- Important case
Itthaboon: Admin of Facebook pages against PTT company
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Defendant Background
Offense
Allegation
On 25 July 2014, the PTT, as a plaintiff found that on 1 June 2014, Itaboon, the defendant, entered and disseminated false computer data into a computer system, including seven posts. Also, the defendant intended to encourage or consent other people to express their opinion and disseminate false computer data into the computer system through Facebook, named “ Goosoogong ”(I anti corruption) and “Googong investigates Thai energy.”
The plaintiff described that the action of the defendant appeared vivid evidence that general people shared the message and picture on various sites, approximately 5,000 people. Furthermore, there were a large number of people clicking the Facebook like button and expressing their opinion until it caused damages to the plaintiff in terms of extremely ruining image and reputation of the business. It caused damage because people understood that
1. The plaintiff administered dishonestly in order to take interest for the benefit among peers.
2. The plaintiff corrupted by taking public property to become his own property.
3. The plaintiff monopolized the business as well as set an exorbitant price.
The plaintiff filed charge by asking for the court to sentence the defendant according to the Computer Crime Act under Article 14 and Article 15, including of Article 19 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, the court examined the ground of action and viewed that this case had action ground particularly according to the Computer Crime Act of 2007, under Article 14. The court thus accepted this charge and dismissed other charges.
Circumstance of Arrest
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
Reference
7 December 2017
Verdict announcment
At the Bangkok South Criminal Court, the court scheduled to read verdict. The PTT (Public Company Limited), as the plaintiff, filed charge against Itthaboon Onwongsa, the defendant who was an energy activist and a Facebook administrator of Facebook page named “goosoogong” with the Computer Crime Act under Article 14 and 15. In case of posting about issue of returning natural gas pipeline of PTT, Itthaboon was accused of entering false data into computer system in a manner which was likely to cause damages to the general public.
The court dismissed the case because for the offence according to the Computer Crime Act under Article 15, the court had dismissed since preliminary examination. However, regarding the offence under Article 14, the court reasoned that during the trial in the case of the Computer Crime Act, there was a law revision by further mention about intention as well. To be more precise, it must be an act in manner which is dishonest or deceive, and it was not offence of defamation. The court viewed that the revised law would be beneficial for the defendant more than the previous one. Therefore, the case had to be enforced the revised Act. After having the trial, the plaintiff did not describe how the defendant committed an act dishonestly or deceived. Thus, the charge was not fit with an element under Ariticle 14, which was revised.
21 November 2018
Verdict announcement at the appeal court
At 9.30 a.m. the court read verdict of the appeal court. In this case, the plaintiff brought charge against defendant according to the Computer Crime Act. Thus, the court had to examine issue whether the defendant committed an act under any of the circumstance which related to guilty. During the trial, there was a revision of the Computer Crime Act in Article 14(1) that
“ Article 14 Whoever commits the following offences shall be liable to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand Baht or both.”
(1) Dishonestly or by deception, entering wholly or partially distorted or false computer data into a computer system in a manner which was likely to cause damage to the general public; which is not a defamation under the Criminal Code.
By the new element of the latest Act, it must include specific intent which acts “dishonestly or by deception. Thus, when the plaintiff described the charge based on the previous Act, it cannot punish the defendant according to the latest one. Furthermore, the plaintiff accused of the defendant that he caused damages to the general public, but in fact, his action was to criticize for the benefit of publicity. The appeal court agreed with this and dismissed.
Verdict
Verdict announcement of Court of the first instance
The plaintiff described that the defendant used the Facebook named“ Goosoogong ” and “Googong investigates Thai energy” which entered data and disseminated the false computer data. Thus, the judicial order that there was action ground according to the Computer Crime Act of 2007 under Article 14 (old) meant having action ground according to 14(1) and (5) old one. the case had issue to examine that the defendant commit offence according to the charge or not.
It appeared that during the trial, there was the Computer Crime Act (the 2nd issue) of 2017 under Article 8 which abolished Article 14 of the Computer Crime Act of 2007 that
“Whoever commits the following offences shall be liable to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand Baht or both.
(1) Dishonestly or by deception, entering false computer data into a computer system in a manner which is likely to cause damage to the general public”.
For Article 14 of the Computer Crime Act, which was revised on the first sentence, it prescribed that “ whoever commits the following offences shall be liable to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand Baht or both”.
(1) Dishonestly or by deception, entering wholly or partially distorted or false computer data into a computer system in a manner likely to cause damage to the general public; which is not a defamation under the Criminal Code.”
(5)Disseminating or forwarding computer data despite knowing of the fact that it is computer data under (1), (2), (3), or (4) above. Also, In case the offence under Paragraph (1) is not committed against the general public but rather against a certain person, the offender, the disseminator or the forwarder of such computer data shall be liable to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, a fine not exceeding Sixty Thousand Baht or both; and such offence shall be deemed a compoundable offence.
It showed that for the offences according to the Computer Crime Act of 2007 under Article 14(1) which was revised, the offender must have specific intent which acts dishonestly or by deception ; also, it shall not be defamation according to the Criminal Code as well. Furthermore, if the offence is committed against a certain person rather than the general public, the punishment shall be reduced more than the case in which commits against general public, and such offence shall be deemed a compoundable offence. Condition according to the new law would be more beneficial than the old one ; thus it should applied the latest law to the defendant.
The Computer Crime Act of 2007 does not define “dishonestly or by deception.” However, the Criminal Code, in Article 1( 1 ) prescribed that “dishonestly” means in such a manner as to enrich oneself or another by an unlawful means. Also, for the word “ By deception” according to the 1999 edition of the Royal Institution Dictionary, it means using trick which leads to misunderstanding, showing false messages, or hiding truth which should be informed so as to make other people misunderstand.
In the court’s view, the plaintiff described that the defendant was both Facebook user and administrator. Also, he entered and disseminated computer data and intentionally supported or consented the dissemination or forwarding of computer data without appearing the fact that the defendant acted to enrich himself by an unlawful mean, or the defendant acted by using trick which leads to misunderstanding, presenting false messages, or hiding truth which should be informed so as to make other people misunderstand, and it was not an act in a manner which was likely to cause damages to the general public. The plaintiff did not described how the defendant, dishonestly or by deception, entered false computer data into the computer system. Also, the plaintiff did not ask for the court to revise the statement of claim later. Therefore, The charge was not under the scope of the Computer Crime Act 2007 under Article 14 (which was revised). Therefore, action of the defendant was not guilty according to the charge.