Thai court dismisses Webull defamation case against Post Today
South Bangkok Criminal Court dismisses Webull’s defamation suit against Post Today, finding the report was fair comment made in good faith.
The South Bangkok Criminal Court has dismissed a criminal defamation case brought by Webull Securities (Thailand) Co., Ltd. against Post Today and one of its news editors, finding that the disputed reporting was based on information from a police investigation and constituted fair comment made in good faith for the public interest.
The ruling was made at the preliminary examination stage on September 22. The court also declined to accept the related civil claim and ordered all court filing fees to be returned to the plaintiff. The judgment identifies Webull Securities (Thailand) as the plaintiff and Post Today Co., Ltd. and news editor Apitit Sriyabhai as the two defendants.
The case stemmed from an article published by Post Today on its website and Facebook page on March 13 under a headline raising questions over whether the Webull trading application had been used as a route for illicit funds.
Webull alleged that the report led the public to believe the company operated dishonestly, contained vulnerabilities that could facilitate money laundering and had breached anti-money-laundering laws.
The company sought THB385.9 million in damages, plus annual interest of 5%, and asked the court to require Post Today to publish an apology for 12 months.
Court finds report based on police investigation
In examining the first part of the disputed article, the court found that Post Today had relied on information disclosed during a Central Investigation Bureau investigation into an alleged mule-account network linked to online fraud.
According to the investigation information cited in the judgment, money obtained from online scams was allegedly transferred through the Webull application without actual stock trading.
The court noted that similar information had already appeared in reports by Thai PBS and the Channel 3 programme 3 Miti News on March 11.
It therefore concluded that Post Today had reported information arising from the police investigation rather than creating or adding the allegations itself.
Regulatory questions deemed in public interest
The court also considered parts of the article that questioned investment returns and regulatory oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bank of Thailand.
It found that those passages raised structural issues with the aim of encouraging relevant authorities to examine potential weaknesses and prevent harm to the financial system.
The court said there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendants had acted dishonestly or intended to damage Webull.
It ruled that the reporting and commentary amounted to fair criticism made in good faith for the public interest as part of normal journalistic work under Section 329(3) of the Criminal Code.
Disputed report followed online scam investigation
The original report was linked to an investigation into an online scam involving a retired civil servant in Pathum Thani who lost THB1.4 million.
Information presented during the investigation indicated that more than 30 victims had been identified and that accounts linked to the alleged network initially showed turnover of more than THB100 million a month. The figure of THB1 billion a month referred to an estimate of the network’s possible scale rather than a confirmed loss figure.
On March 13, Pol Lt Gen Jirabhop Bhuridej, then an assistant national police chief, joined the Anti-Online Scam Operation Center in announcing the expansion of the investigation and arrests of eight suspects, seven Thai nationals and one Chinese national.
Investigators alleged that the network sent bank-account holders to Poipet in Cambodia to provide facial verification for transactions.
The link to Webull arose from information attributed to one suspect in the earlier 3 Miti News report, who allegedly told arresting officers that scam proceeds had been moved through the application without securities being purchased.
Post Today subsequently used that information to question customer-verification procedures and the movement of funds through the platform.
The court’s ruling concerned whether Post Today and its editor had committed criminal defamation through the publication. It did not amount to a judicial finding that Webull itself had committed money laundering or any other financial offence.
Source: Post Today
