- Cases, Computer Crime Act, Section 112
Piya: 1st case, posted on facebook named ‘Pongsatorn Buttorn’
Latest Update: 01/08/2022
Defendant
Piya
Case Status
On trial in Court of Appeal
Case Started
2014
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
Piya was arrested on 11 December 2014 by plainclothes policemen and accused for using a facebook account named “Mr.Ponsatorn Buntorn” and posting a Lèse majesté message. Piya accepted that the profile picture that appears on facebook is his picture but he did not involve with this facebook account.
The defendant fought his case that the plaintff's evidence is not sufficient. There is no electronic evidence even the trace in his computer or the IP Address. Later, the Criminal Court sentenced Piya for 9 years and reduced to 6 year in prison. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the verdict.
Defendant Background
Piya did not pay attention on politic, he has never attended in any political activities or political rallies before. He used to be a stock exchange officer working as a broker in stockbrokerage.
Offense
Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (5) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code
Allegation
According to the accusation, between 27 July to 28 November 2013, pictures of His Majesty the King with insulting messages were posted on a Facebook account named “Mr. Pongsathorn Bunthon” which its profile picture was Piya’s picture.
A picture, which was likely to be captured from the Facebook of “Mr. Pongsathorn Bunthon”, was shared on the internet. Those who saw the picture made report to an investigating officer of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD). The same accusation was also made in several other areas including Nakhon Pathom province and Nan province. The plaintiff of this case did not use an IP Address number to prove the guilt because Facebook Company was registered abroad and it was therefore unable to check with the internet provider. Moreover, the Forensic Services Unit had checked the computers and mobile phones which were confiscated from the defendant but no evidence was found.
The complaint made by the public prosecutor against Piya was solely based on the picture that was shared on the internet. Such picture combined 4 smaller pictures in it, likely to be pictures that were captured from a mobile phone. The first picture on the top left corner was a picture of Piya in a red shirt. The second picture on the top right corner was captured from the Facebook account of “Mr. Pongsathorn Bunthon (Siamaid)” with a different picture of Piya as its profile picture. The third picture on the lower left corner and the fourth one on the lower right corner appeared to be pictures of the captured Facebook account of “Mr. Pongsathorn Bunthon” with the same profile picture as the second picture, indicating the time as “1 hr ago” and …. respectively. The post also included pictures of His Majesty the King waving his hand with insulting texts.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs found an evidence from the civil registration department that the defendant changed his name from Piya to Pisol and later to Wiwat, before the name Wiwat was declared dead during the year 2000. After that, a person with an identical face and fingerprints of the defendant started to use a national identification card and ID number of a person named Junthorn Bunthon, before the name later changed from Junthorn to Pongsathorn.
The offence was a violation of the Section 14(3) (5) of Computer Crime Act 2007 and of the Section 112 of the Criminal Law.
Circumstance of Arrest
On 11 December 2014, around 11 am, while Piya was walking out of his place in Ladphrao area which is his current place not his permanent address, the plainclothes policemen asked him if his name is Piya, after his reply “yes”, around 30 more plainclothes policemen gradually appeared, and shew him documents but there was no warrant of arrest. When he was arrested, he accepted that “Piya” is his name.
After that Piya was taken to the Royal Thai Police Office and then to the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) for an investigation. The officers of TCSD commanded Piya to change his shirt from red to black and tried to take Piya to the press conference, but he rejected as he did not want to be in the news.
During the arrest procedure, Piya’s laptop “Macbook” and mobile phone “Sumsung Note” were seized for investigation. During detention, the officers did not allow him to contact with any of his relatives or lawyers.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ.747/2558
Court
Criminal Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
11 December 2014
After being arrested, Piya was taken to TCSD for an investigation. He denied that he is not the owner of facebook account named “Mr.Pongsatorn Buntorn” but he accepted that the profile picture of that facebook account is his. It is the picture that he used in social network including Google Plus and Twitter. After the investigation, Piya was detained at Thungsonghong Police Station.
12 December 2014
Piya was taken to his place again so that the officers would seize his 7 electronic equipments for investigation including a desktop computer, flashdrives and record devices. Then they took him back to detain again at Thungsonghong Police Station.
13 December 2014
Piya was taken to the Criminal Court for the first pre trial detention. The court approved the detention of Piya for 12 days, he was sent to Bangkok Remand Prison.
9 March 2015
Piya denied charges and stated that he had been wrongfully accused of. The complaint and the documents mentioned that the Facebook account named Ponsatorn Buntorn. But his name was Piya, not Pongsatorn. The judge noted this during proceedings and scheduled on 25 May 2015 at 13.30 hrs.
The prosecutor filed a petition requesting the proceedings to be held in camera. This was to protect the secrets concerning national safety and security. This was because the case was related to the royal institution that was worshipped by the people.
Disclosure of the facts to the public while the case being processed was inappropriate. It could affect the royal institution that was highly respected by the people.
25 May 2015
Schedule for a deposition examination
The judge scheduled at 13.30 hrs. But the actual proceedings started at 15.30 hrs., because the prosecutor was handling another case.
The judge informed that the prosecutor had made an application for the hearing to be held in camera. The judge considered and agreed that in order to protect the secrets that could affect the national security exposed to the public, and ordered the proceedings to be held in camera. The judge asked who the observers were, and allowed the defendant’s father, friends and the lawyer’s assistant to be part of the in camera.
The judge asked the defendant whether he had the ID card, and what the ID card number was. The number that the defendant had claimed and the number that the prosecutor had on the complaint did not match. This had caused some confusion on the individual. The defendant stated before the judge. The judge acknowledged that the numbers did not match according to the prosecutor’s complaint. The judge asked the defendant’s father whether he had the card and asked to compare the number, which matched what the defendant stated. The judge ordered the prosecutor to change the complaint. But the prosecutor argued that the plaintiff wanted to prove that there was a subrogation, and that there were many ID numbers concerned.
The plaintiff informed the judge that 20 witnesses needed for questionings, because the charges had been filed in 4 provinces; Nakhon Pathom, Nan, Prachin Buri and Pathum Thani. There were issues to be examined and to be sent to all 4 provinces. But the judge did not allow examining in those provinces, and wanted the plaintiff to bring the witnesses to be examined at the criminal court. The judge also asked the plaintiff to withdraw unnecessary witnesses. But the plaintiff insisted to examine all 20 witnesses. Should there were unnecessary witnesses they would not be examined on the day. The defendant had 1 witness to be examined.
The judge scheduled to examine the plaintiff’s witnesses 4 days, and half day for the defendant’s. The dates were 17 – 20 and 24 November 2015.
17 July 2015
Schedule for Readiness Check
Courtroom No. 912, the judge of the criminal court scheduled for the readiness check of Piya’s case. The judge took the bench at about 14.00 hrs. All parties who turned up were the prosecutor, the defendant and the defendant’s lawyer. And at their presence were Piya’s father, the assistant prosecutor, Prachatai journalists, staff of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, and Puen Rab Fung group.
First of all, the judge announced that the case would be held in camera. On that day there were other proceedings going on in the same courtroom, so the judge continued with the proceedings in brief. Piya’s father and other observers were allowed to be in the courtroom.
The prosecutor stated the reason to change the accusation in regard to the ID card numbers – first the accusation contained both Ponsatorn Buntorn’s and Piya’s numbers, and had to be changed to Piya’s number only, which was the number that the defendant had claimed that it was his number.
The reason to change the accusation was because the judge did not permit having both ID card numbers on the accusation. This could have affected other individuals’ rights.
The prosecutor asked to examine two more witnesses, both were fingerprint officers. And the defendant’s lawyer submitted one more documentary evidence.
Both the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer assured that there were ready to examine the witnesses as scheduled in November 2015.
19 November 2015
The 8th witness examination, Pol. Lt. Col. Supawan Pansiw, a fingerprint officer.
Pol. Lt. Col. Supawan made a statement that she had served under the Fingerprint Identification Sub-Division, Royal Thai Police Headquarters for 8 years. Her duties were to identify fingerprints, palm prints, and footprints from all over the country.
Pol. Lt. Col. Supawan had received a letter from Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) to identify the fingerprints. There was an ID card issued by Donmuang District Office, under the name of Ponsatorn Buntorn. The request was to identify whether Ponsatorn Buntorn’s fingerprints were actually identical to the defendant’s fingerprints. The result was identical. And she concluded that the fingerprints came from the same person.
Pol. Lt. Col. Supawan answered the lawyer that the fingerprints had 10 prominent patterns that were sufficient to be identified. There patterns would never change as the person got older. But they would expand or change according to different kinds of nature and working environment. Even though 2 fingers were identified, it was impossible that other people would have identical fingerprints.
The 9th witness examination, Thanit Praphatanunb, IP Address locator.
Thanit stated that he was 58, was a public servant for the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. He was the Executive Director of IT Crime Prevention and Suppresion Bureau.
To be able to work in this field, one needed to know IT law. Nan Police Station sent a request letter to identify Facebook accounts titled Mr. Pongsatorn Buntorn and Tui Fishing. Thanit asked his officers to verify the accounts, and found out that the accounts had no email addresses, no IP Address, no URL, and the account user was registered abroad and could not be verified.
The prosecutor allowed Thanit to take a look at the document attached to the accusation. Thanit testified that the photographic evidence brought against the defendant indicated that pictures and messages had been posted by the account named Mr. Ponsatorn Buntorn. One person could have many Facebook accounts. The names of the accounts could be the same or be different. But they were fake accounts.
The real account user, along with the ID card, could report Facebook to delete the fake account. Facebook would then delete the fake account. When the real user had set up a new password, others would not be able to access it. Should there was someone trying to log in, the real user would be notified. And should there were unwanted messages, the real user could simply delete them.
Thanit answered the lawyer that for signing up a Facebook account, one could choose any name for the account, and could choose any picture for the profile picture. His work had dealt with many cases of fake Facebook account. What he meant when he said that the real user could delete unwanted posts was that when the message had been posted by hacking into the account, or by stolen password. If it was posted by a fake account then the real user would never knew. If the account was activated for only 1 – 2 hours then was deleted, the real user would never know either.
Thanit continued that naming a Facebook account could be in Thai, in English or in both languages. The picture of top right corner of the document attached to the accusation was the Facebook page of Pongsatorn Buntorn. There was an English name (Siamaid) at the end. But the messages posted on bottom right and left corners had no word “Siamaid” at the end. When unlawful messages were detected they would be saved on hard disk. If the pictures had been edited they would be unreliable.
Thanit continued that normally every computer-related case would be verified by the IP addresses. IP addresses were important evidence. When the IP addresses were retrieved they could locate the place, the date and the time of messages posted. If one was highly computer literate, then they could get away without revealing the IP address.
For this case, the Facebook provider did not reveal the IP address. But there was another way to locate the address. But this was unreliable. The authority could ask this information from the internet provider. But it had to be within 90 days after the crime was committed.
The 9th plaintiff’s witness examination, Pol. Lt. Kong Maisao, An Inquiry Official
Pol. Lt. Kong stated that he was 32 years old, and had served since 2012. On 29 July 2014 while on duty, it was Mr. Atchareeya who filed a complaint against a Facebook account named Pongsatorn Buntorn.
The defamed message was brought with other document. The message obviously deemed insult HM the King. The document was a picture of the web page screenshot of the message, and a picture of Mr. Pongsatorn Buntorn.
Pol. Lt. Kong explained the investigation that after having received the report he informed the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology to verify the Facebook account, but they could not verify. They then informed the Investigation team, who could not verify either.
When they searched for Pongsatorn’s Facebook, they could not find it. It could have been either deleted or deactivated. They sent a letter requesting Pongsatorn’s information to Laksi District Office. And they found that Pongsatorn Buntorn actually existed. He had been registered at Donmuang District, but his registration was removed in 2004. And the Facebook account was signed up abroad, and the offence has been committed outside the Kingdom. They sent a letter to discuss with the prosecutor to be part of the investigation.
Pol. Lt. Kong explained further that when they questioned the owner of the house that Pongsatorn used to live, they found out that the owner did not know Pongsatorn. This was because the owner bought the house after Pongsatorn had moved out. The police asked the court to issue an arrest warrant by using the picture on Facebook that the complainer gave to the police. Pongsatorn forged an ID card, being registered at Donmuang District. The police asked Donmuang Police Station and found that a complaint had been reported. But the period of prescription had been expired.
Pol. Lt. Kong explained that on 11 December 2014, the Special Branch Police arrested the offender according to the warrant. And the Special Branch Police brought the offender to him. The offender was the defendant being presence here in this courtroom today. Prior to investigation and after his right was notified, the defendant did not want to have a lawyer. The defendant confessed that he had used the Facebook account named Pongsatorn Buntorn, but he did not post the alleged message. The defendant showed and printed out an email and gave to the police. The email was a request for Google to delete the message. The defendant did not inform the police about this. The defendant said that he deactivated this Facebook account during 2010 – 2011. The defendant had posted some insulted message, but not this one.
Pol. Lt. Kong said that after the arrest, the defendant’s fingerprints were sent to be identified with Pongsatorn’s fingerprints according to the record of Donmuang District. The expert concluded that the fingerprints matched and came from the same person. After investigation and gathering evidence, the prosecutor agreed that Pongsatorn Buntorn of Facebook and Piya was the same person, and issued the prosecution.
Pol. Lt. Kong answered the lawyer that there have been a great number of lese-majesty cases. Many organisations would report to him. Most of the offenders did not reveal their real names or profile pictures, but some did. If the accounts were still activated, the offender would be brought to justice. If the accounts were deactivated, they would have to ask for IP address, but they could not retrieve most of them. If the accounts were still activated they would be able to retrieve the IP address. But Pol. Lt. Kong did not reveal the procedure because it was the Investigation team’s approach.
Pol. Lt. Kong made a statement that the pictures brought against the defendant came from Facebook account; ReaRakRachCakriWngs, and Tui Fishing posted the message. The message was created by combining four different pictures from the Facebook page. They did not know who did so.
The all complainers did not have the original pictures of Pongsatorn’s Facebook account. There have been share links and pictures that other people had created on their timeline. All of the evidence brought against the defendant was only the same picture. During the police inquiry, the defendant denied posting the alleged message. But the defendant confessed that the profile picture was his. According to Pol. Lt. Kong’s experience, there have been cases of creating fake Facebook account by using fake names and pictures of others to gain profit or to defame particular individuals.
The lawyer asked whether according to the evidence they were not able to point out the user by the name of Pongsatorn Buntorn. Pol. Lt. Kong said yes.
The prosecutor examined all witnesses. The defendant would examine their witnesses on 24 November 2015 as previously scheduled. The defendant asked to examine one more witness, Mr. Arthit Suriyawongkul, a computer and social media expert.
24 November 2015
The 1st defendant’s witness examination, Piya aka Pongsatorn – the defendant
Piya made a statement that he was 46 years old. Prior to being arrested, he was a coordinator and a programmer for basic android mobile applications. He pleaded not guilty for the offence that he had been charged with, and testified that he did not know who had posted the alleged message.
For the purposes of changing his names, Piya said that he had changed his names many times for various reasons. Piya was his original name. Then he changed to Pison and Wiwat. He changed because he believed in increasing a good fortune for his mother. In 2001 he changed to Chantorn Buntorn, and then to Pongsatorn Buntorn respectively for business-related reasons.
Piya said that during 2010 – 2011 he used a Facebook account titled Mr. Pongsatorn Buntorn (Siamaid). After that he did not continue using it. Later on he signed up for another account titled Piya, but never posted anything about politics. In 2014 his partner told him that there was an alleged picture and message on Mr. Pongsatorn Buntorn (Siamaid) Facebook page, which had been deactivated. Piya tried googling the word; Pongsatorn Buntorn, and found four other pictures combined in one picture. He informed Google to remove the picture, because he thought it was better than having other people shared the picture. Piya said that the reason he did not report to the police was that he was afraid of the ID forgery charges.
Piya made a statement that in 2014 he tried to log in the account, Pongsatorn Buntorn, but could not. It could have been either deleted or deactivated. While being arrested, the police did not allow him to see the alleged message and picture. They did not notify why he was being arrested. He only confessed that he was the person according to the warrant. All of his computers and devices that were seized had been registered under the name of Piya.
Piya answered the prosecutor’s cross-examination that he never knew that Wiwat had been reported dead. He only knew when he was detained. He changed his names and ID card numbers on purpose though he knew that it was unlawful. After changing he used the name of Ponsatorn for his usual business. When signing up for the Facebook account Pongsatorn, he used an email address; joob14591.
The prosecutor asked about the request sent to Google for deleting the alleged message and picture. Piya could not recall when the request was sent exactly. But it was sent 1 week after he had seen the alleged message and picture. The prosecutor asked Piya to take a look at the document sent to Google to verify. Piya said that it was the reply from Google. But there was not his email that had sent to Google.
Piya said that he did not report to the police. This was because Google had informed that they would take legal action themselves. Since he was arrested he had not contacted Google for their legal action.
Piya continued that during the police inquiry, the prosecutor was there but not for the whole time. Piya said that he signed the inquiry official’s document without reading it thoroughly because the police was in a hurry to take him to be detained at Tungsonghong Police Station.
After this witness testified, the defendant party did not want to examine the computer expert. And the testimony was concluded. The judge scheduled for ruling on 28 December 2015, at 11.00 hrs.
28 December 2015
The Criminal Court scheduled to read a verdict of Piya's case. But the schedule, however, was postponed to 20 January 2016 as the judge need to consult with director of the Criminal Court.
20 January 2016
The court found the defendant guilty under Article 112 of the Criminal Code and under Computer-related Crime Act section 14(3) and (5) sentenced to 9 years in prison under article 112 of the Criminal Code. Testimony of the defendant benefit to the court's proceeding, mitigated a penalty by 1/3 – sentenced to 6 years in prison.
27 April 2017
The Court scheduled to read the verdict from the Court of Appeal at 10.00 am, court room 914. Piya was brought from the prison to hear the verdict. The defence lawyer and his father were also at the court.
The judge appeared on the bench at 9.30 and started reading the verdict while there were only Piya and officers from Department of Correction in the court room.
The Court of Appeal sees that the defendant posted the messages on Facebook by himself and reaffirmed the verdict of the Court of the First Instance.
Verdict
20 January 2016
The verdict from the Criminal Court.
In a verdict, the court stated that…
The Court found that a Facebook user named Phongsathon Bunthon, posted a picture of his Majesty the King with a defamatory message on Facebook. Two Facebook accounts include the name “Phongsathon Bunthon” – “Phongsathon Bunthon. (SIAMAID)” and “Phongsathon Bunthon”. The Court concluded that, according to a witness – Thanit Papataknun, the Facebook account which posted the message has two names, in Facebook, you can set a username in both Thai and English and you can use two languages together.
The Court agreed with the indictment that from the picture of his Majesty the King, it could be clearly seen and understood that his Majesty the King had been referred to with vulgar words and false statements. The public could get access to that statement. Furthermore, the statement was clearly intended for the public to know that it was a defamation to the King. Therefore, the picture and statement constituted a lese majeste offence – Section 112 which was an offence against national security. Additionally, posting the statement on Facebook breached section 14(30(4) of the Computer Crime Act. The Court found that the person who posted the message was guilty as indicted.
The Court needed to decide whether the defendant posted the messge as indicted or not. Mr. Atchariya Reungrattanapong, the chairperson of Association Assisting Victims of Criminal Cases testified before the Court that in the middle of 2012 he went to look at the Facebook page of a user named “Khongdee-ThaiEsan” and found that a Facebook user named “Mr. Phongsathon Bunthon” had posted a statement defaming the King. Mr. Atchariya, together with members of the Association tried to collect more information by adding “Mr. Phongsathon Bunthon to become a friend on Facebook. They provided information to the Special Crime Suppression Unit, Ministry of Justice. The Association members discovered that the person who posted the Facebook statement about the King lived in Donmuang District. The Association members went to the person’s house and found that the house was closed. The Association members gathered all of the documents they had collected about the defamatory statement on Mr Phongsathon’s Facebook page and reported the case to the police..
Mr. Atchariya Reungrattanapong told the court that he had gathered various information regarding Mr. Phongsathon Bunthon and could verify that the defendant also had a Facebook account with the name of “Vincent Wang” which was in line with the defendant’s statement that it was his other account. As a result, the Court considered the witness to be reliable.
The police investigator also testified for the plaintiff that he had checked and found that Mr. Phonsathon lived in Donmuang District but that his name was removed from registration in 2003. The defendant testified that he had previously posted a defamatory statement; however, that previous statement was not the statement specified in the indictment. Thus, this testimony supported the prosecutor’s claim that the defendant used an ID card with the name of “Mr. Phongsathon Bunthon” and used a Facebook account in the name of “Mr. Phongsathon Bunthon” from 2000 to 2001.
The defendant’s behavior that he was using that ID card, used that Facebook account and indicated that he had lived in Donmuang District; although it was not his real residence. These facts showed his intention to conceal the fact that he was the person posting inappropriate or illegal statements on Facebook. The Court noted that the defendant must have been well aware that using another person’s identity was a criminal offence which could result in a serious penalty. The Court did not believe that the defendant used the Facebook account of “Mr. Phongsathon Bunthon” for only one year as he claimed that he had not posted the statement as indicted.
The defendant claimed that in 2014, his partner had informed him that the image appeared as a result of a Google search engine search. The defendant claimed that he checked and sent an email to Google and asked them to remove the image. The picture could not be found in the search engine search as the defendant claimed. The defendant did not bring his partner to testify as a witness without a sound reason. Furthermore, the defendant informed Google on 17 May 2014 which was one year after the post. Posting such a statement was an offence against national security for which the penalty was serious. Nonetheless, the fact that the defendant did not inform the police to show his good faith was not abnormal and other excuses also contradicted common reasons.
The defendant’s evidence was not strong enough to refute the prosecutor’s evidence. Therefore, the Court found that the prosecutor’s witness could be admitted without doubt that the defendant had posted the statement on his Facebook with the account of “Mr. Phonsathon Bunthon”. The defendant was guilty as indicted. The Court ruled that the defendant had violated Section 112 of the Criminal Code and Section 14(3)(5) of the Computer Crime Act. The Court held that the defendant’s action was a divisible offence and sentenced him to nine years of imprisonment, with the section 112 offence as the heaviest offense of his sentence. However, testimony of the defendant benefit to the court's proceeding, then mitigated the penalty by 1/3 and totally sentenced to 6 years in prison.