[ad_1]
The Court of Appeals decided to dismiss the case for change in Sam Phraya Temple.
Date Sep 23, 2020 at 2:23 PM
Court of Appeal Resolves dismissal of former Brahma Dilok Y savior Free of money laundering charge, budget of 5 million baht, lawyer specifies to win prosecutor’s request
In the Criminal Court, the case of corruption and misconduct in the middle of Nakornchaisri Road, the court reads the verdict of the Court of Appeal, Black Case No. 196/2561. Money laundering, fraud, budget allocation Wat Sam Phraya Association Prosecutor in Anti-Corruption Case 1 filed suit against “Mr. Ee Klinsalok”, former Phra Brahmadilok (Eonha Sathammo), former Abbot of Sam Phraya Temple, Association Committee Sangha Sangha (MSU) and the dean of Bangkok with “Mr. Somsong Attakrit, former Phra Atthakitsopon and Secretary to the Secretary of Bangkok, was defendant 1-2 in the offense of being a civil servant to perform duties or refrain from performing duties of inappropriate or dishonest way To harm any person Under article 157 of the Penal Code and as a supporter of the official, money laundering as a whole, which is a typified crime The Anti-Money Laundering Law of 1999
From the money laundering case claiming to be corrupt, the 2014 National Bureau of Buddhism (BE) budget allocated money to the Sam Phraya Temple in the amount of 5 million baht in the budget for educational subsidies for schools in Phrapariyattidhamma. No project implementation By Temple Abbot Sam Phraya Use the acquired budget to use the construction of the Romtham building instead Despite not being entitled to receive the money in the first place
The Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit on August 15, 2018, from the level of detention in the investigation on May 24, 2018 until the judicial hearing. Past Phra Brahmadilok Former Temple Abbot Sam Phraya And former Phra Attakitsopon The petition and guarantees were not filed for temporary release. At first he was a prisoner in a prison. Even a request for bail to appeal the case Both had bailed out with values worth 2 million baht each.
While the Court of First Instance ruled on May 16, 62, that the actions of the two defendants had different karma. To punish each karma as an offense Incarceration of former Phra Brahmadilok Former Abbot of Temple Sam Phraya, the first defendant, the basis of money laundering 2 krathongs every 3 years, including 6 years in prison, and Mr. Somsong or former Phra Athakitsopon, the second defendant, 2 kratongs each, 1 year and 6 months, total imprisonment 3 years
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both defendants as the functionary or abstaining officer. Or due to dishonesty AND the basis of support officers under the Code, Section 157, the court found that it must be the officer acting directly. But the reason it passed is the authorization to withdraw money from the account. No direct power of attorney. Therefore, you are not guilty of filing this charge.
Subsequently, both the plaintiff prosecutor AND both defendants have filed an appeal As of today, both defendants who have received bail on appeal. Dressed in white, he came to court with a lawyer to hear the ruling. At the same time, there are groups of monks and secular disciples. I traveled to encourage him during his participation in hearing the verdict.
In this regard, the Court of Appeals of the Corruption and Misconduct Division I reviewed the idioms of the meeting and consulted. The defendant committed a crime by suing or not
When requesting approval of the study budget Not only the temples that have schools for the study of Phra Pariyatidhamma But Wat Sam Phraya has a school for teaching from kindergarten. You have the right to use such statements. While both defendants were outsiders, they were unrelated to the administration of the office, and there was no evidence that the defendants were aware of the money in connection with the crime. In the request letter stating that the restoration money was received, it would show that the first defendant understood that it was the restoration budget. Upon receiving the budget of 5 million baht according to the check, the defendant has authorized the withdrawal of money to pay for the construction of Romtham. The temple has constructed the building and transferred the actual payment and the defendant has paid the construction supervisor. That is why he believed that the accused, as a deacon, used the money to maintain the temple.
Even Wat Sam Phraya does not have the Phrapariyattidhamma school And did not directly use the money It is not considered asset replacement to be a money laundering offense That the Court of First Instance convicted The court of appeals did not agree with the defendant’s appeal. Therefore, judged saying To dismiss the two defendants in the crimes The Money Laundering Law, Section 5, 10, 60 as well.
After the court read the appeal ruling, Mr. Somong or the former Phra Attakitsopon, the second defendant, raised his hand and groaned with joy. While the monks and lay groups Who came to give encouragement, also joined to congratulate
Meanwhile, the defendant’s lawyer, Annop Bunswang, said that the court dismissed the case due to the opinion that the two defendants were not involved in money laundering. While Wat Sam Phraya also provides education in the general department The Temple is entitled to accept this budget. Therefore, spending money at Wat Sam Phraya is not money laundering. As to whether the case will go to the Supreme Court or not, we will have to wait for the plaintiff prosecutor to consider the law.
Today, both defendants are delighted that the Court of Appeal has a consensus on the fact that this money is used for the construction of the monks’ residence buildings.
As for the clergy, the truth is Both did not speak. And in the past I still maintain the same behavior as a monk. But in the law, there can be controversy. Here we have to understand each other, in fact, it is intended that if the court dismisses the claim to claim the right to show with yellow color.
Note: image file
[ad_2]
