Thai court hands ‘Am Cyanide’ third death sentence on September 22

The Criminal Court in Bangkok sentenced Sararat “Am Cyanide” Rangsiwuthaporn to death on September 22, 2026, for the cyanide poisoning murder of a creditor in Phetchaburi. The ruling was her third death sentence across eight cases decided so far, and her lawyers said they would appeal.

Sararat, 39, was convicted over the death of Chantharat “Jum” Wongkraisin, 43, on August 15, 2022. The court also ordered her to pay the victim’s husband THB60,000, with annual interest of 5% from that date until payment is completed.

The judgment was delivered at a hearing scheduled for 9.30am in Courtroom 712 at the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road. The proceedings concerned criminal case No. 856/2025, the eighth poisoning case against Sararat to reach judgment.

Prosecutors charged Sararat with premeditated murder to obtain or retain benefits arising from another offence, conceal another offence or avoid punishment. She also faced a charge of adulterating food, medicine or other products intended for consumption or use, causing death.

Court finds cyanide purchase preceded repayment meeting

The court found that Sararat ordered a jar of cyanide on August 9, 2022, before arranging to meet Chantharat at a petrol station near the victim’s home in Phetchaburi on August 15. Sararat had promised to return money invested in a lending venture, together with interest, and bring medicine for long Covid.

Chantharat had transferred THB70,000 to Sararat for their joint money-lending investment and separately lent her another THB26,800.

Police witnesses testified that an examination of Chantharat’s phone uncovered messages inviting her to invest, evidence of transfers to Sararat totalling more than THB26,800, and recordings of conversations about repayment.

The court heard that Sararat initially arranged to repay the investment and interest on August 12. After learning that Chantharat’s husband and child would be at home because it was a public holiday, Sararat postponed the meeting until August 15. The court viewed the arrangement to meet at a petrol station as an attempt to avoid witnesses.

After Chantharat returned home, her husband found her unconscious and took her to Cha-am Hospital, where she subsequently died.

Court accepts circumstantial evidence of poisoning

The court acknowledged that no eyewitness had seen the meeting or how Sararat administered cyanide. Nevertheless, the court found that the prosecution’s evidence established her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court heard that blood tests at Cha-am Hospital had shown abnormal acidity associated with liver inflammation, although doctors had not established the cause of the inflammation.

A forensic medicine specialist testified that Chantharat’s symptoms indicated substantial cyanide exposure, causing oxygen deprivation that affected the heart and brain.

Chantharat’s supervisor testified that she had generally been in good health. Although she had previously contracted Covid-19, she had not required hospital admission and had continued to experience a cough.

The court also considered similarities with other cases described in the investigation file. Those cases involved people meeting Sararat, receiving food, drinks or medicine from her, and subsequently developing similar symptoms associated with cyanide poisoning. The court said the absence of eyewitnesses had to be considered in the context of efforts to conceal the crime.

The prosecution’s evidence was credible, the court ruled, while Sararat’s unsupported testimony carried insufficient weight to rebut it.

The court treated the conduct as a single act violating several legal provisions and imposed punishment under the murder provision carrying the most severe penalty. Having imposed the death sentence, the court said no further consecutive sentence could be added. Requests other than the compensation awarded to the victim’s husband were dismissed.

Lawyers dispute evidence and plan appeal

Defence lawyer Chaiya Khum-am said Sararat would appeal because the defence disagreed with the court’s assessment of the evidence. He said bank statements and Sararat’s phone had been provided to investigators but had not been presented to the court.

Chaiya also challenged the cyanide evidence, saying it concerned a single jar that bore none of Sararat’s fingerprints and had been used as evidence across all 15 cases. He argued that prosecutors still had to establish Sararat’s connection to each poisoning and prove that she had administered the substance.

The lawyer pointed to acquittals in other proceedings, arguing that a death involving cyanide did not, by itself, establish that Sararat had poisoned the victim.

Chaiya disputed the financial motive, saying a debt amounting to tens of thousands of baht was inconsistent with the scale of Sararat’s financial transactions. He claimed that more than THB60 million had passed through her accounts and that she had already made repayments totalling THB30 million.

Asked whether Sararat had shown remorse, Chaiya said she had denied wrongdoing from the outset and did not accept the judgment. He argued that she could not be expected to express remorse for an offence she maintained she had not committed.

Chaiya also said Sararat was prepared to accept death while maintaining her innocence, saying she could no longer fight the case.

Another defence lawyer, Thanchaya “Pat” Eksuwannarat, said she had spoken to Sararat, who disagreed with the judgment, particularly over the phone evidence, and had instructed her lawyers to appeal.

Court has ruled in eight of Sararat’s 15 cases

Judgments have now been delivered in eight cases against Sararat, resulting in three death sentences, two life imprisonment sentences and three acquittals. Prosecutors filed 15 cases in total: 14 murder cases and one attempted-murder case.

The next judgment is scheduled for November 25, 2026, in the case concerning the alleged attempted murder of Kantima Phaesa-at.