An example of fighting a fraud case, when not being the legal victim – knowing that the money was taken to lend money to collect interest beyond the due date.

Examples of criminal defense that I have published today. It is a popular criminal case that is filed frequently. It is a case of fraud. According to the Criminal Code, Section 341.

For details of this lawsuit. The plaintiff sued, claiming that the defendant had intent to defraud. Use the plaintiff’s money to invest and give out loans. Received a high compensation. And there came a time when the defendant did not return the money within the specified time period. Total amount is approximately 1,500,000 baht.

As for the facts obtained from the defendant who is my client, it is said that The defendant actually received money from the plaintiff. to lend to other people The interest is charged at a rate higher than that required by law at the rate of 5 percent to 30 percent.

After borrowing money for some time, the defendant has always returned the interest and principal to the plaintiff. Until later, there was a problem with the person who the defendant lent out the money to and did not remit the principal and interest. This caused the defendant to be stuck with no money to return to the plaintiff.

After receiving the facts from the defendant, I view this case as a very easy case to fight. And I have set up two points of defense in this case:

1.This case is not a criminal offense of fraud.

Because it is an offense of fraud according to Section 341 of the Criminal Code, it must deceive others by presenting false information or concealing true information that should be disclosed. causing the property of the person who was deceived

But the nature of the action of this case, the defendant only borrowed money from the plaintiff, continued lending and shared the interest profits with the plaintiff only. which is clearly a breach of a civil contract or agreement Therefore it is not an offense of fraud.

2.The plaintiff is not the legal victim.

Because of the criminal prosecution The plaintiff must be legally the injured party. Not involved in committing an offense It does not contribute to the commission of an offense. and did not witness involvement in the commission of the crime.

But the plaintiff’s behavior in this case who knew and consented and was the principal in bringing the money to the defendant to lend to other people By charging interest at a rate higher than the law stipulates.

Considered to be a participant in the crime. According to theAct prohibiting charging interest in excess of the rate, B.E. 2560 Therefore, it can be considered that the plaintiff is not the legal victim who has the right to You can sue the defendant.

Because if you do that, it’s like the state encourages people to violate the law and can sue to enforce it.

For example, if the plaintiff is a drug or illegal firearms capitalist. If the plaintiff was deceived by another person out of money for drugs or illegal weapons.

The plaintiff has no right to sue that other person for fraud. Otherwise, it is equivalent to the court and state allowing acts that violate the law and supporting and forcing people to violate criminal laws. You can sue to enforce it.

With examples of Supreme Court judgments such as

Supreme Court judgment no. 7869/2017

The co-plaintiff is a capitalist who gives out loans with the intent to gain benefits by charging interest in excess of the legal rate, which is an offense. The Act prohibits charging interest exceeding the rate. Whether the two defendants jointly defrauded the co-plaintiff or not. It was held that the co-plaintiff was not a legal victim. may not request to join as a plaintiff and has no right to complain to the police officer to prosecute the two defendants for fraud, which is a compromising offense according to Section 2(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The investigating officer has no authority to investigate and the plaintiff prosecutor has no authority to sue according to Civil Procedure Code Section 121 and Section 120
In the preliminary investigation stage I see that this case is not a very difficult case. and without complicated factual details Therefore, a team of the office’s best lawyers was sent, namely Lawyer Praewphan Chiewprasit. Be the person who makes a statement explaining the facts and law that the court should order that the case has no basis. and is the person who cross-examines in the preliminary investigation.

The result was that the court ruled to dismiss the case. For the reason that the plaintiff is not the legal victim. Because he already knew that the defendant would lend the money to collect interest in excess of the amount specified by law. There is no authority to sue the defendant according to the Supreme Court’s judgment. Such

I have therefore brought an example of making a statement explaining the facts and legal points that the court should order that the case has no basis. and examples of judgments are here to be published as alms and guidelines for working with friends in the future.

Express your opinion about this article

comments