Liverpool Lou

11 minutes ago, aussiexpat said:

OP states she had to remove all her jewellery she was wearing

 

She said that she was taken to another room and searched and her jewelry such as bracelet, ring, necklace and earrings were removed. 

 

Quite right too, wearing them does not exempt them from import duty.

29 minutes ago, Bert got kinky said:

Not on used goods you are physically wearing

They were not used goods and she was not wearing them.

 

Even if they were used, or being worn, that doesn't affect whether duty has to be paid.

29 minutes ago, jonclark said:

Not on used goods you are physically wearing  - and is a product that cost 20'000 baht (500 quid) actually a luxury item? I would wager a 500 quid watch is just a fairly average watch, or a 500 quid gold necklace (1 baht of gold by weight) pretty normal.  

It doesn't matter what you wager, import duty is a legitimate tax here on imported goods, just as it is in every other country, including yours. It doesn't matter if you're wearing them or if they're in your baggage.

29 minutes ago, jonclark said:

1 hour ago, shackleton said:

If you can afford to pay for original Designer goods then you can afford the tax enough said 

But isn't that the point - she paid tax when she purchased them in Korea.

It is the point.  She did not pay Thai import duty when she purchased the goods, that is what she has to pay to import these items.

32 minutes ago, Bert got kinky said:

 

Can I bring in my Ferrari Spider F8 in free of tax?

it does have 27kms on the clock.  ????

 

No, used cars cannot be imported personally now!

49 minutes ago, Excel said:

Clearly the other branch of the RTP have advised their immigration/customs pals to be on the look-out for foreigners bringing in all items of value

She's a Thai, not a foreigner.

58 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Some shoes were brand new and were a present for a relative

So, in effect they were being imported into the country... 

That's right, but not just "in effect", in actuality they were importing dutiable items.

56 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

The problem is they don't live in Thailand. They shouldn't be penalized for having exorbitant taste when traveling.

That's not the problem, they were not "penalised for having exorbitant taste".   The problem was that they expected to not have to pay import duty on dutiable items when they imported them!

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Customs is a racket, just like immigration, the border patrol, the RTP, and the army. They are all corrupt beyond imagination. And the level of corruption simply escalates, the further up the food chain you go. The police and army are not expected to be honest, and they are not expected to engage in law enforcement, traffic or public safety, on any level. It is an irrevocably broken and dysfunctional system. Any hyperbole to the contrary, is just a smoke screen, intended to deceive the most naive amongst us.

"Any hyperbole to the contrary, is just a smoke screen, intended to deceive the most naive amongst us".

The receipt that she has refutes all that naïve hyperbole of yours.

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

54,000 for personal possessions if the woman was telling the truth is simply armed robbery by customs officers and shows Thailand to be a land of thieves and corrupt officials and a place best avoided

The receipt that she was given refutes that wrong accusation.

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Did they get a receipt? if not, a definite scam, Thais can't help themselves

Definitely not a scam, she got a receipt.   Some Thaivisa posters can't help themselves.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Why not remove these silly luxury taxes? Then foreign tourists will come here on shopping trips and spend a fortune in the Thai malls (and hotels, restaurants etc.), instead of Thais saving all their money and spending it on hotels, restaurants and malls in Singapore?

This not about "silly luxury taxes" (whatever they are), it's about import duty on items brought into the country, just like in every other country.

2 hours ago, pokerface1 said:

Time to start catching up on all the lost revenue. The desperation of some starts as soon as you step off the plane. 

Or the desperation of those as soon as they step off the plane who spend large amounts on luxury items overseas and then expect to avoid legitimate import duty when they bring them into the country!

2 hours ago, CharlieH said:

That'll encourage the "high roller" tourists they claim to want to visit Thailand.

 

Always about the MONEY !

Come on, is there any country that does not impose import tax on (luxury) items imported?   It's about the tax that is due, it is not just "about the money". 

2 hours ago, steven100 said:

welcome to Lieland  ... er sorry '   Thailand 

Welcome to a country, just like every other country, that imposes import tax on imported items!

23 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

If he had confessed, as in this case, and been placed at the scene, they can certainly detain him for me!

Where, specifically, did it state that "he was placed at the scene of the attack"?   Wasn't his vehicle just seen in the area?

11 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

A confession, in isolation, is not evidence, never mind "the best there is" as it can be retracted at any time, leaving the prosecution with no case.   No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession.

 

CCTV evidence of his being in the area, and nothing more, is not evidence of his attacking her.

Expand  

But it is not 'in isolation' is it? There is evidence placing him at the scene. If he has confessed also, that is enough to hold him while a case is developed. He can be held for 48 hrs.  

Your statement 'No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession' cannot be supported. People have been executed based on confessions! 

It is in isolation.  There may have been CCTV of him in the area but that is not evidence of his attacking the woman.   

"Your statement 'No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession' cannot be supported".

Sorry, but it's a fact, that you don't agree does not mean it cannot be supported.  No prosecutor/AG would indict solely on an admission with no other evidence at all.

"There is evidence placing him at the scene".

Not exactly, there was CCTV of his vehicle being in the area, there has been no mention of his "being at the scene of the attack" specifically.   There may have been other people/vehicles seen in the area also, they are not being accused of the attack, are they?  My point being that someone's presence in the area is not evidence of their being the attacker.

"People have been executed based on confessions!"

I'm sure that you can name just one that has been indicted and executed based 100% on a confession and no other evidence whatsoever?

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

There was evidence, a confession is evidence!

No, it is not and, on it's own, it is not enough evidence to indict.  He can retract it!

2 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's to do with evidence and the chances of getting a conviction if he pleaded not guilty. With apparently no evidence against him for the attack and no testimony from the woman, no prosecutor would indict him.

What about his admission that he did it?

What about it?   With nothing else, the case wouldn't get anywhere. He could just stand up in court and say, "no, I did not do it", and with no other evidence he'd be getting a taxi home.

Just now, jacko45k said:

So you advocate releasing him on the premise he might retract his confession.... give him a chance to go get another one?

No, I didn't say that, either.   

If the police have nothing more than an initial admission in the police station, no empirical evidence against him and no testimony from the woman, then they have no case and no prosecutor would issue an indictment so there would no legal justification for the police to detain him.   It does not matter what you, me or anyone "feels" about him, prosecutors need to see evidence.

4 minutes ago, MasterBaker said:

does victim supposed to provide positive ID of the suspect? let's all murderers go free then!

Why not if the police have no evidence against the accused, as they claim in this case?

5 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"They can catch you for DUI here Friday and keep you locked up until Monday when the courts open!"

Only if they have evidence, something that has been stated as lacking in this woman's case.   Confessions can be retracted!

Expand  

And was the video evidence of his vehicle withdrawn too? I did not hear that his confession was retracted.. did you? Set him free to perpetrate further violence on women seems to be supported here!

You mean CCTV evidence of his vehicle just being in the area?   That's not evidence of an attack and sure wouldn't get an indictment from the AG's office without anything else.   

You think that the police have evidence against him although they have stated that, without the woman's testimony, they haven't?

I did not say that his admission had been retracted, I said that it could be, meaning that if he had, there would be no case against him, so far.

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

42 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

With no other evidence, no, it would not be, it wouldn't even be enough for the prosecutor to issue an indictment, the case would not get to court without evidence.   

 

What if he retracted his confession? 

Expand  

The Burmese on Koh Tao retracted the confession. There was little to no evidence against them.

There was enough evidence initially to get an indictment, something that does not happen with no evidence as in this case, so far.   And this case has not been closed.