Example of fighting a fraud case: distorting facts to fit the law

Examples of fighting fraud cases Today, this is another popular case that is often brought to court. It’s about a fraud case.

In this case, the office is accepting lawyers for the defendant. The defendant was sued for fraud. The injured person appoints a lawyer to be the plaintiff and files a lawsuit himself in court. without having filed a complaint with the investigating officer.

The picture of the story that the plaintiff made was The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in the gold trading business. The defendant announced a post selling gold at a price lower than the market. and deceive the plaintiff into buying said gold and claimed that the defendant would announce the sale and would get a profit of approximately 10,000 baht. Later, the defendant would not return the profits. Therefore came to sue as a fraud case.

But the facts that I got from the defendant’s side are that The plaintiff and defendant have known each other for a long time. And the money that the plaintiff gave to the defendant was not gold at all. But it is money that the plaintiff transferred to the defendant for the defendant to continue lending. And after that, the defendant will send the interest on the loan to the plaintiff. This interest is interest that exceeds the amount specified by law. And the plaintiff himself knew this well.

The plaintiff and defendant have done legal acts like this many times. The plaintiff released the money to the defendant for lending. The defendant returned the money, both principal and interest, to the plaintiff, but in large amounts. Until the last time there was a problem Unable to collect money from the debtor who gave the loan The defendant therefore did not have the principal to return the money.

In fact, if the plaintiff frames the matter as a civil case The defendant would have admitted his guilt and paid the debt according to the law. From the prosecution side wanting to bring in a criminal case to squeeze. to make the defendant accept responsibility Therefore, the story was set up as a fraud case.

And because if the plaintiff frames the story as a fraud case and describes the lawsuit as true, That it was a matter that the plaintiff already knew that the defendant would use the money to lend out money. Charge interest at a rate that exceeds the law. The plaintiff will not be legally considered to be the victim. then have no right to sue with the defendant is an offense of fraud Moreover, this matter is still only a civil dispute.

With similar examples of Supreme Court judgments such as

Supreme Court judgment no. 12659/2010 The Supreme Court ruled that “The problem of the plaintiff’s decision is that Is the plaintiff a legal victim who has the right to bring a case against both defendants for fraud or not? The plaintiff appealed. that Even though it is true that The plaintiff gave the money to the two defendants for the purpose of having the two defendants lend it through the two defendants by charging interest from those who borrowed the money through the two defendants at an interest rate higher than ten percent. five per year as required by law But when the Court of Appeal Region 1 heard the facts that style=”font-weight: 400;”> The two defendants defrauded the plaintiff with false statements that they would take the plaintiff’s money and lend it to merchants in the market, when in fact the two defendants intended to take the plaintiff’s money. Going to seek personal benefit of the two defendants with no intention of lending them to merchants in the market. As a result, the plaintiff received damages. Must lose that money The actions of both defendants are therefore considered fraudulent. andBecause the two defendants had no intention of actually lending the plaintiff’s money. Charging interest in excess of the rate from borrowers therefore does not actually occur. Therefore, the offense under the Act prohibiting charging interest in excess of the rate does not occur. Therefore, the said cause cannot be brought to the attention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has no authority to sue for fraud because the plaintiff is not the legal victim. The Court of Appeal, Region 1, ruled that the plaintiff’s case was dismissed as unfavorable. It is seen that The plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff believed the deception of the two defendants. Therefore, the loan was given to the two defendants to be lent by demanding interest at a rate exceeding fifteen percent per year, which is a violation of the Act prohibiting charging interest exceeding the rate of 1932. shown It is evident that the plaintiff accepted the said offer with malicious intent and intended to benefit from an illegal act. Even if the illegal act did not occur because it was just a deception of the two defendants to defraud the plaintiff as the plaintiff claimed or not? It is considered that the plaintiff is not the victim who will bring a case against both defendants for fraud. The Court of Appeal Region 1 ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s appeal is ineffective.