fact-finding if you want to investigate as opposed to an actual arrest warrant. Now again I am not going to dig into really deep detailed analysis of the difference between these two things quite honestly because as previously stated I am not a Thai Attorney. We have Thai Attorneys here at the firm so that level of analysis is much more within their bailiwick but I think it is noteworthy for foreign nationals who are looking for a little bit of insight in how the system works here to understand that there is a difference between simply being brought in on a summons, sort of an inquisitorial summons as opposed to having an arrest warrant issued.

Now another thing to bear in mind is these are "Big Joke's" lawyers who are apparently talking in this article. And again I urge those who are watching this video, go check out that article in detail so you can get all of the insights out of that, it is quite interesting. Yet again Bangkok Post does a good job keeping up with those details but they do bring up a good point that there is a difference between an actual arrest warrant being issued and simply a summons for further information. So how exactly this plays out remains to be seen. We will certainly keep you updated on this channel as the situation evolves.