Fraudulent Alteration of Bank Deposit Receipt and Theft of Funds
Exhibit 2. Funds held for the client of the bank on the date of the incident in which Mr. Somsak received money from Mr. Den, a client of the bank, to be deposited into Mr. Den’s current account held with the bank in the amount of 100,000 baht. Mr. Somsak then filled out the text on the deposit receipt document using carbon copy paper and retained the original document. A copy was given to Mr. Den. Subsequently, Mr. Somsak discarded the original document he had retained and wrote a new deposit receipt, stating that Mr. Den deposited 10,000 baht, and delivered this new deposit receipt to the head of the financial unit for verification before transferring the funds, along with 10,000 baht, which were retained. Ninety thousand baht was retained by Mr. Somsak as a gift. What legal offenses does the conduct of Mr. Somsak constitute?
The fact that Mr. Somsak filled out the original deposit receipt and discarded it at the bank, in a manner likely to cause damage to the bank and Mr. Den, constitutes a violation of the Criminal Code.
The fact that Mr. Somsak wrote a new deposit receipt with the text stating that Mr. Den deposited less than the amount of 10,000 baht that he brought to deposit, and delivered this new deposit receipt along with 10,000 baht to the head of the unit for verification before transferring the funds, constitutes forgery. The actual deposit of 10,000 baht, which could have caused damage, is evidenced by the deposit receipt as evidence of the creation of a right to the deposited funds in the amount specified in the document, which is in accordance with Section 1 (9) of the Criminal Code regarding the forgery of legal documents.
Mr. Somsak received money from Mr. Den in the amount of 100,000 baht. He deposited it into Mr. Den’s current account in the amount of 10,000 baht. He misappropriated the remaining 90,000 baht through fraud, constituting the offense of theft. Furthermore, as Mr. Somsak is an employee of the bank who receives and withdraws money, Section 352 of the Criminal Code states that clients of the bank are considered trusted agents of the public, and therefore, he must be held more accountable under Section 354 of the Criminal Code (referring to the precedent judgment 496-).
Mr. Atit was angry with Mr. Jan because of a loss in a civil case where Mr. Jan sued for the recovery of funds.