In a session that mixed judicial gravity with a whiff of courtroom drama, the Committee of Judicial Affairs convened on August 18 at the Ratchaburi Direkrit Room in the Justice Court Building on Ratchadamnoen Road to tackle a string of high-profile misconduct cases. Presided over by Supreme Court President Chanakarn Theeravejpolkul, the committee waded through allegations that ranged from petty spite to outright corruption and physical assault—each matter raising questions about public trust in Thailand’s judiciary.
The little case that got a reprimand—then nothing
First on the agenda was an internal spat: a judicial official accused of filing an unfounded lawsuit against a fellow committee member. The committee judged this a minor breach of judicial ethics and recommended a formal reprimand. But the twist? The official had already left government service, so the proposed punishment was ultimately waived. It’s a reminder that timing—and employment status—can be as decisive as the facts themselves when disciplinary measures are considered.
Allegations of bribery — a dismissal and a possible NACC referral
Much more serious was the case involving allegations that a judicial official solicited money from a litigant. According to the complaint, a former ministerial leader of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) claimed a judge demanded 175 million baht (about US$5.28 million)—an amount later described as reduced to “several million”—to influence an appeal following a conviction related to political protests. The committee deemed this a grave breach of duty and ethics and decided on dismissal from service.
Because of the severity and possible criminal implications, the committee will forward its findings to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for further investigation. That escalation underscores how allegations of financial impropriety by judges are treated not just as ethical lapses but as matters that can implicate national-level anti-corruption mechanisms.
A train ride gone horribly wrong
What reads like the plot of a sensational novel was another case the committee took up: a senior judge accused of sexual harassment, physical assault, and property damage against a subordinate during a second-class sleeper train trip from Bangkok to Chiang Mai. The train, reportedly chartered for a judicial seminar in northern Thailand, became the scene of alleged misconduct that the committee described as “highly inappropriate.”
The female victim filed a police report after the incident, and the committee recommended dismissal for the judge. The sordid details quickly escalated the matter into one of the more striking examples of misconduct the committee has addressed—an episode that not only harms the individuals involved but also tarnishes the reputation of the judicial body as a whole.
Questions about a controversial temporary release
Finally, the committee reviewed a contentious ruling in which a judge granted temporary release during an appeal despite an earlier denial by the appellate court. To make sure the committee had the full picture, investigators recommended a thorough probe into the financial transactions of the accused and their associates to determine whether the judge’s order had been influenced by personal gain or favors.
Notably, this judge is the same individual already facing dismissal for the train incident, according to reports by KhaoSod. The committee’s aim is to determine whether the temporary-release decision was a neutral exercise of judicial discretion or part of a pattern of compromised judgments.
What this all means
Taken together, these cases illustrate a judiciary at a crossroads. On one hand, the committee’s willingness to investigate and recommend dismissal in egregious cases signals an institutional drive to uphold judicial integrity. On the other hand, the waived punishment for the official who had already left service raises questions about how accountability is applied when officials exit government roles before investigations conclude.
Forwarding certain findings to the NACC marks a key step: when judicial ethics intersect with potential criminal behavior, the spotlight shifts to national anti-corruption authorities. That escalation is likely to draw public attention and could lead to prosecutions, or at least more rigorous scrutiny.
As these investigations proceed, the Thai public will be watching not just for verdicts, but for signs that the judicial system can police its own ranks effectively and transparently. The committee’s August 18 meeting was a blunt reminder that competence and integrity are not optional traits for those who hold the robe—and that when those traits are in doubt, the consequences can be career-ending, reputation-shattering, and institutionally consequential.
Reported by KhaoSod and discussed in the Committee of Judicial Affairs’ Aug. 18 session, these cases now move into the next stages of inquiry—some toward administrative closure and others toward potential criminal investigation. For the judiciary and the public alike, the overarching question remains: will accountability follow the allegations?
This is disgusting — judges asking for millions and getting away with it sometimes feels inevitable. If true, dismissal is the bare minimum and criminal charges should follow.
I agree, but why did the committee waive punishment just because the official left service? That loophole makes a mockery of accountability.
Exactly — exiting before a decision shouldn’t be an escape hatch. There needs to be retroactive sanctions like fines or bans from legal work.
Totally! Make them pay and stop them from being lawyers again. Simple.
Public trust erodes when punishments are inconsistent. The committee’s willingness to refer to the NACC is the right move, but follow-through matters.
Why would a judge hit someone on a train? That’s crazy. They should be kicked out and maybe arrested.
It isn’t just crazy, it’s abusive and shows systemic problems with power dynamics in the judiciary. Dismissal and criminal investigation are necessary.
Power dynamics?? I’m just saying hitting people is wrong. Everyone needs to stop acting like judges are gods.
As a retired court officer I can tell you allegations need evidence. Police reports exist, yes, but the investigation must be fair and not a media trial.
The intersection of administrative discipline and criminal referral is a critical governance test. Referral to the NACC signals institutional gravity but also shifts responsibility.
Well put. The procedural bifurcation — administrative versus criminal — often results in delays and diluted accountability unless coordinated.
Coordination and transparency are key. Publishing redacted timelines and reasoning could rebuild public faith while protecting due process.
Transparency is great in theory, but in practice leaked details can prejudice trials. We need a balanced disclosure policy.
If judges can be corrupt, what’s the point of courts? This scares me.
Courts still serve many honest judges, kid. But vigilance is healthy — vote with your voice and demand reforms.
The sexual harassment and assault allegation on the train is horrifying and underscores how vulnerable subordinates are when power is abused. Cultural change is overdue.
I feel for the victim. Too often institutions protect perpetrators to avoid scandal, which retraumatizes survivors.
Exactly, and dismissal alone isn’t healing. There must be support services and systemic prevention training.
Asserting cultural change is important, but we must avoid assuming every accused is guilty before due process completes.
Due process is vital, but victim-centered policies and immediate protective measures shouldn’t be framed as prejudicial.
The NACC referral is promising, but historically these probes move slowly. The public should demand periodic updates.
Slow is bad. Speed it up or fire the investigators. People can’t wait years for justice.
Speed mustn’t sacrifice thoroughness. But set strict timelines and accountability for investigators too.
Agreed — deadlines with transparent status reports could help balance speed and rigor.
That alleged demand of 175 million baht is either an exaggeration or indicative of a deep corruption network. Either way, prosecutors should follow money trails aggressively.
Money trails are the smoking gun. Asset freezes and forensic accounting should be immediate priorities.
Exactly. Asset tracing combined with mutual legal assistance can reveal accomplices and beneficiaries.
But we’ve seen wealthy people buy silence. Money alone isn’t proof; corroborating testimony matters too.
Waiving a reprimand because someone left government is cowardly. Accountability should follow the person no matter what uniform they wear.
Kanya, that’s one of my main frustrations. People leave to dodge consequences and the system shrugs.
We should push for laws that allow post-employment sanctions for misconduct tied to public office.
There are legal complexities about jurisdiction after resignation, but policy can and should change to prevent abuse.
The train incident reads like a scandal script, but it reveals the dangers of mixing travel, alcohol, and hierarchical power. Seminars shouldn’t place juniors at risk.
Exactly — institutional protocols for travel and sleep arrangements are basic prevention steps that seem ignored here.
Seminars are professional events; organizers must enforce codes of conduct. If they failed, responsibility might extend beyond the individual judge.
I’ve seen institutions clean house only when public outrage hits the roof. Complacency dies when people lose trust and vote with their feet.
Public outrage wanes fast though. Sustained reform needs laws, not tempers, and citizen oversight bodies that last.
True, laws matter. But without popular pressure, lawmaking stalls. Both needed.
Is anyone else worried about the precedent of judges being investigated publicly? It could be weaponized against dissenting jurists.
That’s a valid concern. Safeguards must prevent politically motivated complaints, but that can’t be an excuse to ignore genuine misconduct.
Balance is so hard. Maybe independent panels with mixed membership would help.
Independent, nonpartisan investigative standards and transparent criteria for referrals reduce the risk of weaponization.
Why wasn’t the victim protected immediately? It’s like institutions rally around abusers first.
Victim protection often lags institutional interests. There should be emergency measures to remove accused from positions while probed.
Exactly, suspension pending investigation is essential so power can’t be used to intimidate.
The committee’s actions illustrate an internal checks system, but internal review alone lacks the coercive power of criminal prosecution. The NACC step is promising for that reason.
Prosecutors need independence too. If the NACC is politically influenced, the whole referral becomes performative.
True, institutional independence is the linchpin for meaningful accountability.
People keep saying ‘if true’ but the pattern across cases smells like systemic rot. Trust should require proof, but patterns matter.
Patterns are compelling, but we must be careful about piling allegations without due diligence.
Temporary release controversies highlight how individual orders can have huge effects. Judges must explain their reasoning publicly in contested cases.
Publicly available, anonymized explanations would help, though privacy and fair trial rights must be balanced.
Fair point, but opacity breeds suspicion; better to justify than to hide.
I think media coverage often inflames rather than informs. Still, the media’s role in catalyzing investigations can’t be ignored.
Media can be both savior and arsonist. Read widely and demand facts, not just headlines.
Any idea how long NACC probes take? Years? That wait makes justice feel empty.
Often many months to years depending on complexity. That’s why timelines and interim measures are so important.
This is a wake-up call for judicial training and ethics reinforcement from day one. Prevention beats prosecution.
Prevention is essential, including ethics curricula, mentoring, and clear disciplinary pathways.
And regular audits and anonymous reporting channels too.
One more thing: prosecute not just the alleged actors but anyone helping launder favors or payments. Networks, not lone wolves, are the danger.
Yes, follow the network. Banking records, communication logs, and beneficiary statements are crucial.
I want to believe dismissal and referral means change, but I have little faith until convictions occur and reforms are legislated.
Convictions are the clearest deterrent. Otherwise it’s just theater.
Theater buys time for the system. Real reform bites into entrenched interests.
There’s also a human element — staff who work under these judges suffer career and emotional harm. Compensation and restoration for victims should be considered.
Absolutely. Restorative measures and whistleblower protections would encourage reporting.
I hope those who rush to condemn remember that allegations aren’t convictions. The presumption of innocence protects the system’s fairness.
Presumption of innocence matters, but it doesn’t prevent institutions from taking interim safety actions for victims.
Interim actions are reasonable. My point is to avoid premature character assassination.
Final thought: systemic reform needs legal amendments, procedural transparency, and civic oversight. Without that trifecta, scandals will repeat.
A coalition of civil society, parliament, and independent bodies could drive that trifecta forward.
And sustained public attention. Reforms die when the public forgets.
Is anyone tracking whether these judges have political ties? That could explain both the alleged favors and the protection they receive.
Political patronage is often the invisible thread, so your hunch is plausible.
If true, anti-corruption work needs to address the patronage networks to be effective.
If the committee can recommend dismissal, why not automatic suspension during investigation? It would stop interference.
Automatic suspension risks abuse but a clear, evidence-based suspension standard could help.