It is undeniable that we are now living in an online society almost all the time we are awake. Lawyers with knowledge of communication technology and computers will have a slight advantage. As far as I can recall, there are two relevant laws: the Electronic Transactions Act and the Computer Crime Act. In the near future, it is expected that cases of this type will certainly increase in court. I would like to present the latest judgment for everyone to study as a guideline for handling cases.

Relevant Legal Principles

Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544

Section 7  prohibits denying the binding effect and legal enforceability of any message solely because it is in the form of electronic data.

Section 8  states that if the law requires any action to be in writing, with written evidence or documents to be presented, and if a message has been created as electronic data that can be accessed and retrieved without changing its meaning, it shall be deemed that the message has been made in writing, with written evidence or documents presented.

Regarding Loans under the Electronic Transactions Act

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit requesting the court to compel the defendant to repay a debt of 200,000 baht, along with interest at a rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing until the defendant has fully repaid the debt to the plaintiff.

The defendant failed to submit a defense.

     Upon examining the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff testified and presented a total of five documents as evidence. It was found that the plaintiff transferred money to the defendant four times, each time 50,000 baht, totaling 200,000 baht through electronic means. The transfers were made from the plaintiff's account to the defendant's account, as evidenced by bank statements, account opening requests, transfer evidence, and transaction records, documents numbered J.1 to J.4. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff according to the communication records in the Line system, document J.5. Therefore, the legal transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is considered an electronic transaction of a loan.

     According to the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544, Section 4, even though the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 653, states that for loans over 2,000 baht, there must be written evidence signed by the borrower; otherwise, legal action cannot be taken. However, the Electronic Transactions Act, Sections 7 and 8, affirm the status and legal binding of such transactions, stating that one cannot deny the binding effect and enforceability of the law. In cases where the law requires any action to be in writing, with written evidence or documents to be presented, if a message has been created as electronic data that can be accessed and retrieved without changing its meaning, it shall be deemed that the message has been made in writing, with written evidence or documents presented. Section 9 states that:

     In cases where a person is required to sign a document, it shall be deemed that the electronic data has been signed if (1) a method is used that can identify the owner of the signature and can demonstrate that the owner of the signature certifies that the message in the electronic data is theirs. When considering the evidence regarding the money transfer that the plaintiff claims as evidence of the loan between them, according to document J.3, it is found that this document is considered electronic data that can be used as evidence of the loan because it contains interrelated information, making it credible that money was indeed transferred from the plaintiff's account to the defendant's account. The documents regarding the money transfer are therefore considered evidence of the loan, which the plaintiff certifies that the electronic data in the documents is theirs, in accordance with the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544, Sections 7 and 9.

     When considering this along with the communication records in the Line system, document J.5, between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the loan, which states that there is still an outstanding payment, further strengthens the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence that the money transfer between the plaintiff and the defendant was indeed a loan. Additionally, since the defendant failed to submit a defense and provided no evidence to counter the claims, the evidence presented by the plaintiff is credible, confirming that the defendant indeed owes the plaintiff as claimed regarding the interest at a rate of 7.5% per annum. It is found that this debt is a monetary debt due for payment, which, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 224, allows for default interest to be charged at a rate of 7.5% per annum in such cases. Therefore, the interest rate requested by the plaintiff is deemed appropriate and should be granted as requested, starting from the date of filing until the debt is fully repaid to the plaintiff.

     The court ruled that the defendant must repay the debt of 200,000 baht, along with interest at a rate of 7.5% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing (May 5, 2017) until the defendant fully repays the debt to the plaintiff, and the defendant must also cover the plaintiff's legal fees, with attorney fees set at 3,000 baht and court costs to be paid according to the amount of the plaintiff's victory in the case.

Note: The judgment or any report of the proceedings is owned by the court, not by the attorney representing the case. Furthermore, those entitled to request copies of the judgment are the parties involved, their attorneys, and those with vested interests.

Thank you for the information from www.thailaw.info