Court rejects all charges against influencer in Lazada promotion case
The Criminal Court on Thursday acquitted an influencer of lèse-majesté charges related to an online Lazada promotion advertisement last year.
The court ruled that trans influencer Aniwat Prathumthin, aka Nara Crepe Katoey, violated neither the Computer Crime Act, nor consumer protection law as charged by public prosecutors.
In the lawsuit, Aniwat was accused of mocking a Royal family member. The ad featured a character dressed like a Royal family member and a character in a wheelchair, who was scolded by Aniwat in the ad.
The ad was aired May 3-5 last year to promote Lazada’s 5.5 discount campaign. The ad led to an online uproar and a call for a boycott of the online platform by the Army. Lazada later apologised and removed the ad.
Aniwat has been held since last year in Bangkok Remand Prison regarding another case for allegedly selling a hazardous food supplement. Aniwat was taken from Bangkok Remand Prison to hear the verdict.
According to the verdict, the court disagreed with the claims that the ad had also violated Article 6 of the Constitution protecting the monarchy from being violated.
The court said Article 6 was aimed at placing the monarchy above politics and could not be applied in this case.
On the allegations that the ad defamed the monarchy and expressed malicious intent against the monarchy, the court also rejected the prosecutors’ charges.
The court said it had considered the two video clips in question and did not see any action or wording that expressed threat or malicious intent against the monarchy.
On the allegations of the dress of characters in the clip, the court noted that anyone has the liberty to choose how they dress, and that the characters in the clips did not carry any emblematic insignia of the royal family or any anti-monarch signs.
The court ruled that since the clips were aimed at promoting goods, they were not intended to divide the public as had been charged, and so Aniwat also did not violate the Computer Crime Act.
The court also did not regard the clips as demeaning the disabled or as violating the Consumer Protection Law as charged. The court reasoned that the clips were intended to be part of marketing campaigns and that consumers could find more information about the campaigns from provided links.
Defence lawyer Pariwat Sriwilas said if public prosecutors appeal against the ruling, the defence team would be ready to continue the fight to the final court.
