The family’s case was overturned, “Nop Narongdej” reveals important facts to prove his innocence; the court decided in favour of him as the defendant continuously throughout the 6-year period.
As for Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda, the court has dismissed all cases, confirming her innocence in the case of forging signatures and forging documents.
Nop Narongdej, along with Weerawong Chittmittrapap, his legal advisor, and Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda, with Apiwut Thongkam, her legal advisor, provided critical information on November 2 to refute every accusation, family lawsuit, and Wind Energy Holding (WEH) stock case.
They are ready to reveal the truth and confirm their innocence after a long period of silence. The court has ruled in their favor for the sixth consecutive time, explaining that “there is no reason to fake the signature because the Narongdej family had no involvement in investing in WEH shares.” The court also clarified the financial path and Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda’s investment.
Over the past six years, Nop Narongdej chose not to respond, waiting for the court to resolve all cases. He has now come forward to explain the facts and make it clear, ready to prove the truth and address all accusations that have been misconstrued due to incomplete information, which resulted in misunderstandings.
Regarding the investment in WEH stocks, it is Nop’s personal investment and not related to the family. Unfortunately, the saddest thing for Nop in these past 6 years was the involvement of his father, Dr. Kasem Narongdej, being involved in this unfortunate situation as certain individuals wanted to benefit from the WEH shares acquired by Nop.
Additionally, Nop Narongdej and his children have not had the opportunity to meet their father/grandad throughout these past years due to the ongoing conflicts between siblings. As a result of this, despite several attempts to meet their father/grandad which were met with intervention. Nop and his sons still long to meet their father/grandad again.
Family Business Issues
Currently, the remaining company with Kris, Nop, and Korn as joint shareholders is KPN Land Co., Ltd. with each sibling holding 1/3 of the shares. However, once the conflict arose between the siblings in regards to the shares of Wind Energy Holding Co., Ltd. this led to Nop being excluded from participating in any management or decision-making within the family’s company. This conflict also affected KPN Land Co., Ltd. as it became a shareholder of Raimon Land Public Co., Ltd.
In terms of his own personal business, Nop Narongdej owns KPN Music Institute, which he founded in accordance with his mother’s wishes (Khunying Pornthip Narongdej) and successfully led it to a point where it has established franchises around the country.
In addition to this, Nop also has a healthcare business having invested in the creation of a new international hospital alongside two other partner companies.
Unveiling the Truth! Summaries of Verdicts and Winning Lawsuits Spanning Six Years
Case 1 – Hong Kong Case HCA 1525/2018
Kasem Narongdej acted as the plaintiff in this case, filing a lawsuit against Golden Music Limited, the 1st defendant, Nop Narongdej, the 2nd defendant, and Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda, the 3rd defendant, in 2018. The lawsuit pertained to the allegation that Dr. Kasem owns the shares in Golden Music Limited with the attempt to revoke the share transfer between Dr. Kasem and Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda and seek an emergency injunction order freezing the shares in Golden Music Limited.
Nevertheless, after the defendant defended and proved with evidence to the court, Dr. Kasem suddenly and groundlessly withdrew this case. The court finds that Dr. Kasem’s reasons for withdrawing the case is groundless and that Dr. Kasem did not act in good faith in pursuing this case so the court ordered him to make the payment of expenses incurred during this case at the highest rate allowed by the court to the defendants.
Case 2 – Case of using forged documents, A. 2497/2018 (Ratchada Criminal Court)
The plaintiff, Kasem Narongdej, asserted in this case that he was a significant shareholder of Golden Music Limited and filed a lawsuit against Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda, the 1st defendant, Nop Narongdej, the 2nd defendant, and Surat Chiracharasporn, the 3rd defendant accusing them for the usage of the forged documents in relation to Golden Music.. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s case due to expert witnesses not being able to readily distinguish if they were forged or not.
Additionally, the family’s financial support was also determined by the court to be a loan which Nop was solely responsible and liable for. Therefore, in the eyes of the law this does not constitute a join investment and there is no motive for the defendants to forge the alleged documents. Furthermore, the prosecutions witnesses were unable to be considered by the court as the 3 documents were forgeries.
Case 3 – Property Recovery Case P.1031/2019 (Southern Bangkok Civil Court)
Kasem Narongdej was the plaintiff who initiated this lawsuit against 14 defendants and 31 co-defendants to recover assets (Wind Energy Holding Co., Ltd. shares) in 2019. The plaintiff sought an injunction order and the defendants filed the appeal. The Court of Appeal revoked the said injunction order regarding the seizure of the dividends from Wind Energy Holding and determined that the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring about this case to begin with.
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision, the plaintiff groundlessly requested to withdraw the case on the 20th of July, 2023. . Finally, even though the plaintiff claims to have given the shares to Nop and at a later dated requested for it to be returned it must be determined that Nop had acted ungratefully. However, the there was no reason to believe that Nop acted ungratefully.
Case 4 – Breach of Contact Case, Property Recovery P.978/2022 (Southern Bangkok Civil Court)
Kris and Korn Narongdej as co-plaintiffs sued Nop Narongdej, the 1st defendant, Wind Energy Holding Co., Ltd, as the 2nd defendant, Golden Music Limited, as the 3rd and Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda as the fourth defendant in this 2022 legal dispute regarding a contract revocation and property recovery. The judgement in this case was the dismissal of the case.
Both of the plaintiffs had failed to challenge the legal presumption that the documents related to the transfer of shares were not genuine or were inadmissible as evidence for any reason. The various claims by both plaintiffs were unsubstantiated and carried no weight to counter the legal presumptions.
As a result of the plaintiff being unable to establish their case, the judge was compelled to believe that the transfer and purchase of the disputed shares were valid according to the law. The shares had indeed been transferred and acquired in accordance with legal procedures, and as such were not been deemed invalid.
As for the claims of ownership by the plaintiffs, it became evident that the funds used to purchase the disputed shares did not belong to either plaintiff and the documents they alleged to have been fraudulent were genuine and transfer of shares done in accordance with legal procedures. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that the two plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the disputed shares, and there is no requirement to return shares to them.
Case 5 – Signature Forgery Case A.1708/2021 (Southern Bangkok Criminal Court)
In this case, the plaintiff was the Office of the Attorney General (Special Prosecutor’s Office, Southern Bangkok Criminal Division 1). They filed a lawsuit in 2021 against Nop Narongdej and 3 other individuals for the offenses of jointly forging rights documents.
The court in this case exercised its discretion and dismissed the case. Concluding that all 5 documents in question were indeed falsified, although proof and evidence including statements were presented including the testimony of Kasem they were unable to provide any evidence linking Khunying Korkaew and Ms.Supaporn to the forgeries or that they were involved in the registration.
Kris also stated that he had no knowledge of who signed the counterfeit signature. Whilst Korn testified that he was not present at the time of signing. Consequently, it is evident that the accused were not involved in the fabrication or use of the forged documents.
______
Related article:
