CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND DHARMA DISCIPLINE OF MONKS : CASE STUDY OF THE MONK FRAUDULENT OFFENSE FRAUD

Abstract

The objectives of this research article were 1) to study the concepts, theories, and evolution of second Pārājika (offences entailing defeat) in cases where Buddhist monks commit the offense of fraud, along with relevant monastic laws, 2) to examine the compilation of criminal laws and related legislation regarding the offense of fraud, including international laws, as they were related to the context, 3) to analyze and compare the offense of fraud according to the compilation of criminal laws and laws related to the second Pārājika rule, 4) to propose an approach for preventing and addressing problems arising from the commission of fraud by Buddhist monks. This research used the qualitative research methods by studying documents. Collecting data and analyzing the data by synthesizing and comparing the data descriptively to reach conclusions and recommendations. The research results found that: 1) The Vināya rule regarding the second Pārājika offense in the case that a monk commits an offense of fraud, it stated: “A monk is prohibited from taking anything that the owner has not given a price of 5 Masak or more”. If he violates this, he will be offended. It is the most severe offense. It started with a monk deceiving and using government wood to build a residence. At present, the Sangha Supreme Council has the authority to enact Sangha rules according to the Sangha Act 1962, amended (No. 2) 1992, 2) Laws related to fraud offenses include Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Article 342 of the Criminal Code, grounds for increasing penalties for fraud offenses, and Article 343 of the Criminal Code, the offense of defrauding the public, 3) Comparison of fraud offenses had consistent offense elements. The exception was the matter of determining the amount of damage. The Criminal Code, Article 341 and Article 343, did not specify the amount of damages, but in the Second Pārājika offense, the amount of damages was specified as a price of 5 Masak or more was a Parajikāk offense, and 1 Masak but less than 5 Masak was a misdemeanor according to all rules. Another difference was the matter of compromise. The offense of fraud under Article 341 of the Criminal Code could be compromised, but under Article 343, the offense of fraud against the public could not be compromised. As for The Vināya rule and the second Pārājika offense stipulated that every offense would be punished according to the value of the damage, 4) Propose prevention measures, namely, specifying criminal penalties to be applied to those who impersonated monks or monks who committed fraud.