Woman Who Claimed Prayuth Hiding Wealth Acquitted

By Teeranai Charuvastra, Staff Reporter

 

  

Junta chairman Prayuth Chan-ocha speaks Monday at Impact Muang Thong Thani

 

BANGKOK — A 46-year-old woman was found not guilty of computer crimes for an online post in which she claimed junta chairman Prayuth Chan-ocha was moving his wealth to Singapore.

 

Rinda Pornsiripitak, a single mother of two, was acquitted of the 2015 cybercrime charge because while her posts may have damaged the junta chief, the court decided that they did not affect “national security” as argued by the prosecutors, according to the civil rights lawyer group who represented her.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2018/01/25/woman-claimed-prayuth-hiding-wealth-acquitted/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-01-25

From the article:

"Prosecutors also made no effort to disprove the truth of what Rinda wrote, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights said in a statement."

Now why might that be, I wonder? Too busy? Forgot?

11 minutes ago, baboon said:

From the article:

"Prosecutors also made no effort to disprove the truth of what Rinda wrote, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights said in a statement."

Now why might that be, I wonder? Too busy? Forgot?

Can’t disprove real evidence. 

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Can’t disprove real evidence. 

How about this one.. can't prove that something was NOT done... tell me how can you prove that someone did NOT send money to a certain bank ? Getting a statement from a bank would be impossible because it has NOT been done. 

 

Can only be disproven if she said that money was send to a certain bank account.. then its easy just show statements of that account. If someone says you transferred money to a place.. you can't prove you did not do it without additional details. 

 

Now I am the first to admit that I don't know how detailed this claim was.. but if it did not include a bank or bank account.. you can't disprove it. 

1 minute ago, robblok said:

How about this one.. can't prove that something was NOT done... tell me how can you prove that someone did NOT send money to a certain bank ? Getting a statement from a bank would be impossible because it has NOT been done. 

 

Can only be disproven if she said that money was send to a certain bank account.. then its easy just show statements of that account. If someone says you transferred money to a place.. you can't prove you did not do it without additional details. 

 

Now I am the first to admit that I don't know how detailed this claim was.. but if it did not include a bank or bank account.. you can't disprove it. 

You believed all that? All the laws in their hands and defamation at their disposal. Lesser serious charge like clicking like or posing with red bowls got the heavy handed treatment. 

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

You believed all that? All the laws in their hands and defamation at their disposal. Lesser serious charge like clicking like or posing with red bowls got the heavy handed treatment. 

I believe what i wrote down.. you can't disprove something without sufficient details. You yourself should know that as your bright enough. I don't know if the lady gave details or just a claim that was not further substantiated.

 

Also.. they did not even have to prove it was not true as this was not a defamation case.. they went after her for national securtiy (and were told it was wrong). Maybe after this they will go for defamation and then the lady will have to prove that what she posted was true. Remember the law dear grasshopper... if you state something you need to prove it not the other party. 

 

If i say you stole money from me , and you file a case of defamation against me.. you don't have to prove anything. I have to prove my claims. So tell me why now all of a sudden would this work differently ?

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

How about this one.. can't prove that something was NOT done... tell me how can you prove that someone did NOT send money to a certain bank ? Getting a statement from a bank would be impossible because it has NOT been done. 

 

Can only be disproven if she said that money was send to a certain bank account.. then its easy just show statements of that account. If someone says you transferred money to a place.. you can't prove you did not do it without additional details. 

 

Now I am the first to admit that I don't know how detailed this claim was.. but if it did not include a bank or bank account.. you can't disprove it. 

Very easy to disprove this. Just get Prayuth to submit all details of the accounts he holds in Thailand and overseas.

Like that is going to happen, yeah right.

Just now, BigBadGeordie said:

Very easy to disprove this. Just get Prayuth to submit all details of the accounts he holds in Thailand and overseas.

Like that is going to happen, yeah right.

How do you know he is showing all his accounts.. you don't so still not easy.. if this lady has details to back her story up and tells us what account it went to then its easy.. but Prayut does not have anything to prove.. the lady claims something.. she has to prove her claim.. that is the law and its the same in many countries. 

 

If I claim you did something.. you don't have to prove you did not do it.. i need to back up my claim or you can take me to court. 

25 minutes ago, robblok said:

How do you know he is showing all his accounts.. you don't so still not easy.. if this lady has details to back her story up and tells us what account it went to then its easy.. but Prayut does not have anything to prove.. the lady claims something.. she has to prove her claim.. that is the law and its the same in many countries. 

 

If I claim you did something.. you don't have to prove you did not do it.. i need to back up my claim or you can take me to court. 

I will love to see the court charge her so she can produce the evidence in court. She must have something that embolden her courage. With all those petty charges using the computer crime law, she know full well the consequences if she don’t have something. Maybe the court save Prayut. 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"....while her posts may have damaged the junta chief, the court decided that they did not affect “national security”.

I wonder if Charnvit Kasetsiri who criticized PM Prayut's wife's handbag could be so lucky and let off because his comments did not affect "national security". That would be another slap in the face for the PM.

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I will love to see the court charge her so she can produce the evidence in court. She must have something that embolden her courage. With all those petty charges using the computer crime law, she know full well the consequences if she don’t have something. Maybe the court save Prayut. 

Who knows.. but for now that is all speculation, we will have to wait and see. If they go for defamation now then the lady has to prove her story. We can look at it in 2 ways.. he is merciful if he does not go for defamation or he is scared. But if this lady really has something don't you think she would be a bit more clear with her claims ?

 

Anyway.. no way of knowing now.. lets wait and see...  interesting times ahead.

Just now, Cadbury said:

 

I wonder if Charnvit Kasetsiri who criticized PM Prayut's wife's handbag could be so lucky and let off because his comments did not affect "national security". That would be another slap in the face for the PM.

Depends what they charge him with.. defamation.. or national security. 

I can see why they go with the national security option.. then you don't have to go further into the claim at all. Thankfully the judge shot it down. Defamation would be all around the claim. 2 options.. they either did not want to talk about the claim as its true.. or they did not want it to be about the claim as national security was an easier way to get to her. 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

You believed all that? All the laws in their hands and defamation at their disposal. Lesser serious charge like clicking like or posing with red bowls got the heavy handed treatment. 

 

And which government was the first to warn people that clicking "like" on a post criticizing them would be punished ?

 

Clue: it was lead by a non elected criminal.

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

 

 

Clue: it was lead by a non elected criminal.

Poor old booby probably doesn't get the irony here.

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And which government was the first to warn people that clicking "like" on a post criticizing them would be punished ?

 

Clue: it was lead by a non elected criminal.

Prayut, I agree with you. 

4 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Poor old booby probably doesn't get the irony here.

 

At least you did. 

 

Same same only different. And some still naively believe it's about democracy!

Edited January 25, 20188 yr by Baerboxer

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Prayut, I agree with you. 

 

Wrong. It was your good old hero who never ever does anything wrong. He's ruled more government's without being elected too btw.

 

Wrong again. Khun Prayut hasn't been convicted of a crime, nor does he have a wealth of outstanding cases waiting in the courts. 

Edited January 25, 20188 yr by Baerboxer

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

At least you did. 

 

Same same only different. And some still naively believe it's about democracy!

Its about being in power and raping the country.. PTP.. Thaksin.. Army Democrats...  all in it for themselves. None much better then the other and all using the defamation and other laws to shut up opponents. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its about being in power and raping the country.. PTP.. Thaksin.. Army Democrats...  all in it for themselves. None much better then the other and all using the defamation and other laws to shut up opponents. 

 

 

 

Exactly.

11 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Wrong. It was your good old hero who never ever does anything wrong. He's ruled more government's without being elected too btw.

 

Wrong again. Khun Prayut hasn't been convicted of a crime, nor does he have a wealth of outstanding cases waiting in the courts. 

Day dreaming and murmuring in your sleep B.B. You forgotten Prayut has a self written iron clad amnesty while the rest do not have. Trying to invent fantasy elected government not normal for a bright man like you. 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

her posts may have damaged the junta chief

No need lady! We all got an idea who is doing the utmost to take care of that. Right Steven?

 
Wrong. It was your good old hero who never ever does anything wrong. He's ruled more government's without being elected too btw.
 
Wrong again. Khun Prayut hasn't been convicted of a crime, nor does he have a wealth of outstanding cases waiting in the courts. 

Funny how it works how that way when you can write your own amnesty into a constitution covering past, present and future offences.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Who knows.. but for now that is all speculation, we will have to wait and see. If they go for defamation now then the lady has to prove her story. We can look at it in 2 ways.. he is merciful if he does not go for defamation or he is scared. But if this lady really has something don't you think she would be a bit more clear with her claims ?

 

Anyway.. no way of knowing now.. lets wait and see...  interesting times ahead.

Maybe you need to read up on Thai criminal defamation law. There is absolutely no need for Prayut to prove/disprove anything to do with the physical movement of assets to Singapore or anywhere else. To prove someone has defamed you , one only has to provide enough evidence to show that what was said actually damaged your reputation.

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I will love to see the court charge her so she can produce the evidence in court. She must have something that embolden her courage. With all those petty charges using the computer crime law, she know full well the consequences if she don’t have something. Maybe the court save Prayut. 

True Eric close the case down quickly no damage done   Easy way out for him and she wont be heard of again 

5 hours ago, robblok said:

How do you know he is showing all his accounts.. you don't so still not easy.. if this lady has details to back her story up and tells us what account it went to then its easy.. but Prayut does not have anything to prove.. the lady claims something.. she has to prove her claim.. that is the law and its the same in many countries. 

 

If I claim you did something.. you don't have to prove you did not do it.. i need to back up my claim or you can take me to court. 

Unless "you" happen to be Khun Prawit 

18 minutes ago, Happyman58 said:

True Eric close the case down quickly no damage done   Easy way out for him and she wont be heard of again 

 

Prosecutors also made no effort to disprove the truth of what Rinda wrote, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights said in a statement.

 

That itself is rather unusual. 

6 hours ago, robblok said:

I believe what i wrote down.. you can't disprove something without sufficient details. You yourself should know that as your bright enough. I don't know if the lady gave details or just a claim that was not further substantiated.

 

Also.. they did not even have to prove it was not true as this was not a defamation case.. they went after her for national securtiy (and were told it was wrong). Maybe after this they will go for defamation and then the lady will have to prove that what she posted was true. Remember the law dear grasshopper... if you state something you need to prove it not the other party. 

 

If i say you stole money from me , and you file a case of defamation against me.. you don't have to prove anything. I have to prove my claims. So tell me why now all of a sudden would this work differently ?

Try taking about the computer crimes act, you know the one they use to shut people up with or jail them even when they are telling the truth about a corrupt ahole

 
Exactly.

Actually no.Not exactly.All governments have their weaknesses but those that have a mandate from the people stand in a superior league to those that have illegally grabbed power.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

10 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

 

Prosecutors also made no effort to disprove the truth of what Rinda wrote, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights said in a statement.

 

That itself is rather unusual. 

Sure is Very unusual It is like they wanted it just to go away. Wonder why?