Bangkok: Lawyers emphasize that the Khao Kradong case is not a criminal case and should be resolved in a court of law. Attorney Chanin reiterated that the Khao Kradong case is not a criminal case and should be resolved in the courts of justice.

According to Thai News Agency, Chanin Kaenhiran, a lawyer in the Khao Kradong case, provided information regarding the Khao Kradong case, stating that it is not a criminal case, nor a money laundering case, and that the conflict should be resolved in a mature manner. Chanin stated that the Khao Kradong case is a land ownership dispute, a civil case under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and that some cases are being heard in the Administrative Court, using the mechanisms under Section 61 of the Land Code. It is not a criminal case, nor is it a money laundering case, and that it is not the duty of the Department of Special Investigation to comply with political orders and "elevate cases" to create legitimacy for certain individuals. If the DSI proceeds without legal basis for the offense, it could be considered unlawful and could have consequences for officials and the organization down the line.

Regarding the objections of the owners of over 900 plots of land, Mr. Chanin believes that they all share the same objection. They argue that their title deeds were properly issued, are not within the area of a royal decree, and that the State Railway of Thailand has never owned the Khao Kradong land. Therefore, to avoid wasting time, government funds, and becoming a political tool, he proposes that the State Railway of Thailand exercise its legal right to sue any or all of the owners of the plots in the Civil Court. This will allow the Court to determine whether the landowners' objections are legally valid. To resolve the ongoing debate among legal experts regarding whether the Supreme Court's numerous judgments in the Khao Kradong case are automatically binding on the owners of all 900 plots, the Court should simultaneously consider whether, under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "a judgment is binding only on the parties involved in the case," the Court will determine whether a previous judgment can be used against a third party if that third party lacks a better right. This will ensure that the new judgment is legally final and all existing disputes are resolved.

Mr. Chanin also stated that if the court finds the objection unfounded, the committee under Section 61 can revoke rights to other plots under paragraph 8 without having to raise a duplicate matter. If the court finds the objection valid, the owner of the title deed is deemed to have the right, and the matter will be resolved fairly, through the court process, without any personal interpretation, the use of extra-systemic power, or the interference of politicians. Civil servants will not risk violating Section 157.

Mr. Chanin insists that the Khao Kradong case is not a special case and should not be made into a "special case" through political pressure. He urges the executives of the State Railway of Thailand and the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to uphold the rule of law, resolve conflicts with maturity, and prevent the state apparatus from becoming a tool of political power, regardless of which side it belongs to.