[ad_1]
The Court of Appeal resolves the dismissal ‘Ex Brahma Dilok – Assistant’ is not guilty of laundering 5 million dollars from the Phra Pariyatidhamma school Point out, I do not know the money for doing wrong. Use the money to renovate the temple.
On September 23, in the Criminal Court, Corruption and Misconduct case in the middle of Nakornchaisri Road, the court reads the verdict of the Court of Appeal, case number Black Or Tor. 196/2561, money laundering case, corruption and budget allocation from the National Buddhism Office (BE) of Wat Sam Phraya In the Prosecutor of the Anti-Corruption Office Case 1, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Mr. Aon Klinsalok, ex Phra Prommadilok (Eonha Sathammo), former Abbot of the Sam Phraya Temple, Director of the Maha Synagogue (MSU) and the Secretary of Bangkok with Mr. Attakit, former monk Phra Atthakitsopon AND the Secretary of Bangkok as accused 1-2
Follow the news, press follow the line fresh news
In a crime of being an official to perform duties or refrain from performing duties inappropriately or in bad faith To harm any person Under the Penal Code, article 157, and as a supporter of official joint money laundering, which is a typified crime Anti-Money Laundering Act 1999 in the Joint Money Laundering Case Of corruption, the 2014 budget allocated Sam Phraya Temple in the amount of 5 million baht in the educational support budget for Phrapariyattidhamma school. Even without school
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 Which was presented by the Prosecution on August 15, 2018
The Court of First Instance ruled on May 16, 2019 that the actions of the two defendants were different crimes. To punish each karma as an offense According to the Code, Art. 90, to imprison the first defendant, basis of money laundering, 2 charges every 2 years to prison for Mr. Ee O ex Phra Phrom Dilok, a total of 6 years imprisonment, and Mr. Somsong, or ex Phrommakitsopon, the second defendant, 2 krathongs each, 1 year and 6 months, total imprisonment for 3 years
Today both defendants, who have received bail. Dressed in white, she came to court with a group of monks and lay groups to attend to hear the verdict and encourage the accused
The Court of Appeal examined the case for the meeting. Whether the defendant is suing or not When requesting approval of the study budget Not only a temple that has a school for the study of Phra Pariyatidhamma But Wat Sam Phraya has a school for teaching from kindergarten. You would be entitled to use such statements.
Both defendants are outsiders, unrelated to the Office of the Year. In the letter indicated, he received money in restoration. Show that the first defendant understood that it was a restorative 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 a building construction and transfers money to pay the royal debt.
In which the defendant pays the money to the construction supervisor. It is believed that the defendant as a deacon used the money to maintain the temple. Even Wat Sam Phraya does not have the Phrapariyattidhamma school And did not use the money directly It does not consider asset replacement to be a money laundering offense In the court of first instance The court of appeals did not agree. The plaintiff’s appeal could not be heard. The defendant’s appeal rang. Both defendants were not prosecuted. Money laundering law The sentence was rejected.
After the trial, Mr. Somsong or the former Phra Atthakitsopon, the second defendant, raised his hand and groaned with joy. Including the monks and lay groups who came to give encouragement to congratulate
Annop Boonsawang, attorney, gave an interview after the court dismissed that Hoy the court dismissed the lawsuit. Due to the opinion that the two defendants were not involved. Reverse the use of those funds for money laundering. The aforementioned budget, Sam Phraya Temple also provides education in the general department. Therefore, Wat Sam Phraya is entitled to receive this budget.
Therefore, spending money at Wat Sam Phraya is not money laundering, so both defendants are fired. As for whether or not the case goes to the Supreme Court, 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 facts. That this money is used for the construction of the building that is the residence of the monks.
As for sex and truth, both did not speak and continued to 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, it will claim the right to show for yellowing.
[ad_2]
