2007 CCA | Draft CCA as of April 2013 |
Article 14 Whoever commits any of the following offences shall be subjected to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both: (1) that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to that third party or the public; | Article ... Whoever inputs into computer false computer data; or by concealing the entire data or part of the data that should be disclosed and as a result has misled a person to believe it is true, or incurred in him an impression that may cause damage to other person, shall be subjected to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine of not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or both. |
(2) Inputting into a computer system false data that may compromise national security or cause public panic;
(3) Inputting into a computer system any data which is deemed an offence against national security as prescribed in the Penal Code”; | Article ... Whoever inputs into computer, disseminates or passes on any computer data deemed an offence against national security or a an act of terrorism in the Penal Code, shall be subjected to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine of not exceeding one hundred thousand baht, or both. Article ... Whoever inputs into computer false computer data which could compromise national security or causes panic in public, shall be subjected to............. (a minimum sentence should be specified in order that the Court may use its discretion to impose high or low penalty as deemed appropriate.) |
The CCA’s Article 14 has been invoked the most to hold a person accountable for content such as posting alleged to be a libel against another person, fraud in internet and lèse majesté, etc.
According to the drafters, in fact, Article 14 (1) was not initially written to hole a person liable for defamation since a defamation suit can be initiated invoking the existing Penal Code. But Article 14(1) deals with false information that occurs in phishing. But it has turned out that in the past four or five years, the provision has been subjected to misuse more than the others and it has been used in lieu of defamation law. Therefore, the amendment this time is simply an attempt to modify its wording to make it applicable to phishing, the penalty rate has also been reduced from imprisonment of not more than five years to just one year.
Nevertheless, the existing Articles 14 (2) and (3) which deal with content that affects national security are still retained in the current draft, though the penalty rate could be modified from stipulating a minimum sentence to a maximum sentence instead. In the handout released by ETDA, it is mentioned that it could still be changed to a minimum sentence to allow the Court to use its discretion in fixing the appropriate penalty.
It should be noted here that in order to give the Court flexibility in fixing the penalty, a maximum sentence should be used instead of minimum sentence since by setting mandatory minimum sentence, it prevents the Court from waiving penalty on very petty criminal action.
