April 2020

Example of using Electronic data to be considered as evidence in Thai court. Verdict {6757/2560}

In the present, there are many legal cases relevant to electronic data as the evidence and are expecting to increases since people can easily access electronic devices, e.g. Mobile phones. While people committing offences using mobile phones are increases, these complicated electronic data should be examined by specialists if the evidences are required for the litigation.

The following is legal case that has been filed, heard, and already made the decision by Supreme Court.

• The Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff with the balance of 595,000 Baht and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1 percent per month. Defendant has received the full amount of the loan. After the agreement has been made, the Defendant did not pay the principal. The balance of 4 installments for interest that has yet to be pay, totaling 6,500 Baht The Plaintiff sent messages to Defendant via Facebook with the point saying the Defendant does not have to pay 670,000 Baht, which was the total of the loan, the interest does not have to be pay as well, so that the Defendant will not have any more debt. The transmission of such information is a conversation through the internet network. Hence, it is considered to be electronic data transmission. Therefore, the Electronic Transactions Act 2001 article 7 to article 9 has to be enforce. Although this message does not have the Plaintiff’s signature, but sending messages via Facebook will show sender’s name and Plaintiff admitted that that he had sent the messages to the Defendant. The conversation messages then can be heard as the intention to release the debt from the Defendant with evidence in writing. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 340, Release of Obligation. If the creditor declares to the debtor an intention to release the obligation, it is extinguished. When an obligation has been evidenced by writing, the release must also be in writing or the document embodying the obligation be surrendered to the debtor or cancelled. The Plaintiff has no standing to sue.
• The plaintiff has plaint and amended the indictment, requested to force the defendant to pay the amount of 731,850 Baht with the interest of 12 percent per annum from the principal of 595,000 Baht, from the date of filing onwards until payment is made to the plaintiff.

The defendant requested the dismissal.

Civil Court adjudged the dismissal. The fees are to be waived

The Plaintiff filed an appeal.

The Fourth Reginal Court of Appeals reversed the judgement, ordered the Defendant to pay 595,000 Baht with interest of 12 percent per annum from 26^th August 2013 onward until the payment is completed. By deducting the interest of 6,550 Baht from the interest that the Defendant has to pay to the plaintiff. Both courts fees are to be waived.

Defendant appeal to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decided “after considering, the basics fact was established that on 26^th August 2013, The Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff of 595,000 baht. The Defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1 percent per month. The Defendant received the loan in full. After the contract, the Defendant did not pay the principal. The balance of 4 installments for interest that has yet to be pay, totaling 6,500 Baht.

The case has issued and has to be diagnosed according to the Defendant’s appeal that the Defendant is liable for payment of the loan with interest or not. Regard that the message that the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant via Facebook with the point saying the Defendant does not have to pay 670,000 Baht, which was the total of the loan, the interest does not have to be pay as well, so that the Defendant will not have the anymore debt. The transmission of such information is a conversation through the internet network. Hence, it is considered to be electronic data transmission.

According to the Electronic Transactions Act 2001 article 7 rules that the information shall not be denied legal effect and enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the form of a data message. Also, article 8 rules that subject to the provision of Section 9, in the case where the law requires any transaction to be made in writing, to be evidenced in writing or supported by a document which must be produced, if the information is generated in the form of a data message which is accessible and usable for subsequent reference without its meaning being altered, it shall be deemed that such information is made in writing, is evidenced in writing or is supported by a document.

Therefore, the messages that the Plaintiff sent to the defendant via Facebook, although this message does not have the Plaintiff’s signature, but sending messages via Facebook will show sender’s name and Plaintiff admitted that that he had sent the messages to the Defendant. The conversation messages then can be heard as the intention to release the debt from the Defendant with evidence in writing. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 340, Release of Obligation.

If the creditor declares to the debtor an intention to release the obligation, it is extinguished. When an obligation has been evidenced by writing, the release must also be in writing or the document embodying the obligation be surrendered to the debtor or cancelled. The Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff does not intend to release the debt to the Defendant, but because of the stress of wanting to sarcasticize the Defendant, the Plaintiff could not cite the said incident in order to make the intention that was expressed to be invalid. Because there is no fact that the Defendant knew the hidden intent of the Plaintiff.

The evidence of the Defendant has more weight to hear than the evidence of the Plaintiff. The fact therefore can be heard that the Defendant has been released from the loan under the loan agreement. The Defendant is not liable to pay the debt to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has no standing to sue. The Supreme Court disagreed to the judgment of the Fourth Regional Court of Appeal saying the judgement is incorrect, hence the appeal of the Defendant was relevant.

Reversed the judgement, ordered the dismissal. The fees of the three courts are to be waived.

Source  : http://www.supremecourt.or.th/

Electronic Data Acquisition and Analysis Service