- Cases, Computer Crime Act, Defamation, Section 112
Wichai: faked facebook
Latest Update: 01/09/2019
Defendant
Wichai
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2015
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
Whichai, 33-year-old was accused under Lèse-majesté for creating a fake facebook account with somone's name and picture and posting messages deemed to be a defamation to the King. He was arreasted on December 2016.
Wichai firstly denied all chages and wanted to defend his case but later changed his mind and confessed because the trial took too long. Bangkok Military Court sentenced him to 30 years and 60 months.
Defendant Background
Wichai was 33 years old when he was arrested. He is from Chiang Mai, and graduated from the industrial management department, faculty of business administration at a private university in Chiang May. He worked for a private company.
Offense
Article 14 (1) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (5) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code, Article 326 / 328 Criminal Code
Allegation
The accusation, according to the complaint that the military prosecutor submitted to the court, can be summarized as follows:
1. From September 2015 until 19 October 2015, the defendant used a name and a picture of another person, Suwit, to create a Facebook account under the name of 'SUWIT WAJAPLANG' to make the general public understand that it was a Facebook account under the identity of Suwit. This act was considered as importing forged computer data in a manner that is likely to cause damage to Suwit which is an offense under Computer-related Crimes Act Section 14(1).
2. On 19 October 2015, the defendant posted a video clip which include a portrait of King Rama the 9th with a comment on the Facebook account 'SUWIT WAJAPLANG' that he falsely created. The general public can access his message and it was likely to cause damage to HM the King. The defendant knew that Facebook post contained false information, an offense against national security and also to falsely accuse Suwit.
The defendant committed this same action 5 times. Some of the actions involved posting video clips, while others involved sharing information. In each of these actions, he included comments.
3. At the same time, the defendant posted a portrait of King Rama the 9th along with comments on the Facebook account 'SUWIT WAJAPLANG'. The general public can access the message and it was likely to cause damage to HM the King. The defendant knew that they were false information, an offense against national security and also to falsely accuse Suwit .
The defendant committed the same action 3 times. He posted the same message again on the 20th and 22nd October 2015. So altogether there were 5 Facebook posts. Some posts contained pictures of other members of the royal family. At each time, he also wrote some comments.
The defendant was accused of the lèse majesté charge under Section 112 of the Penal Code and defamation by means of publication under Section 328 of the Penal Code and Section 14 of the Computer Crimes Act. The prosecutor asked the court to punish the defendant and seize his laptop that he used to commit such offenses.
Circumstance of Arrest
On 22 December 2015, police from Region 5 and police from the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) arrested Wichai under an arrest warrant from Bangkok Military Court No.65/2015 at a carpark of a dormitory in Chiang Mai. They found 3 mobile phones as evidence. After detaining Wichai and informing him of his charges at the police station of Region 5, Wichai denied all charges. Officers then took Wichai to the office of TCSD in Bangkok to be interrogated on 23 December 2015. Later Wichai was detained at Thung Song Hong Police Station.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
61/2559
Court
Bangkok Military Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
22 December 2015
Prachatai reported that Pol. Col. Tawatchai Pongwiwattanachai and some police officers arrested Wichai under an arrest warrant from Bangkok Military Court from a carpark of a dormitory in Chiang Mai. The arrest happened after one Facebook user reported to the police that someone used his name to create a Facebook account and posted messages which was deemed to insult the King. As the Facebook user was afraid that he would be arrested and prosecuted, he then decided to report to the TCSD police that he did not post such messages.
After the police received a report, they investigated and found some clues that the Facebook account creator is Wichai who was a former close friend with the injured person before they had a quarrel previously. Out of anger, Wichai then used the name and some information of the injured person to create a Facebook account and posted lèse majesté messages to frame the injured person.
23 December 2015
Officers transferred Wichai to an inquiry officer at the TCSD headquarters before detaining him at the Thung Song Hong Police Station.
24 December 2015
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that an inquiry officer from TCSD took Wichai to the Bangkok Military Court to request for a provisional detention for 12 days.
In the request submitted to the court, the inquiry officer stated that there was an injured person who reported that Wichai created a fake Facebook account and posted and shared video clips, pictures and messages containing lèse majesté content 12 times. After the laptop and mobile phones were inspected, some information related to the fake account was found.
The inquiry officer also stated that he needed to interrogate 5 more witnesses and wait for the mobile phones inspection report and Wichai's fingerprint inspection report. Wichai objected to the request because he did not commit any offense. However, the court allowed Wichai’s detention as requested. Wichai did not request for bail because he did not have any property to guarantee.
28 January 2016
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that the inquiry officer from TCSD submitted a request to Bangkok Military Court for a 4th provisional detention by stating that this case is with the committee under the Royal Thai Police who will consider whether to prosecute the case.
Wichai's lawyer submitted a motion to object the provisional detention by stating that the rest of the investigative process does not related to the accused. There is no necessity to detain the accused for any investigation as the accused is a normal person and does not intendt to flee. The detention during the investigation will negatively impact the economic status and the basic rights of the accused. However, the military court considered the issue, recognised the necessity of the detention and allowed for the detention of Wichai for 12 more days.
19 February 2016
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that the Bangkok Military Court ordered the 6th provisional detention to detain Wichai given that the investigation process of this case had not finished. If the accused was released, there was a chance for the defendant to interfere with the evidence and/or flee because this case carried a severe penalty.
After the court ordered for the detention of Wichai, the defense lawyer submitted a request to receive a copy of the trial record. The court ordered that 'The Court had read and both parties already signed to acknowledge that the accused made his own motion to object the detention, Thus, there is no reason to make a copy and the court does not approve the request.'
24 June 2016
Deposition Examination
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that Bangkok Military Court started the trial by reading the complaint to Wichai. The defendant denied all charges. The Court then scheduled for an evidence examination on 18 October 2016.
The military prosecutor also submitted a request to the court asking to record the trial of the case with a camera because it is a national security case. The court considered and ordered that for the benefit of public order, this trial will be recorded with a camera. The defense lawyer submitted a motion to object this order because this is a criminal case which should to be tried in public.
18 October 2016
Evidence Examination
27 February 2017
Plaintiff witness examination
The Court scheduled for the first plaintiff's witness examination. After the judges appeared on the bench, the military prosecutor said that the witness, Suwit, who should be present on this day, was not present to testify because the warrant from the court cannot be issued. The first witness examination therefore was postponed to 22 May 2017.
22 May 2017
Plaintiff witness examination
Before the court appeared on the bench, an officer informed that the witness did not come to the court and asked the defendant about what will be do. This can be understood that he asked 'Will the defendant confess?'. However, the defense lawyer replied in the negative.
After that, the officer went out of the court room and the court clerk and the military prosecutor came to the court room individually. The judges appeared on the bench around 11.00 am. The plaintiff said that the witness did not come to the court because when the warrant was delivered to the provided address, the witness's name was absent. The plaintiff still want this witness to testify but will bring the next witness to testify first in the next trial. The defense lawyer told the judges that today the defendant want to change his plea and will confess to all the charges.
The lawyer told the court that they will submit a statement to enter the confession and also asked the court to quickly provide the judgement. The lawyer also said that the statement had already been prepared and can be submitted today. The Court then scheduled to read the judgement on 9 June 2017.
The statement that was submitted to the court today stated that the defendant has never committed any offense before and that the defendant has a temporary residence, a job and an honest profession. The statement also stated that the defendant is responsible to take care his family and that his father is very old, disabled and suffers from hypertension. In addition, the statement also stated that his mother does not have any job, his brother-in-law has paralysis, and that he has to take care of 2 nephews who are still studying. The defendant also expressed contrite for what he has done and is loyal to HM the King, the Queen and the Heir. He also joined an activity 'Bike for Dad'. The defendant begged for the Court's mercy to punish the defendant with the lightest possible penalty, to give the defendant another chance to repent, and that the defendant will not return to commit a crime again.
9 June 2017
Verdict Annoucement
Wichai was taken from the prison and arrived at Bangkok Military Court around 8.30 am. Among those present are journalists from AFP and Bangkok Post in addition to observers from iLaw. However, security officials at the court barred journalists and observers from entering the courtroom due to unspecified 'regulation'. The senior security officer also did not allow journalists from AFP enter the court building and told them to wait outside the building. He justified this with the same 'regulation' although the court did not order the trial to be in secret. Thus, only Wichai and his lawyer was present in the court room.
After the verdict was announced, the lawyer revealed that the court dismissed the charge under the Computer-related Crimes Act Section 14(1) for creating a fraudulent Facebook account with another individual’s name and photo ID. The court stated that Section 14(1) has already been amended and the complaint submitted by the military prosecutor did not fit into the elements of the new version of the Act. The act of the defendant posting 10 lese majeste messages on Facebook, the court punished him separately for 10 counts, with 7 years in prison for each count. The defendant confessed so the penalty was commuted to half to 3 years and 6 months for each count. Thus, the defendant was sentenced for 30 years and 60 months.
Verdict
No information