ปัญหาอุปสรรคในการคืนทรัพย์สินคดียาเสพติดของสำนักงานป้องกันและปราบปรามยาเสพติด ภาค 5

Abstract

The research entitled, “Problems in the Return of the Property in Drug Cases of the Office of the Narcotics Control Office Region 5” (ONCB5) 1 ) To study the problems, laws, regulations, procedures, and procedures relating to the consideration of the return of seized assets after the court orders or judgments. Investigation of the return of seized assets Withdrawal and moving of assets and consideration of compensation for damages to the property owners of the ONCB5 and guidelines for improvement 2) To study the problems in personnel, budget, time of implementation, tools and equipment for the operation of the ONCB5 and guidelines for improvement. 3) To analyze Standards for legitimacy of the exercise of discretionary powers in considering the diagnosis of Return of seized assets in the operation of the ONCB5 4) To analyze Standards of Practice for Returning Seized Assets After a Court Order or Judgment Investigation of the return of seized assets withdrawing and moving of assets and considering compensation for damages to the owner of the property of the ONCB5. This study was a qualitative research study. Data were analyzed from interviews with the target population used in the study. It consists of key informants including: Officers and executives of the ONCB5, 26 property owners who have ordered the return of assets or resolved to return the assets kept by the ONCB5.

The results of the study can be summarized as follows. 1) Laws used to clarify and return assets, most of the laws and regulations used are appropriate, clear, reasonable, able to provide fairness to property owners, but there are still some unclear. Not comprehensive and out of date that need to be improved to keep up with the era Receiving assets for storage, Withdrawal and moving of assets also have regulations on handover of property. To preserve There are still some inappropriate property auction regulations to be kept. Some are not actually suitable for enforcement. For example, set a period of time and consolidate power at the top management. Cause delay property owner problem Lack of knowledge of the law Rules and regulations that the competent official has to enforce at all.no matter what Seizure of property for inspection. Or submitting a request for the return of the property to return the property and the right to seek compensation for damages of any property not acknowledged or perceived at all some cases are recognized after the assets have been returned. Consideration of compensation for damages to the owner of the property there are still problems with the working style and Clear consideration of compensation or compensation in the appraisal to compensate or indemnify damages due to no deterioration separation the right loss make it unfair to the owner of the property. 2) Personnel the property recovery staff is still in short supply in terms of quantity. That is not sufficient for the work that must be held accountable. On the budget side, there is still a lack of budget to assess the cost of the damaged property. The timing of the work or the goal of returning the property to the owner should be unclear. In terms of equipment, tools and appliances, there is a lack of quality and suitable storage locations for vehicle assets, and lack of moving equipment. 3) The legitimacy of the use of discretion in determining the diagnosis there are two parts to returning the seized property. The part that is suitable is the discretion of the officers was examined by the property inspection sub-committee of PEA Region 5, relevant evidence and evidence. Inappropriate part this is the case where the asset inspection sub-committee disagrees with the designated officer. And sent it back for reconsideration. Does not guarantee fairness for owners and responsible officials, therefore, the consideration in court therefore, it is the most fair and righteous way to create. A number of property owners there was no testimony and no evidence to the authorities. But instead submitted documentary evidence or evidence in court this is a fact that can be proven and the court will order the property to be returned to the owner. This shows a lack of confidence in the discretion of both the officers and the asset inspection sub-committee of the Office of the NSO Region 5. 4) There is no clear work structure, procedures and scope of work. Work structure the scope of work done, the division of work related to the return of the property is clear, such as 1. Receiving the request for the return of the property and requesting compensation or compensation. 2. The process of reviewing documents for consideration or issuing an order to return the property / consider compensation or compensation. 3. The process of searching and tracking assets that other agencies use for governmental benefits. 4 . The process of withdrawing assets. 5 . Appraisal for compensation. 6. Answering inquiries from the owner of the property and returning the property to the owner. Because the worker must have both experience know-how both legal Negotiation skills according to the nature of the work done to be able to function properly he work process is monitored at every step. Technology should be used to monitor storage and storage. Assets seized for transparency, accuracy and fairness. Working periods such as withdrawals, appointments to return assets damage assessment compensation. Every step must be inspected and evaluated, detecting defects and establishing a standard for property navigation. Seized for use in government services Make a written agreement with the agency that uses it and specify the condition of the property. And compensation in case of damage to the property owner fairly.