The Authority of Public Prosecutors to Prosecute Corruption Cases Where the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) Has Exceeded the Statutory Time Limit for Investigation

Abstract

This research article aims to study concepts, theories, and legal measures
in Thailand and foreign countries regarding the legal issue of the public prosecutor’s power to institute prosecution in corruption cases where the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) conducts an inquiry beyond the legally prescribed period. This is a qualitative research study based on documentary research, including academic textbooks, research reports, theses, agency reports and documents, court judgments, and online information, which were systematically compiled and analyzed to draw conclusions and propose solutions to the problem. The findings reveal that the inquiry time limit prescribed under the Organic Acton Anti-Corruption, B.E. 2561 (2018) does not hold enforceable effect similar to a statute of limitations or a mandatory period. Rather, it is merely an expediting period designed to accelerate the performance of duties by the NACC without depriving the NACC of its duties and powers to conduct an inquiry after the expiration of such period. Consequently, this time limit does not affect the public prosecutor’s power to institute prosecution in cases where the NACC’s inquiry exceeds the period specified by law. Furthermore, the study finds that this legal issue significantly stems from three main causes: 1) the NACC’s inquiry process lacks sufficiently strict control and supervision measures; 2) pre-trial corruption proceedings do not align with the principle that investigative and prosecutorial powers constitute a single, unified process or authority; and 3) court procedures are inconsistent with the principles of criminal proceedings under the inquisitorial system. Regarding the first issue, specific measures should be incorporated into the aforementioned Organic Act to supervise and control the NACC’s inquiry process to ensure speed and efficiency. For the second issue, the pre-trial corruption procedure should be reformed by requiring public prosecutors to join the inquiry in cases exceeding the statutory period, thereby helping complete overdue inquiries more expeditiously and efficiently. As for the third issue, the courts adjudicating corruption cases should adhere to the principles of the inquisitorial criminal justice system, emphasize fact-finding truth-seeking mechanisms, and prioritize the efficiency of crime prevention and suppression no less than the protection of public rights and liberties.