Court Dismisses Charges Against Tid Sritdit, Former Nakhon Sawan Abbot, in 4 Million Baht Temple Embezzlement Case
A court dismissed embezzlement charges against a former abbot of Wat Nakhon Sawan and an accomplice accused of misappropriating over 4 million baht, finding insufficient evidence of criminal intent after a witness testified the transfers we
On May 5, 2569, the Central Corruption and Misconduct Court dismissed charges against Sritdit Chanthapradat (also known as Phra Tham Vachiradheerakun Sritdit Chanthapradat), former abbot of Nakhon Sawan Province and head of Wat Nakhon Sawan, and Ms. Phuthini Kiewpitaksakul as defendants 1 and 2 in an embezzlement case involving over 4 million baht from Wat Nakhon Sawan. The original charges included embezzlement and breach of duty causing damage.
The Special Prosecutors Office had alleged that the two defendants conspired to misappropriate temple funds under defendant 1's control, with defendant 2 providing assistance and facilitating the scheme. The temple's bank account at Krung Thai Bank required two of three authorized signatories, including the abbot, to withdraw funds.
According to prosecutors, defendant 1 assigned a monk to complete bank withdrawal forms for amounts defendant 1 specified. The funds were transferred through multiple bank accounts—first to the monk's account, then to defendant 1's Kasikornbank account, and finally to defendant 2's account. This process occurred 49 times, totaling 4,965,087 baht.
The prosecution sought penalties under Criminal Code articles 86, 91, 147, 157 and the Corruption Prevention and Suppression Act B.E. 2561, article 172, and demanded the defendants jointly repay 4,965,087 baht. Both defendants denied the charges.
After analysis, the court found that while the facts showed the monk transferred 4,965,087 baht from the temple's account in 49 transactions to defendant 1's account, and defendant 1 subsequently transferred 405,000 baht to defendant 2 in 32 transactions, a key witness testified that loan agreements existed between the temple and defendant 1, with the transfer amounts matching the loan documentation. After offsetting debts between the temple and defendant 1, the court determined insufficient evidence of criminal intent.