Thantawut: Nor Por Chor USA

15 March 2011

Ekwirot Maneethanawan and Choraya Jitthammawong, the courts pronounced the judgement.

The Court rules that the defendant is found guilty under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and Sections 14(3) and 15 of the Computer-related Crime Act B.E. 2550.  The act which is an offence of defaming, insulting or threatening the King is the same act which is an offence of entering into a computer system any computer data which is an offence related to the security of the kingdom and the defendant is sentenced to the penalty for defaming, insulting and threatening the King, which is the law which bears the more severe punishment as required by Section 90 of the Criminal Code, of 10 years imprisonment.  In his capacity as service provider who intentionally supported or consented to the commission of an offence in a computer system under his control, the defendant is sentenced to three years imprisonment.  The penalty for multiple offences under Section 91 of the Criminal Code is 13 years imprisonment and confiscation of evidence.

[Court Judgement]

Under the Seal of His Majesty
The Criminal Court
The 15th Day of March, 2011
Criminal Suit

Public prosecutor, Office of Attorney General (OAG), Plaintiff
V.
Mr. Thantawuth Thaweewarodomkul, Defendant

Charge: An offence against the King, Queen, Heir Apparent or Regent; an offence under the Computer-related Crime Act

The plaintiff charged that between 13 March 2010 and 15 March 2010 continuously, the defendant committed a number of offences videlicet;  

A. The defendant entered computer data into a computer system by sending electronics mail to computer system at an Internet Service Provider (ISP) via the norporchorusa [dot] com website and the norporchousa2 [dot] com website and disseminated via the aforementioned websites statements xxx (the statements have two sentences which cannot be disclosed here since the case is not yet completed and repetition of these statements may be illegal). The statements are false statements which wilfully harm without reason and are not consistent with the truth in such a way that is likely to subject His Majesty, King Bhumibol Adulyadej to disgrace to his honour and reputation, contempt and hatred. This contempt is with the intention of causing the people to lose faith and respect and is characteristic of the expression of malevolence against the King.

B. The defendant who is a service provider in behalf or for the interest of other persons and an owner and in charge of the websites under Charge A has wilfully supported and allowed others who have not yet been charged to enter into the computer system by sending electronic mail into the Internet Service Provider (ISP) computer system via the norporchorusa [dot] com website and the norporchousa2 [dot] com website the statement XXX (one statement cannot be disclosed here since the case is not yet completed and repetition of this statement may be illegal). This statement is an injury to the King through untruth in such a way that is likely to subject the King to disgrace to his honour and reputation, contempt and hatred, which constitutes defamation, contempt and the expression of malevolence toward the King which is an offence against the security of the Kingdom under the Criminal Code. As the person in charge of the aforementioned websites, the defendant has the duty to inspect statements and images on the websites as to whether any statement or image is illegal, and if so, the defendant has the duty to remove the statement or image.  The defendant was aware that there were such statements or images but the defendant did not remove such statements or images and continued to such statements on the aforementioned websites.  This is a violation of the law. The incidents under Charges A and B took place in Thung Song Hong Sub-district of Lak Si District and Lat Prao Sub-district of Bang Kapi District, Bangkok and in other localities throughout the Kingdom of Thailand. On 1 April 2010, the defendant was arrested by the officials and two computers used by the defendant to commit the offences were seized as evidence. The Court is requested to convict the defendant under Sections 33, 91, and 112 of the Criminal Code and Sections 3, 14 and 15 of the Computer-related Crime Act and to confiscate the computers seized as evidence.  

The defendant denied the charges.

The plaintiff produced evidence that on 15 March 2010, police officers from the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) were informed that statements of a nature that defamed the institution of he monarchy had been posted on the norporchorusa [dot] com website. From their investigation, it was found that statements had been posted which constituted defamation of the royal institution, namely Exhibit Jor 9 on 13 March 2010, written by a person using the name “Admin”, and Exhibit Jor 10 on 1 March 2010, written by a person using the name “Ji Ungphakorn”.  From the investigation of the investigating officers it was found that the aforementioned website was registered and hosted at a server located in State of Utah, United States of America, and the defendant was the system administrator in Thailand. The internet connection and transfer of data was made through the network of Triple T Internet Co, Ltd. The police officers therefore applied for an arrest warrant and a search warrant for the home of the defendant. On 1 April 2010, the officers arrested the defendant and seized his computers, equipment and other documents as evidence.

The defendant produced evidence that he was the webmaster of the www.redthai.org website. Around the end of March 2010, Mr. Woodside contacted him through the aforementioned website to hire him to make a logo and background to be used on his websites for a fee of $US19 and the send the material Link FTP [sic] in Exhibit Lor 2. The defendant was not the person who posted the statements in Exhibits Jor 9 and Jor 10.

After examination, the first problem to be judged is whether someone posted the statements in Charges A and B on the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites. The plaintiff had Pol. Major Phiphat Chawengrat and Pol. Col. Nithithon Jinthakanon, police officers of the TCSD, testify and confirm that from their inspection of the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites, the two statements described in Charges A and B or in Exhibits Jor 9 and Jor 10 were found on the aforementioned websites on 1 March 2010 and 13 March 2010.  On this issue, the defendant has not produced any counterevidence that the aforementioned statements were not on the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that on 1 March 2010 and 13 March 2010, someone posted the two statements in Exhibits Jor 9 and 10 on the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites.

The next problem is whether the statements in Exhibits Jor 9 and 10 fall under Section 112 of the Criminal Code or not. It is seen that the truth is clear to all Thai people that the King is revered by all groups of Thai people. The Thai people use many expressions of loyalty to refer to His Majesty the King.  The Thai people know well that each expression refers to the King.  The majority of the Thai people call the residence of the King a royal palace or a palace.  When these generally known facts are used to consider Exhibits Jor 9 and 10, it is clearly seen that the aforementioned documents contain expression which refer to the King and his residence. Posting the statements for dissemination on the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites at present time therefore makes it is very easy for Thai people to access and read the statements in Exhibits Jor 9 and 10 and to know that the statements in the aforementioned exhibits refer to the King, and the feeling may arise that the aforementioned statements damage HM the King’s reputation as the prosecution claims in the charge.  The aforementioned statements therefore fall under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.

The next problem is whether the defendant has entered into a computer system any computer data as described in Charge A or Exhibit Jor 9, which is an offence related to the security of the kingdom under Section 14(3) of the Computer-related Crime Act B.E. 2550, or not.  The plaintiff had Pol. Major Phiphat testify that from his inspection of the norporchorusa [dot] com website, it was found that the statements in Exhibit Jor 9 were posted on the website on 13 March 2010, posted or written by a person using the name ”Admin”.  On 31 March 2010, he submitted a letter to ask Triple T Internet Co, Ltd. Who used the IP Address 110.164.218.158, and for the user’s address and phone number.  He was then informed that Mr. Thanyawuth Thaweewarodomkul, the defendant, was the user of the internet service installed at Assakan Condo Building, 19/50, Soi Wat Si Bunrueang, Sukhaphiban 3 Road, Lat Phrao Subdistrict, Bangkapi District, Bangkok. It appears that prior to the arrest of the defendant and the ensuing legal action, the police officer had not known the defendant.  The arrest of the defendant was the result of an order received by Pol. Major Phiphat from Pol. Col. Nithithon Jintakanon, Superintendent of Technology Litigation Support, TCSD, to monitor any websites for offences against the institution of the monarchy. He therefore inspected the norporchorusa [dot] com website and found that there were statements defaming the institution of the monarchy.  He found that the person who posted the statements on the aforementioned website used the name “Admin”, where according to Exhibit Jor 9, it appears the the word “Admin” in the English phrase “Written by Admin” truly exists.  According to the testimony of Mr. Jittrathat Fakcharoenphon, a defence witness, who graduated with a doctorate degree in computer science from USA, the aforementioned English expression “Admin” in Exhibit Jor 9 refers to the name of the person using the website and other individuals cannot use the name “Admin”. Therefore, “Admin” is a unique name for the particular person using the website.  Considering Exhibit Jor 19, which is a record of internet use by the person using the internet service with the IP Address, 110.164.218.158, it appears to be the fact according to the document of the Triple T Internet Co, Ltd., or Exhibit Jor 18, confirming that the defendant was the aforementioned internet user.  This fact was admitted by the defendant to the investigating officers, and the defendant admitted that he was the person who uploaded or entered the statements into the computer system, at Assakan Condo Building, 19/50, Soi Wat Si Bunrueang, Sukhaphiban 3 Road, Lat Phrao Subdistrict, Bangkapi District, Bangkok according to the testimony of the accused in Exhibit Jor 23.  The evidence of the prosecution carries weight and is safe.  The defendant produced evidence that he was simply the person employed to design the logo and background for the websites by Mr. Woodside and he was not “Admin” and was not the person who uploaded the statements. It is seen that in fact according to the testimony of Mr. Jittrathat Fakcharoenphon, defence witness, the internet user using the IP Address 110.164.218.158, attempted to transfer files of data to a remote computer as appears in Exhibit Jor 19, and therefore it was possible that the user was able to change the data through the web system.  Therefore the defendant counterclaimed that he was hired to design the logo and background on the websites.  The defendant contacted Mr. Woodside by clicking via the Link FTP or the FTP address where the aforementioned FTP refers to one form of internet usage. The website page, when he clicked to enter, did not yet contain statements. This testimony of the defendant therefore means that he claimed that he accessed use of the website only once.  But Exhibit Jor 19 shows repeated use of the internet using the IP Address 110.164.218.15.  This shows that the person using the internet by using the IP Address with the aforementioned number was monitoring movement on the websites periodically, and it also appears according to the testimony of Mr. Jittra that that the person using the internet by using the IP Address 110.164.218.158, attempted to transfer files of data to a remote computer.  In addition, the person using the internet by using the IP Address with the aforementioned number was able to change data. This shows that the person using the internet by using the IP Address with the aforementioned number was not an ordinary user of the internet, but it is believable that the person using the internet by using the IP Address with the aforementioned number was the system administrator according to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.  In addition, the defendant did not produce counterevidence that he did not use the internet service by using the IP Address with the aforementioned number according to the letter from Triple T Internet Co, Ltd., in Exhibit Jo 18. The defence evidence also does not have the weight to counter the prosecution evidence.  Thus, it is plausible that the defendant was the person with the right to use the internet to access the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites using the name “Admin” and was the person who entered into the computer system the computer data according to Charge or Exhibit Jor 9, which is an offence related to the security of the kingdom under the Computer-related Crime Act B.E. 2550.  The act of the defendant is therefore an offence under Charge A.

The next problem is whether the defendant as a service provider intentionally supported or consented to an offence under Section 14 in the computer system under his control or not.  It appears that even though the facts appear from the evidence brought by the prosecution that someone entered the statements in Exhibit Jor 10 into the computer system on 1 March 2010, from the evidence produced by the prosecution, it does not appear that the defendant was the system administrator of the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites since 1 March 2010, but the facts are understood according to the testimony by Pol. Lt. Col. Sanphet Nuthong, a prosecution witness, from his examination of the norporchorusa [dot] com and norporchousa2 [dot] com websites on 30 March 2010, that he still found the statements in Exhibit Jor 10 on the aforementioned websites.  When the facts are accepted as analyzed above that the defendant was the computer system administrator of the aforementioned websites and was able to change any data in the aforementioned websites, and in consideration of Exhibit Jor 19, it appears to be the fact that on 30 March 2010, the defendant accessed the aforementioned website administration several times, it is believed that the defendant saw statements in Exhibit Jor 10, but still allowed the aforementioned statements to continue to appear on the websites.  This is therefore behaviour which shows that the defendant intentionally supported or consented for others to enter computer data into a computer system under his control. This act committed by the defendant is therefore an offence under Charge B.  

The Court rules that the defendant is found guilty under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and Sections 14(3) and 15 of the Computer-related Crime Act B.E. 2550.  The act which is an offence of defaming, insulting or threatening the King is the same act which is an offence of entering into a computer system any computer data which is an offence related to the security of the kingdom and the defendant is sentenced to the penalty for defaming, insulting and threatening the King, which is the law which bears the more severe punishment as required by Section 90 of the Criminal Code, of 10 years imprisonment.  In his capacity as service provider who intentionally supported or consented to the commission of an offence in a computer system under his control, the defendant is sentenced to three years imprisonment.  The penalty for multiple offences under Section 91 of the Criminal Code is 13 years imprisonment and confiscation of evidence.

16 March 2011

The Appeal Court ruled against the request for the contemporary release.

12 May 2011

The defendant lawyer submitted the appeal.