Declaration of Spokesperson, Followers and Supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya

In accordance with special case no. 27/2559, Phrathepyanmahamuni was unjustly charged with abetting in money laundering and accepting stolen property.

1. In reference to the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative (KCUC) case where 878 checks had been withdrawn which led to the problems related to their financial operations, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) started with special case no. 146/2556, which they had submitted to the prosecutor with Phrathepyanmahamuni as a suspect. By law, once the findings by the DSI officials are submitted to the prosecutor, the authority to evaluate, or to further investigate, rests in the hands of the prosecutor. DSI officials are not permitted to investigate further and charge an additional individual using the same findings at this stage according to criminal code 141-143.

2. Later, the prosecutor requested that DSI officials obtain additional evidence related to the money trail for the 878 checks. DSI officials have already questioned Phrathepyanmahamuni about his role as a recipient of the 10 checks from the Credit Union as authorized by Mr. Supachai. DSI officials then submitted their additional findings related to special case no. 146/2556 on the 29th of October 2015, and recommended the prosecutor bring charges of money laundering and accepting stolen goods against Phrathepyanmahamuni.

3. The lead prosecutor reviewed case no. 146/2556 on the 29th of January 2016, without charging Phrathepyanmahamuni. If evidence emerged showing there were individuals who conspired to engage in this crime, then investigative officials were permitted to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. 

4. On the 18th of February 2016, DSI officials released a public statement that they would charge Phrathepyanmahamuni for accepting stolen property. The attorney representing Phrathepyanmahamuni filed a letter to the prosecutor asking if DSI officials were authorized to bring this additional charge. The prosecutor stated that DSI officials will have to obtain additional evidence and submit these findings to the prosecutor first. DSI officials cannot legally construct a new case on their own. 

5. The attorney, who was given Power of Attorney by Phrathepyanmahamuni, submitted documentation with responses from the Lead Prosecutor, to the Director-General of DSI on the 18th of February 2016. 

6. Mr. Thammanoon Attachoti filed a complaint against Phrathepyanamahamuni alleging he was an accomplice in laundering money and accepting stolen property in March 2016, which led DSI officials to open special case No. 27/2559. DSI officials then issued a summons on the 29th of March for Phrathepyanmahamuni to appear as the accused in conspiring to launder money and accept stolen property, which may be considered a misuse of authority (according to Judgement No. 9/2481). 

7. On the 16th of May 2016, Mr. Pathajak Thepsorn, a supporter of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, filed a complaint to the Office on Anti-Corruption Commission that DSI officials in special case no. 27/2557 had performed their duties dishonestly. They had broken Criminal Code Article 157 Sections 200, 83, and 86. He also filed a complaint against Mr. Thammanoon Attachoti as being the person behind these illegal activities.

8. The investigation carried out by DSI officials for special case no. 27/2559 is unjust on many accounts; for example, They rapidly opened a new case and subsequently issued a summons for the accused. Phrathepyanmahamuni had requested a postponement due to illness, with a medical certificate from clinic-based and public hospital-based physicians as supporting documentation. However, DSI officials did not permit the postponement and did not assign a physician from the government sector to examine his health, as to whether he is indeed ill or not. Instead, they immediately sought an arrest warrant from the court.

9. Supporters and followers of Wat Phra Dhammakaya question the basis of special case no. 27/2559 by the Department of Special Investigation and believe that it was illegal to begin with. Thus, the judicial process was not carried out in a fair and honest manner. This is akin to buttoning up the first button on a shirt in the wrong position. The rest will be in the wrong position as well. Supporters and followers would like to bring attention to every illegal action committed by each person involved with this case, in an attempt to prevent authorities from abusing their power. They should act justly, and in accordance with the law, in order to set proper standards for the rest of society.

Mr. Ongart Thammanita
Spokesperson, Followers and Supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya
17 May 2559 (2016)

Klongchan Credit Union withdraws lawsuits against Wat Phra Dhammakaya

Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative issued an appreciation letter (below) to supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya who raised funds to aid the Credit Union and made a recent appearance on a television program to publicly demonstrate their gratitude and announce they were withdrawing their case against Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Most Ven. Phrathepyanmahamuni. 

Credit union request an end to all civil and criminal lawsuits against Wat Phra Dhammakaya

 16th March 2015

Re: A letter of appreciation

To: Supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Most Ven. Phrathepyanmahamuni

Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative (KCUC) had filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Supachai Srisupa-aksorn, case number 736/2557, at Thanyaburi Court. Mr. Supachai Srisupa-aksorn had donated funds to Phrarajbhavanavisudh (Phrathepyanmahamuni) in the sum of 684.78 million baht, which were subsequently allocated toward the construction of religious facilities in accordance with his wishes. These funds were obtained from KCUC.  Although the funds were offered with transparency, supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Phrarajbhavanavisudh or Phrathepyanmahamuni felt the credit union’s financial operations could be severely impacted, as credit union members had been unable to withdraw funds. Wat Phra Dhammakaya supporters were concerned the lawsuit could become lengthy, which would not benefit either party. For this reason, these supporters raised funds to assist Wat Phra Dhammakaya, Phrathepyanmahamuni, and the credit union. In total, 684.78 million baht was raised and given to the credit union as a way to restore business operations and aid credit union members and employees.

KCUC realizes the donations in question were received by Wat Phra Dhammakaya with transparency and allocated entirely toward the construction of religious facilities. As a result, KCUC would like to extend its sincerest gratitude to Wat Phra Dhammakaya supporters for their compassion in raising these funds.

Respectfully,

Mr. Padet Mungthanya, Chairman

Mr. Prakit Pilankasa, Vice Chairman

Klongchan Credit Union Limited Cooperative, 1 Seri Thai Lane 7, Klongchan Sub-district, Bangkapi District, Bangkok 10240, Website: www.cukj.or.th  Tel. 0-2375-7193-4  0-2733-8674-5  Fax. 02-2375-7195

Financial Institution of the Community for the Community

An appreciation letter Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative.

 Emma Lee

: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/5/2/klongchan-credit-union-drops-lawsuits-against-wat-phra-dhammakaya

Letter to the Royal Thai Consulate General in Mumbai

: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/5/2/letter-to-the-royal-thai-consulate-general-in-mumbai

ABC News mistakes The Onion submission for the Lateline show

If you remake ‘Going Clear’ with unreliable sources, partial investigations, and change the Scientology church to Dhammakaya temple, you would get ABC’s Lateline show “Tax scandal rocks Thailand's religious institutions and exposes Thai monks' growing penchant for material wealth,” something that ABC News mistakenly posted on the wrong site. It was probably meant to be submitted to The Onion News.

This article may be treated as a sequel to the last article “ABC News slams Somdej Chuang with bad journalism,” a response to the biased article written by Liam Cochrane.

ABC News slams Somdej Chuang with bad journalism

The Lateline show poses to defame Thai monks for attachments to material goods through the interviews of outspokenly biased individuals, Mr. Mano Laohavanich, and Mr. Sulak Sivaraks. It is unclear if ABC News and Mr Cochrane were aware of the bias of these individuals or not. It must be the result of a mistake in the ABC News’ source checking system, once again.

Wishing for “material wealth” is NOT in itself a sin in Buddhism

The goal of life in Buddhism is to reach Nirvana, or enlightenment, which can take many lifetimes to achieve by the statements in the scriptures. The belief states that in order to reach that goal, one has to cultivate merit. One of the ways to do so is through the practice of generosity.

It is not only common sense, but also appears in scriptures that participating in Dana, or generosity, brings more material wealth to the individual. That material wealth may then be used to commit even more generous acts. That would then lead to more good karma, more merit.

The scripture never mentions anything about the Lord Buddha teaching followers to be poor. Poverty pushes people to commit crimes, not do more good things. Having more material wealth means having an easier time at generosity.

It has been debunked that monks are not allowed to ride in cars. Monks can be passengers in any vehicle

Mr. Sulak, allegedly a Buddhism expert, made a comment against monks using vehicles. His quote, “the Buddha walked all through his life, 45 years of his ministry. He even refused to go on elephants, horses and cow, because that is exploiting animals. Monks are encouraged to walk.”   

Mr. Sulak Sivalaks

If Mr. Sulak had proper knowledge of Buddhism, he would have noticed that parts of the Vinaya Pitaka stated how monks should behave in boats or with caravans. The Lord Buddha may not have allowed riding on animals, but he allowed the use of transportation. Mr Sulak’s argument may be valid if we had real life transformers. Then riding in cars could be seen as exploiting a living being.

In addition, to see the full response on the allegations against Somdej Chuang’s car, please refer to the previous article “ABC News slams Somdej Chuang with bad journalism.”

Mr. Mano has been an outspoken conspiracy theorist against the Dhammakaya temple for decades. If you combine two characters, ‘Anakin Skywalker’ and ‘Lex Luthor,’ you get Mano.

Mr. Mano Laohavanich

It is quite shocking that Lateline allowed Mr. Mano to play his re-run statements on its show. His statements have been reused over and over for the past couple of decades, devoid of any support to them. He tells many stories, yet there have never been any true sources to them. For ABC News to take his statements as truth is a fallacy. It is propaganda and conspiracy theory. Not any less fantasy than the idea of The Illuminati.

Phra Pasura Dantamano, the foreign correspondent of the Dhammakaya temple, has been biasedly excluded from the show

The composition of the people interviewed in this show was balanced in quantity: 2 opposers, and 2 supporters. However, the quality was unbalanced. Both Mr. Mano and Mr. Sulak are well known for their strong bias against the Dhammakaya temple. They have had years of experience with the media and types of statements that may appeal to the popular interests the most.

The two representatives for Dhammakaya in this show were a ‘faithful follower’ and a newly ordained young international monk.

Regardless if it were true that “ [Phra] Dhammachayo declined a request for an interview.” Phra Pasura Dantamano, the foreign correspondent of the Dhammakaya temple, had been interviewed by the journalist, Mr. Cochrane. However, not a single one of his words were included in the Lateline show.

Mr. Cochrane was interviewing Mr. Mano in the Lateline show. 

It may or may not have been an intentional choice for ABC News and Mr. Cochrane to have composed the Lateline show in this unrespectable matter. However, it is not the first time that they have made this blunder of biasedness. If it is indeed an accident born out of ignorance, the news reporting moral of ABC News and the journalist should be fixed.

The truth may be denied, but never avoided.

T Gardner

from: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/5/1/abc-news-mistakes-the-onion-submission-for-the-lateline-show

ABC News Slams Somdej Chuang with Bad Journalism

On March 29th 2016, ABC News published an article titled “Thailand's head monk to be summoned by police over luxury Mercedes-Benz”. Despite the fact that ABC News has a reputation of credibility, the article contains lots of inaccurate information that must be fixed before it can rightfully belong in the news section.

The journalist, Liam Cochrane, had already corrected one of the mistakes five hours after posting the article. The mistake was replacing the title “Somdej” with “Mr.,” a big no-no in the Thai and Buddhist culture. Thus, it would not be new if all the other mistakes should be corrected also.

The article lacks both the full facts and justness. This response is aimed to shed light to all this misinformation, so ABC News and Mr. Cochrane may have all the correct facts to enhance the credibility of their article.

By law, monks cannot be ‘summoned’

From the very first few paragraphs, the article has already picked a side: against Somdej Chuang. The article presents observations from only one side of the case without fully addressing the full rights and privileges of Somdej Chuang.

Somdej Chuang

Let’s first discuss the rights. The article failed to mention that Somdej Chuang is a witness in this DSI case, NOT a suspect. He must be treated accordingly, not as a criminal. His decision to not speak about the subject without the presence of a lawyer is his full rights, and should be respected. It is only the DSI that “prefers” to have the witness testimonials in speech. They do not have the authority to force Somdej Chuang to give any testimony. Though, Somdej Chuang did volunteer to cooperate, but in writing through the facilitation of proper lawyers, which is easy to keep record of for both parties and is a lawful decision.

Let’s now discuss the privileges. By Thailand’s civil procedure code, monks cannot be summoned as a witness. DSI must request for affidavit. It is the Thai law that 3 types of people may not be summoned as witnesses. These people have been granted special privileges that states they may only be invited in the circumstance that they are only witness to a case:

1. Royalty

2. Monks

3. Diplomats

The act of “summoning” Somdej Chuang is both undiplomatic and against the law. General Paiboon’s statement quoted in the article that “we have to issue the arrest warrant,” is based on his own ignorance of this lawful privilege. DSI’s gift of candles and incense to Somdej Chuang does not give them the free ticket to show that kind of disrespect.

Mr. Sulak and Mr. Mano have no facts, only opinions

On the topic of the article’s attempt to jump on to the train of defaming the Dhammakaya Temple, the following must be presented.

The Dhammakaya’s embezzlement case in 1999 has been settled long ago. The abbot was found innocent. To bring up this settled case is not only unethical, but very unprofessional. The case is way too old for a throwback. #tbt? Maybe it belongs on Twitter or Instagram instead.

Even an older throwback is to give credibility to Mr. Mano, who had been removed from the temple in the 80’s.

Mr. Mano

Both Sulak and Mano as cited in this piece have never presented any evidence in their allegations against either Dhammakaya temple or any people. They made oral and unsubstantial claims toward many people but none of those statements can be supported. It must be a mistake in the ABC’s source checking system, because such a credible news channel cannot possibly consciously choose them.

Mr. Sulak

Mr. Sulak’s quote, "[It's] teaching people that to be powerful is good, to have money is good, the more you spend money on the Dhammakaya you can even see the Buddha — and you can even live forever," carries absolutely no weight. The temple has never taught such ridiculous teachings. The quote was a blatant lie from Mr. Sulak. Just by making this one absolutely slandering and defaming statement is enough to complete discredit Sulak’s opinions about the temple, or even about Buddhism. How could someone comment on anything Buddhist, if he couldn’t even keep the five precepts?

*For anyone caring to know, the five precepts are the basic guidelines for all Buddhist to live by. One of them is to not tell a lie.

No proper reference to the scripture saying which teachings were wrong

The article also accuses the Dhammakaya temple for wrong teaching, while they have never attended any of the teaching sessions, but only offers a one sentence quote of the teachings.

The temple teaches the teachings of the Lord Buddha. The Tripitaka scripture has 84,000 entrances. Anyone can attend any of the teaching sessions and compare them to the entrances. However, to make such a claim that the teachings have been changed from the scripture, it requires reference to scripture. No such proper references have been made in the article by any of the “credible” people interviewed.

Political ties? Really?

Lastly, to make a link between the temple and a single political figure or party is quite weak. The temple has no political ties to Mr. Thaksin, or any political figures in Thailand. However, the temple is quite big, a fact that everyone knows. There is no denying that there are people from every walk of life attending the temple. Common sense says that some of them may be Yellow shirts, some Red shirts, some undecided; it is each person’s freedom. What ever political groups they identify with, when they are inside the temple’s premises, they are White shirts.

As juicy as the article was, ABC News and Mr. Cochrane must correct all these fallacies or move the article to the opinion section of the website. Failing to do so will only make ABC News and Mr. Cochrane less respectable.

For more information regarding this case, see "The Guardian Presents Incomplete Story Regarding Somdej Chuang."

T Gardner

from : http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/5/1abc-news-slams-somdej-chuang-with-bad-journalism

A Few Thoughts on Money Laundering

Wat Phra Dhammakaya has been fraught by the Department of Special Investigation's (DSI) claim of money laundering - a complicated topic. This video and these graphics attempt to take out the complications by presenting them in a simple form, and also attempts to dismiss any claims of Wat Phra Dhammakaya's involvement in money laundering.

Patrick Chan

from : http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/4/25/a-few-thoughts-on-money-laundering

An Open Letter to DSI

Most Venerable Phrathepyanmahamuni (Luang Por Dhammajayo), the abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya

An Open Letter to DSI from the Former Member of the National Reform Council’s Committee for Religious Policy Reformation and Protection of Buddhism

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) is seeking an arrest warrant for the Most Venerable Phrathepyanmahamuni (Luang Por Dhammajayo) of Wat Phra Dhammakaya after he requested a postponement of appearance due to acute health issues. Although the official request was enclosed with a medical certificate and confirmation by his medical team, DSI has disregarded it and remains firm in its decision. As of now, the case against Ven. Dhammajayo is still under investigation. 

Ven. Dhammajayo is suffering from health issues

In requesting a postponement of appearance, the accused (Ven. Dhammajayo) has reasonable cause, that is, genuine health issues. In fact, a team of licensed medical doctors had confirmed that he was truly ailing and this official diagnosis was submitted as part of the request for postponement. DSI’s refusal to acknowledge the medical opinion in order to expedite the investigative process may arise from ulterior motives, as DSI is a government agency.

The spokesperson for Ven. Dhammajayo has stated that they are most willing to allow a team of medical officers appointed by the DSI to inspect and ascertain Ven. Dhammajayo’s physical condition, in the precinct of Wat Phra Dhammakaya if they so wished as the chief abbot is unable to walk. This will definitely enable them to establish a bona-fide conclusion of the chief abbot’s condition and remove any suspicions. However, against all lawful and humane procedures, DSI had ignored the medical certificate and requested the court issue a warrant for his arrest on April 26th, 2016. Also, no DSI medical officers were assigned to examine Ven. Dhammajayo to offer a professional opinion on his health status.

DSI may be subject to manipulation by the government in order to attack Buddhism

The government sector may be using DSI as a puppet to launch strategic attacks on the religious community. Keep in mind that Ven. Dhammajayo is not yet a defendant and the case is still in the inquiry process. Therefore, the expedition of the process without room for compromise signifies that DSI may have a hidden agenda. Regardless, this is causing an unnecessary, significant conflict that is catastrophic toward all Buddhists as a whole, not including political polarization.

Does this action promote peace and order?

The government’s National Council for Peace and Order initially declared that the government would protect and promote the peace of the nation. By engaging in this aggressive action against the Buddhist community, can the government still claim that it aims to provide for the peace and order of the country? 

With all due respect, I pray that the courts of justice take this case into fair consideration. With the possibility of the loss of faith in the government and kingdom in mind, I, on behalf of the entire religious community, plead for due process and consideration from the court of justice.

Sasinapa Nitidhampapon
Former Member of the National Reform Council’s Committee for Religious Policy Reformation and Protection of Buddhism

By Emma Lee

from : http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/4/25/open-letter-to-dsi

DSI Seeks Arrest Warrant: A Lawyer's Perspective

1. Why did DSI choose to release a written statement instead of an announcement via live press conference? This is highly unusual for a high profile case being followed closely by the public, particularly, when reporters from most of the Thai media outlets had been on standby outside of DSI headquarters for most of the day.

2. Why is DSI so eager to expedite the process when the accused (Luang Por Dhammajayo) is not a flight risk. In fact, if the postponement request is due to genuine health issues or legitimate circumstances, he should be granted the request.

If DSI didn't find the medical certificate submitted by the lawyer to be credible, due process dictates they appoint a physician to examine him at the temple. If upon examination it is found that he is not ailing in accordance with the medical certificate, a request for an arrest warrant could be made.

In sum, DSI curtailed due process and reached a conclusion without expert medical opinion. It is this decision, amongst numerous others, which makes DSI appear biased against the abbot.

By Patrick Chan

: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/4/25/dsi-seeks-arrest-warrant-a-lawers-perspective

The Guardian Presents Incomplete Story Regarding Somdej Chuang

The Guardian, with Oliver Holmes, presented an article with incomplete facts about Somdej Chuang

The Guardian posted an article “Top Thai Buddhist monk investigated over vintage Mercedes-Benz” The majority of the article was actually quite correct. However, some of the “facts” need to be corrected, and some of the statements need to be explained more fully, incorporating the whole situation. These little errors lead the article to appear very misleading.

Mercedes-Benz

In Thailand, respect is a very important part of the culture. In the same way that a soldier must salute the rank, anyone who wants to address a monk with proper respect must address his monkhood and title correctly. The journalist, Oliver Holmes, did not take this in consideration and addressed the high monk as “Chuang” when it should have been “Somdej Chuang.”

“Somdej Chuang.”

General Paiboon illegally ‘summoned’ Somdej Chuang

The article quoted Paiboon Kumchaya, a justice minister who does not know the civil procedure code. His quote, “If [Somdej Chuang] doesn’t respond to the summons, we will seek an arrest warrant,” was voiced without considering the proper laws in place.

By Thailand’s civil procedure code, monks cannot be summoned as witnesses. DSI must request for affidavit. Thai law states that three types of people may not be summoned, unless they are actual suspects. These people have been granted special privileges that states they may only be invited:

1. Royalty
2. Monks
3. Diplomats

The act of “summoning” Somdej Chuang is both undiplomatic and against the law. General Paiboon’s statement quoted in the article that “[he] will seek an arrest warrant” is based on his own ignorance of this lawful privilege.

Somdej Chuang is a witness, NOT a suspect of the case

Based on this law that Somdej Chuang cannot legally be “summoned,” he does not have an obligation to comply with the invitation. General Paiboon has absolutely no reason to make the misleading and false statement that he can seek an arrest warrant. Somdej Chuang cannot legally be arrested for not responding to an illegal summons. It is also important to note that Somdej Chuang is not the suspect of the case, but only a witness.

There are over 6,000 cases of alleged illegal cars in Thailand, so why is Somdej Chuang the main target?

Somdej Chuang’s case is not the only one in Thailand. DSI has ‘exposed’ tax evasions of over 6,000 imported luxurious cars. Police Major Woranat Srilum, the director of DSI said Somdej’s gift car actually belongs in the second category of luxurious cars under 4 million baht, which has 5,000 other cars sharing the category.

To target only Somdej Chuang and allow all the category 1 cars to go uninvestigated is discrimination. It is simply his alleged ties with an unpopular sect that is leading the DSI to target him, while not spending nearly the same investigative capacity on the other cases. It raises the question: does the conflict of interest lie in the nomination of the Supreme Patriarch?

DSI carried the case in an unprofessional fashion

It isn't to say that the case should be dropped, but this is how it should have been carried:

Somdej Chuang should have been asked for a witness statement at his own convenience without being illegally summoned. If he decided to have a spokesperson, that would be his legal choice. This can all be politely and privately executed. There is no need for publicity and bigotry from both the public and the press.

According to the Customs Act section 27 bis., there must be clear evidence that tax was not paid on the car and that the owner is fully aware of it, before the owner can be brought into litigation.

The imported car was given to Somdej Chuang in Thailand. The car was already assembled by the time he received it. At no point was he in contact with the tax evasion process of the car in question, so he is innocent. He was at the end of the whole process, not the one importing the car. After receiving it, it was parked in a museum, not driven by him even once.

Meanwhile, many of the other 6,000 cars that await investigation are being driven around the streets of Thailand. It is clear that the people in charge of the investigations are definitely bigots, choosing only cases that would cause the most havoc in the society.

There are no political ties between the temple and Thaksin

Somdej Chuang ordained the abbot of the Dhammakaya temple - along with hundreds of other monks. Perhaps it can be said that Somdej Chuang has ties to several temples in Thailand. However, the Dhammakaya temple has no political ties to Mr. Thaksin, or any political figures in Thailand. To make such a groundless statement is a stunt to try and make a dull article juicier.

By Patrick Chan

: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/4/23/the-guardian-presents-incomplete-story-regarding-somdej-chuang

A Perspective on the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative Case

What Transpired and How It Can Be Rectified

Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative (KCUC) initially had a working capital of 21,000 M baht. The issue arose when it permitted 12,000 M baht in loans, making itself illiquid—a state of lacking sufficient funds to meet its obligations. This led to a deficit preventing the cooperative from having available funds for circulation, putting it at risk for bankruptcy. Potential approaches to rectify the situation and restore the cooperative are as follows: 

1. Negotiation with its creditors for leniency/grace period

2. Secure additional investment sources 

3. Collect debt payments

4. Increase its membership

The cooperative shouldn’t have permitted DSI to file money laundering charges. Doing so essentially suspends the cooperative’s financial operations and increases its likelihood of bankruptcy, as few financial institutions would risk lending to the cooperative, further exacerbating its situation.  

Supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya understood the gravity of the situation and raised over 600 M baht in funds to revitalize the cooperative and prevent the 53,000 members from going bankrupt. They recognized the current economic state would lead to difficulties in securing loans from other banking institutions. Moreover, as the cooperative weakens, competitors see it as a good sign that a sizable community bank will be eliminated from the market. The problem worsened when DSI in turn accuses the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya of money laundering, further troubling temple supporters who had generously raised funds in an act of goodwill. 

1. These supporters feel betrayed by the cooperative.

2. They feel DSI is specifically targeting Wat Phra Dhammakaya.

3. In addition, the cooperative’s members are being misled into believing the 12,000 M baht can be demanded from the temple.

The truth is 857 cheques worth 12,000 M baht were paid to seven groups. Five were cooperative debtors. Two others – Wat Phra Dhammakaya and various other temples – became victims when the donations received via cheque were drawn from borrowed cooperative funds.

What is most perplexing is DSI has not filed charges against any other group, but it has singled out the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya for money laundering charges. As stated earlier, the Abbot’s supporters have already raised funds to aid the cooperative’s members during this trying time.  

Please consider the following:

1. The cooperative lost 12,000 M baht through 857 cheques paid out to various groups, yet all money laundering accusations are directed only at the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Is this a fair way of exercising the law? 

2. Will DSI’s accusation of the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya for money laundering help restore the cooperative and recover 12,000 M baht from its debtors?

3. When accusations of money laundering occur down the line, one ultimately has to start at the front of the line – the cooperative by implication. Will financial institutions step in to assist the cooperative if it is accused of money laundering as well?

  4. If the cooperative went bankrupt as a result of money laundering accusations, will the DSI take responsibility for the bankruptcy of its members?

5. Among the 53,000 members are several thousand who are temple supporters. Some are deceased yet funds still cannot be withdrawn for those accounts; others have deposited millions yet withdrawals are on hold for those. Will the DSI take responsibility for these hardships? Will it secure funds to assist members who are also temple supporters? 

6. If the cooperative goes bankrupt, will DSI assume responsibility for returning 600 M baht in funds raised by temple supporters for the cooperative?

 7. If donations made to a Buddhist temple place the abbot at risk for money laundering charges and accepting stolen property, would any monk risk assuming the roles and responsibilities of a temple abbot? 

If this manipulation of the law leads to the abandonment of the 35,000 temples throughout Thailand, will DSI be accountable for Buddhism’s decline? When exercising the law, one must go beyond the scope of the law and examine potential repercussions. DSI’s actions will set a precedent for law administration regarding charges of money laundering and receipt of stolen property to be potentially applied against all Buddhist temples, as well as for methods used for revitalization of financial institutions in Thailand.

By Patrick Chan

from: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/4/21/a-perspective-on-the-klongchan-credit-union-cooperative-case