The civil court judgment dismissed the petition and ordered the return of 74 million baht to Lawyer Tum and his wife in the fraud case involving Je Aoi. This does not affect the criminal case, and an appeal can still be filed by the parties involved. The tags are: [civil court, fraud case, asset return, Lawyer Tum, Je Aoi, appeal, criminal case]
On 24 Feb 2025 GMT+7 at the civil court, the judgment was read for case numbers F26/2568 and F145/2568. The plaintiff, the prosecutor from the Special Case Division 2 of the Office of the Attorney General (AMLO), filed a petition seeking to have the assets of Mr. Sittha Biebungkerd (Lawyer Tum), a former well-known lawyer, and his wife Mrs. Patitta Biebungkerd, forfeited to the state.
This follows the AMLO committee's order to temporarily seize and freeze 28 asset items and to petition the special case prosecutor to have these assets forfeited to the state in the fraud case involving Ms. Jatuporn Ubonlert (Je Aoi). Evidence suggested that Mr. Sittha and associates were involved in fraud offenses under the Criminal Code considered predicate offenses under the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999), sections 3(18) and 5, related to money laundering. The petition requested the court to order that the seized and frozen assets, totaling 28 items valued at 74,198,527 baht plus interest, be returned or compensated to the victim instead of being forfeited to the state.
The case required a preliminary determination of whether the evidence presented by the petitioner was sufficient to be accepted as proof of the predicate offense alleged in the petition.
The petitioner presented Pol. Lt. Col. Tharin Kangwanbutr, an expert investigator from the Anti-Money Laundering Office, as a witness. He testified that his duty was to examine transaction data and assets related to the offenses and to gather evidence as assigned by the AMLO Secretary-General. The witness compiled documents based on reports from the Central Investigation Bureau that Lawyer Tum and associates were involved in fraud offenses under the Criminal Code and money laundering offenses.
This originated from a complaint by Ms. Jatuporn Ubonlert to the Pak Chong police station requesting prosecution against the first respondent for fraud. At that time, Ms. Jatuporn was in France. Lawyer Tum invited Ms. Jatuporn (Je Aoi) to invest in an application for online government lottery trading in Thailand. Ms. Jatuporn agreed and transferred 2 million euros from her French bank account to Lawyer Tum's account, equivalent to over 71 million baht.
Later, Lawyer Tum presented a contract for the development of the lottery trading app, with Innofight Co., Ltd. as the developer, with a delivery deadline of 1 Sep 2023. However, upon the deadline, Ms. Jatuporn did not receive the app as agreed.
The police accepted the complaint and investigated, eventually filing for arrest warrants for Lawyer Tum and his wife. The criminal court issued arrest warrants for Lawyer Tum on charges of fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and for his wife on charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Subsequently, the investigators decided to prosecute both respondents on the aforementioned charges. The prosecutors filed charges against the two respondents and five others, totaling seven persons, for fraud, conspiracy to defraud, computer system offenses involving false data likely to cause damage to others, providing false information to officials, falsification and use of false documents, and related offenses, establishing reasonable grounds to believe the respondents committed predicate offenses.
The court found that Lawyer Tum, the respondent, committed fraud under the Criminal Code by inducing Ms. Jatuporn to invest in the online lottery app in Thailand, resulting in her transferring over 71 million baht.
However, Lawyer Tum did not deliver the app as per the contract, constituting a predicate offense under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, section 3(18). The petitioner had the burden to present sufficient evidence to establish that Lawyer Tum committed the predicate offense as alleged or that such predicate offense actually occurred. Although the petition to have assets forfeited to the state is a civil measure under the Anti-Money Laundering Act focusing on assets regardless of whether the perpetrator is apprehended or punished, if assets derive from criminal conduct, the measure may apply even if the owner or transferee is not charged or involved.
However, to accept the fact that the assets are related to the offense, the petitioner must present evidence sufficient to conclusively prove that the predicate or money laundering offense occurred, and that the owner or transferee has a connection or prior relationship with the perpetrator. The evidence need not meet the criminal case standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt but must sufficiently establish the facts conclusively, showing the elements of the predicate offense as alleged.
The petitioner presented only one witness, Pol. Lt. Col. Tharin Kangwanbutr, an expert investigator from the Anti-Money Laundering Office. This witness was not an eyewitness but only a document compiler who gathered evidence from police investigation files. His testimony merely summarized documents from the investigation and did not come from personal investigation or examination, thus carrying limited weight.
Although the petitioner argued that criminal proceedings were underway against the respondents for fraud and money laundering, with arrest warrants issued and charges filed by prosecutors, this alone does not conclusively establish the respondents' guilt of the predicate offenses.
This is because the respondents have consistently denied the charges, and the investigation and prosecution were conducted solely by state officials without giving the respondents or other accused persons opportunities to fully contest or present evidence before the arrest warrants or charging decisions. This differs from court proceedings where all parties may cross-examine and present evidence.
Therefore, the court could not accept only the investigation documents, which lack certification by involved persons, as sufficient evidence. At this stage, Lawyer Tum and his wife presented evidence and arguments denying ever inducing or deceiving Ms. Jatuporn to invest in the lottery app. They claimed the 71 million baht was given voluntarily out of affection and personal goodwill to assist Lawyer Tum and his family.
They argued they did not commit fraud against Ms. Jatuporn. They supported their defense with Line chat messages between Ms. Jatuporn, Lawyer Tum, and Ms. Patthamon Saengrith, a close associate of Ms. Jatuporn, as supporting witnesses.
The petitioner did not rebut or cross-examine these witnesses nor call Ms. Jatuporn herself to testify to confirm facts, nor did they call the investigators who took her statement to verify her investigative testimony or the documents submitted. Thus, the evidence presented was weaker than the defense's evidence. Given the respondents' counter-evidence and arguments, the sole witness from the petitioner lacked sufficient weight to conclusively prove the respondents committed fraud as a predicate offense.
Therefore, the evidence presented by the petitioner was insufficient to accept that a predicate offense occurred. The assets listed were not related to criminal conduct and must be returned to their owners. The court thus dismissed the petition and ordered the assets listed to be returned to the owners.
Subsequently, reporters contacted Mrs. Yaowalak Nontakaew, Director-General of the Special Case Prosecutor's Office, who stated that the civil court's dismissal does not affect the criminal case, and that an appeal may still be filed.