Dhammakaya deputy abbot stripped of his title

[Khun Han]

17 minutes ago, khunken said:

I am aware that the temple & monks claimed that the money was repaid. I'm not aware that the Credit Union 'thanked & dropped all charges', in fact I don't believe it. If you have proof of that, post it, otherwise it's false.

I do recall that other stolen money was given out to various people & I don't know whether they have been charged or not.

What I do know is that major sums of money were given to the crooks who run Wat Dammakaya and that even if (a big if) they pay it back they are guilty of receiving stolen money - at the very least. I also suggest that there was nothing 'unknowingly' about it.

Are you a member of the cult?

 

Can't find any new articles confirming that the money has been repaid, Ken, but I did find this:

 

https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/dhammakaya-repay-684m-donation-scandal/

 

In a similar article in the BP (which I'm not allowed to link), it was stated that the repayment was made in the form of six post-dated cheques. I'm sure we would have heard something if the cheques had started bouncing.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Khun Han

[reenatinnakor]

The Daily Mirror should do a story on this Thai monk scamming industry. At least on Walking Street you get something in return for your money! With Thai monks you give money in exchange for false hope and they get to live in a nice golden temple whilst you will forever wait for your winning lottery numbers. Usually Thai women are the victims of the monks special non powers.

I've never met an honest genuine Buddhist monk that's not in it to make money. Apart from Chow Yun Fat in Bulletproof Monk, but he's not a real monk.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[mike324]

2 hours ago, ThaiBob said:

False equivalency. The former president of the credit union(a rich man himself) stold the funds and donated much of it to the temple, other temples, universities, charities, etc. He is now in jail. The temple unknowingly accepted fraudulent donations in the form of cheques (if you launder money you don't leave a paper trail) which was used to build temple buildings. The money was returned, lawsuits dropped and charges never should have made. It's not about law enforcement but a complicated scenario of power, religion, envy, Buddhism and politics. 

 

Cheques worth millions were made to monks personal names, so if someone were really to donate money to temple, they can just make it out to the temple itself.  Why the need to make it out to several monks names?

 

Needless to say the president of the credit union is not a smart man at all, rather dumb on the way he was siphoning the money out. I'm surprise nobody else in the management position is in jail too, surely others must have known where the money was going.

 

My other question would be that the some of the money that was return to the credit union was quickly raised by followers. So what happen to the ones that were in the monks names? I'm guessing some were returned, some weren't?

 

I agree this case is not only about law enforcement, it has to do with power and politics. This temple has the biggest followers in Thailand and is known to politically favor one party and has done several favors. The fact that the temple advertises that you can buy merit make this whole organization a complete scam thats focus more on money that religion itself.

[Khun Han]

Can we please differentiate between the assertion  that Dammakaya is a money-grabbing entity (with which I agree), and the assertion that it knowingly laundered dirty money (which, at best, has no decent corroborating evidence)?

[khunken]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Can't find any new articles confirming that the money has been repaid, Ken, but I did find this:

 

https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/dhammakaya-repay-684m-donation-scandal/

 

In a similar article in the BP (which I'm not allowed to link), it was stated that the repayment was made in the form of six post-dated cheques. I'm sure we would have heard something if the cheques had started bouncing.

Ok I accept that but did it include all the money paid to the temple and individual monks?

I can understand the Credit Union head using stolen money to give to the temple but I don't understand why some of the money was given to individual monks.

This whole saga has escalated out of hand and most, if not all, of it could have been avoided if the abbot had just gone to DSI to accept the charges. But no, he and his followers had to put him above the law and it's led to all sorts of charges against the temple & monks.

No, I don't accept any claim of innocence of receiving stolen money by the temple. Their actions are not typical of innocent people.

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, ThaiBob said:

May 2, 2016

Klongchan Credit Union withdraws lawsuits against Wat Phra Dhammakaya Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative issued an appreciation letter to supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya who raised funds to aid the Credit Union and made a recent appearance on a television program to publicly demonstrate their gratitude and announce they were withdrawing their case against Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Most Ven. Phrathepyanmahamuni. See the video clip and letter below. 

The video clip from Thai TV with English subtitles is available on YouTube 

 

And more, 

 

16th March 2015

Re: A letter of appreciation

To: Supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Most Ven. Phrathepyanmahamuni

Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative (KCUC) had filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Supachai Srisupa-aksorn, case number 736/2557, at Thanyaburi Court. Mr. Supachai Srisupa-aksorn had donated funds to Phrarajbhavanavisudh (Phrathepyanmahamuni) in the sum of 684.78 million baht, which were subsequently allocated toward the construction of religious facilities in accordance with his wishes. These funds were obtained from KCUC.  Although the funds were offered with transparency, supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Phrarajbhavanavisudh or Phrathepyanmahamuni felt the credit union’s financial operations could be severely impacted, as credit union members had been unable to withdraw funds. Wat Phra Dhammakaya supporters were concerned the lawsuit could become lengthy, which would not benefit either party. For this reason, these supporters raised funds to assist Wat Phra Dhammakaya, Phrathepyanmahamuni, and the credit union. In total, 684.78 million baht was raised and given to the credit union as a way to restore business operations and aid credit union members and employees.

KCUC realizes the donations in question were received by Wat Phra Dhammakaya with transparency and allocated entirely toward the construction of religious facilities. As a result, KCUC would like to extend its sincerest gratitude to Wat Phra Dhammakaya supporters for their compassion in raising these funds.

 

Respectfully,

Mr. Padet Mungthanya, Chairman

Mr. Prakit Pilankasa, Vice Chairman

Klongchan Credit Union Limited Cooperative

 

 

Of the embezzled funds, 8% were given to the Temple and the other 92% given to other institutions. But, the DSI has only prosecuted this temple. 

 

And KCUC is about to sue the DSI for the return of nearly 4bn baht, which the DSI has recovered from other recipients of the stolen money, but has so far failed to return to KCUC.

[Khun Han]

48 minutes ago, khunken said:

Ok I accept that but did it include all the money paid to the temple and individual monks?

I can understand the Credit Union head using stolen money to give to the temple but I don't understand why some of the money was given to individual monks.

This whole saga has escalated out of hand and most, if not all, of it could have been avoided if the abbot had just gone to DSI to accept the charges. But no, he and his followers had to put him above the law and it's led to all sorts of charges against the temple & monks.

No, I don't accept any claim of innocence of receiving stolen money by the temple. Their actions are not typical of innocent people.

 

I agree that the cheques made out personally to the abbott warrant a good dose of accounting foensics.

 

But two things stink far more than that:

 

1) Dammakaya is the only recipient of the illegal funds which has willingly paid them back, yet it's the only recipient being prosecuted. Other recipients received much larger amounts. They should have been targeted first.

 

2) The DSI is refusing to return 3.7bn Baht confiscated from other recipients to KCUK, to the point that KCUK are about to start legal action to recover the money.

 

The above two points are why many (including myself) are suspicious that this is not primarily about money laundering.

[yardrunner]

5 hours ago, ThaiBob said:

Are you aware the credit union was repayed and the credit union thanked and dropped all charges against the temple?  Are you aware the credit union funds were given to others (wats, universities, etc) and they have not been charged for receiving stolen funds and not repayed the credit union? 

even if that is true the crime had already been committed and the prosecution should continue to establish who was liable and what penalty if any those found guilty should face 

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

even if that is true the crime had already been committed and the prosecution should continue to establish who was liable and what penalty if any those found guilty should face 

 

Maybe leaders of Dammakaya are complicit in the crime. But thereis, so far, no evidence of this, even though charges have been laid. If a well-dressed, well-presented criminal bought an expensive property, paying for it with a method that had a paper trail, would that arouse suspicion from the seller? And would the seller face money laundering charges?

[ThaiBob]

36 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

even if that is true the crime had already been committed and the prosecution should continue to establish who was liable and what penalty if any those found guilty should face 

If Thailand were a western democracy, I might possibly agree with you. But the DSI has no case by international standards and are apparently being sued by credit union. 

[robblok]

43 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Maybe leaders of Dammakaya are complicit in the crime. But thereis, so far, no evidence of this, even though charges have been laid. If a well-dressed, well-presented criminal bought an expensive property, paying for it with a method that had a paper trail, would that arouse suspicion from the seller? And would the seller face money laundering charges?

That depends on what evidence there is. Do you really think this is the only evidence. Don't you find it strange that someone is stealing money and handing it over to others. The only reason I could think for that is money laundering, and a temple like this that receives large sums of cash donations is a perfect cover for money laundering. (they just dont report all the cash they get donated and use it for the money laundering)

 

You donate.. they give you back the money (minus a big cut) in cash. As temples are not really investigated much it would work perfect. 

[Khun Han]

22 minutes ago, robblok said:

That depends on what evidence there is. Do you really think this is the only evidence. Don't you find it strange that someone is stealing money and handing it over to others. The only reason I could think for that is money laundering, and a temple like this that receives large sums of cash donations is a perfect cover for money laundering. (they just dont report all the cash they get donated and use it for the money laundering)

 

You donate.. they give you back the money (minus a big cut) in cash. As temples are not really investigated much it would work perfect. 

 

Your speculation about money laundering opens up a very obvious question: where does that leave the status of the other donations, such as to the university?

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Your speculation about money laundering opens up a very obvious question: where does that leave the status of the other donations, such as to the university?

I think its harder for a university to be used for money laundering (not sure but don't know how much cash they receive and how strict they are checked). But a temple like I explained with clear facts is the perfect operation to launder money especially such a large temple as the one we are talking about. They have loads of cash floating around and little or none oversight.  Of course there would be collusion (meaning multiple people involved)  to overcome the few checks that are available. 

 

I just don't understand why someone would donate large amounts of stolen money without getting anything in return. Why steal and take all the risks and have nothing to show for it.. its just not logical.

[Khun Han]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think its harder for a university to be used for money laundering (not sure but don't know how much cash they receive and how strict they are checked). But a temple like I explained with clear facts is the perfect operation to launder money especially such a large temple as the one we are talking about. They have loads of cash floating around and little or none oversight.  Of course there would be collusion (meaning multiple people involved)  to overcome the few checks that are available. 

 

I just don't understand why someone would donate large amounts of stolen money without getting anything in return. Why steal and take all the risks and have nothing to show for it.. its just not logical.

 

Like I said, your speculation about the whys and wherefores doesn't explain the other donations (which you've sidestepped), so your conclusion is meaningless.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Like I said, your speculation about the whys and wherefores doesn't explain the other donations (which you've sidestepped), so your conclusion is meaningless.

No I just explained it why the temple is an easy way to launder money, that I haven't directly figured out the others does not mean its not true. Its far more logical then assuming he just gave the money away without getting anything in return  Doing a crime and not getting nothing.. sorry I dont buy that one bit. You might believe in Santa.. I dont

[Khun Han]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

No I just explained it why the temple is an easy way to launder money, that I haven't directly figured out the others does not mean its not true. Its far more logical then assuming he just gave the money away without getting anything in return  Doing a crime and not getting nothing.. sorry I dont buy that one bit. You might believe in Santa.. I dont

 

You have come up with pure speculation which is blown apart by the bigger picture of this story. Maybe you should first fathom out how a respectable university launders huge sums of money, so that your theory makes sense?

[robblok]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

You have come up with pure speculation which is blown apart by the bigger picture of this story. Maybe you should first fathom out how a respectable university launders huge sums of money, so that your theory makes sense?

Why ? Do you think it could not happen ? Universities have other ways to reward people who donate money. Kids can go to schools. Just because something is a respected university does not mean there are no shady deals going around. Temples are supposed to be clean too.

 

I just don't believe that someone would steal billions only to give them away without any money or favors getting back to him, you seem to think otherwise. But Santa really does not exist, but you think a Thai version exists. 

[Khun Han]

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

Why ? Do you think it could not happen ? Universities have other ways to reward people who donate money. Kids can go to schools. Just because something is a respected university does not mean there are no shady deals going around. Temples are supposed to be clean too.

 

I just don't believe that someone would steal billions only to give them away without any money or favors getting back to him, you seem to think otherwise. But Santa really does not exist, but you think a Thai version exists. 

 

I'm saying that your theory doesn't make sense. And you are still sidestepping the issue of the university money. Free places for his kids? Don't make me laugh! What 0.000% of the donated money does that add up to?

 

And I am saying that the way this investigation is being conducted stinks to high heaven, and it's obvious that the real agenda of the case aint money laundering.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Khun Han

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I'm saying that your theory doesn't make sense. And you are still sidestepping the issue of the university money. Free places for his kids? Don't make me laugh! What 0.000% of the donated money does that add up to?

 

And I am saying that the way this investigation is being conducted stinks to high heaven, and it's obvious that the real agenda of the case aint money laundering.

Im saying your theory does not make sense.. that someone would give away billions of stolen money without getting anything in return.

 

Lets agree to disagree. You believe in Santa and I don't. That is the difference. 

 

As for that there might be alternative reasons for going after the abbot that does not mean he is not guilty. Your kind seems to think that people on your side should be excused their crimes because its all political. Without a crime.. they can't go after them. Its high time people realize that. 

 

Ill leave it at this because we are going on around and around in circles. You have your opinion and I got mine. 

 

[ThaiBob]

10 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

............. 

 

And I am saying that the way this investigation is being conducted stinks to high heaven, and it's obvious that the real agenda of the case aint money laundering.

I agree, when or if the final chapter of this saga is written it will make an interesting read. I have just been told (unsubstantiated) that army/police have conducted another search and opened the temple gates so followers can enter. Confirmation? 

[GarryP]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I agree that the cheques made out personally to the abbott warrant a good dose of accounting foensics.

 

But two things stink far more than that:

 

1) Dammakaya is the only recipient of the illegal funds which has willingly paid them back, yet it's the only recipient being prosecuted. Other recipients received much larger amounts. They should have been targeted first.

 

2) The DSI is refusing to return 3.7bn Baht confiscated from other recipients to KCUK, to the point that KCUK are about to start legal action to recover the money.

 

The above two points are why many (including myself) are suspicious that this is not primarily about money laundering.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

This is not about money alone. If it were, the other recipients of such funds would also be facing action, but they are not.  The only conclusion I can reach that seems to make any sense in this case is that the other recipients are not seen as a threat to the current regime, but Dhammakaya is. It has a very large support base from all walks of life, from the rich to the poor, from the red to the yellow. But the common factor is that they will follow the words of the Abbott and his deputies, and if he says ignore or protest against the junta, the followers will do so. That is a lot of power. 

 

 

[Khun Han]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Im saying your theory does not make sense.. that someone would give away billions of stolen money without getting anything in return.

 

Lets agree to disagree. You believe in Santa and I don't. That is the difference. 

 

As for that there might be alternative reasons for going after the abbot that does not mean he is not guilty. Your kind seems to think that people on your side should be excused their crimes because its all political. Without a crime.. they can't go after them. Its high time people realize that. 

 

Ill leave it at this because we are going on around and around in circles. You have your opinion and I got mine. 

 

 

So, what did he get in return fron the uni? Until you can come up with a credible answer, your theory falls on it's backside because you have failed abjectly to come up with your own 'Father Christmas' for that aspect of the case.

 

And I don't have a side. My view is that there are no good guys in Thai politics. That's why I can look at cases like this objectively, unlike yourself.

[robblok]

On 3/10/2017 at 8:04 PM, Khun Han said:

 

So, what did he get in return fron the uni? Until you can come up with a credible answer, your theory falls on it's backside because you have failed abjectly to come up with your own 'Father Christmas' for that aspect of the case.

 

And I don't have a side. My view is that there are no good guys in Thai politics. That's why I can look at cases like this objectively, unlike yourself.

100% agree with that statement, that is why I don't mind people getting caught if they break the law, I don't see why the guy should go free if he broke the law. That there is an alternative reason for going after him is quite clear I won't deny that but that does not make him innocent.

 

I still stick to my opinion that I don't believe that the guy stole the money only to give it away. That is far less logical then to assume that even the university had some way of returning the favor. If it was all that easy to workout people would have, but that does not mean its a clean transaction.

 

You give me a good explanation why someone would steal money and risk jail-time only to give it all away. 

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by metisdead
Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[ThaiBob]

Pravit Rojanaphruk @Khaosod confirmed tweets the temple has reopened. 

[Khun Han]

44 minutes ago, robblok said:

100% agree with that statement, that is why I don't mind people getting caught if they break the law, I don't see why the guy should go free if he broke the law. That there is an alternative reason for going after him is quite clear I won't deny that but that does not make him innocent.

 

I still stick to my opinion that I don't believe that the guy stole the money only to give it away. That is far less logical then to assume that even the university had some way of returning the favor. If it was all that easy to workout people would have, but that does not mean its a clean transaction.

 

You give me a good explanation why someone would steal money and risk jail-time only to give it all away. 

 

 

To gain the social standing and prestige that such donations bring with them, without having to give his own money away? (he appears to have been already wealthy before all this happened). That's currently the only logical explanation for the donation to the uni. And this particular organisation is famous for extracting large amounts of money from it's followers. It's been the main cause of some failed marriages in my home country, the UK.

 

On the other hand, I'm of the view that the books of the temple and those of ALL the other organisations that received this KCUC money should have been thoroughly audited by either an independent or reputable government agency. I'm not aware that this has happened with ANY of those organisations yet, and the cart appears to have been put before the horse, big time, in the case of Dammakaya. The question 'why?' Is the one everyone interested in this should be focusing on.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Khun Han

[robblok]

On 3/10/2017 at 8:51 PM, Khun Han said:

 

To gain the social standing and prestige that such donations bring with them, without having to give his own money away? (he appears to have been already wealthy before all this happened). That's currently the only logical explanation for the donation to the uni. And this particular organisation is famous for extracting large amounts of money from it's followers. It's been the main cause of failed marriages in my home country, the UK.

 

On the other hand, I'm of the view that the books of the temple and those of ALL the other organisations that received this KCUC money should have been thoroughly audited by either an independent or reputable government agency. I'm not aware that this has happened with ANY of those organisations yet, and the cart appears to have been put before the horse, big time, in the case of Dammakaya. The question 'why?' Is the one everyone interested in this should be focusing on.

Again agreed, they should be all investigated. 

 

And I 100% agree there is an alternative motive for going after Dammkaya , but that does not make him innocent. Problem is here and your right there are no good guys the only time that people get convicted / prosecuted is not if they break the law, its if they break the law and get on the wrong side of someone currently in power. I wish it were different but that is how it is and has always been here. I just feel happy that a few of these guys get caught (even if its for the wrong reasons). The rich and powerful on all sides just do what they want and seeing a few go down is always a good thing. Because they won't get convicted if they have done nothing. There is always a real basis for the conviction (even if its not the reason for going after them)

 

As for your explanation its one that would work here, personally I still find it strange but its one that could be true. I still think that money laundering could be a reason for the temple (as its easier there) but it could also be social standing. For the uni social standing would be a better explanation. From a personal point of view I can't really wrap my head around it to steal just to get higher social standing and not win something back. Maybe I don't care enough about social standing but for those guys it might be real important. 

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by metisdead
Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[Khun Han]

50 minutes ago, robblok said:

And I 100% agree there is an alternative motive for going after Dammkaya , but that does not make him innocent. Problem is here and your right there are no good guys the only time that people get convicted / prosecuted is not if they break the law, its if they break the law and get on the wrong side of someone currently in power. I wish it were different but that is how it is and has always been here. I just feel happy that a few of these guys get caught (even if its for the wrong reasons). The rich and powerful on all sides just do what they want and seeing a few go down is always a good thing. Because they won't get convicted if they have done nothing. There is always a real basis for the conviction (even if its not the reason for going after them)

 

The problem with going down that road is that we could end up with a complete inbalance in the power structures. It was starting to happen under Thaksin, until he tried to do too much too soon, and his enemies were still strong enough to stop him. And it's happening under the current regime with no apparent strong opposition.

[robblok]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

The problem with going down that road is that we could end up with a complete inbalance in the power structures. It was starting to happen under Thaksin, until he tried to do too much too soon, and his enemies were still strong enough to stop him. And it's happening under the current regime with no apparent strong opposition.

The alternative is that they all go free.. I hate that. Believe me I will be rooting for the PM his nephew and brother getting it too. 

 

I don't like this system, but its all we have right now.  I prefer some of these guys going down to the alternative that they are all untouchable and feeding of the normal people. 

 

But I understand what you say.. but Thaksin tried it and would have done the same to his opponents.. now someone else does it to him. What goes around comes around.  

 

But some balance is better indeed.. but the fact is the PTP were in power long.. and now they are paying. Next time they will do the same with their opponents. Its a cycle I don't see changing here any time soon. there is too much money to be made here to be in power.

[Ron19]

A post completely ignorant of the facts. The facts against these monks were "created"  just like the facts used against the the Burmese boys in the Koh Tao case. Just another case of Thailand human rights abuses. 

Do you have anything to back up the statements you have just made ?

Sent from my iris 755 using Tapatalk

[ThaiBob]

On 3/12/2017 at 6:29 PM, Ron19 said:

Do you have anything to back up the statements you have just made ?

Sent from my iris 755 using Tapatalk
 

It is a known that corruption is rampant and the innocent unjustly accused. Planting of evidence should surprise no one.  The Bangkok Post, Nation and the rest of the pusilanimous media do no investigative reporting, report junta propaganda, and their stories are picked up and often repeated by the foreign press. The real facts are attacked by Article 44, lèse majeste, and Computer Crimes Act. In Thailand, the truth is no defense, ask Johnathan Head, hopefully the UN Human Rights Commission can turn up the heat.