Thailand yoga retreat in sexual assault scandal reopens

[rooster59]

Thailand yoga retreat in sexual assault scandal reopens

Hannah Ellis-Petersen in Bangkok

 

Sixteen former pupils and staff told the Guardian they thought a ‘sex cult’ was operating inside Agama Yoga in Thailand. Photograph: Facebook/Agama Yoga

 

The world’s biggest tantric yoga school, which closed after multiple women alleged rape and sexual assault, has reopened with the accused leader back in charge and amid accusations that management suppressed an investigation into the abuse.

 

Agama Yoga, which is located on the Thai island of Koh Phangan, shut down for “restructuring” in September after the Guardian published allegations by 14 women accusing the school of facilitating rape, sexual assault and misogynist teachings at the hands of its leader, Swami Vivekananda Saraswati, a Romanian whose real name is Narcis Tarcau, for 15 years.

 

Sixteen former pupils and staff told the Guardian they thought a “sex cult” was operating inside Agama, and two formal accusations of rape against Tarcau were filed, though the three-month statute of limitations on rape cases in Thailand meant they could not be investigated by Koh Phangan police.

 

Full story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/thailand-yoga-retreat-in-sexual-assault-scandal-reopens

 

The Guardian: 2019-01-27

[YetAnother]

8 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

though the three-month statute of limitations on rape cases in Thailand meant they could not be investigated by Koh Phangan police.

then that statute is screwed up and needs to be redone

[sammieuk1]

Sounds like a lot of extra bending into shape including the law????

[mok199]

Thaitanic yoga school?

[Pilotman]

so just don't go there, simple really. 

[KKr]

3 hours ago, YetAnother said:

then that statute is screwed up and needs to be redone

International Law is not my Forte, but I'd investigate filing a complaint in the UK (while still in the EU) or in Romania .

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, YetAnother said:

then that statute is screwed up and needs to be redone

Statute of Limitations - three months maximum for investigation to be completed.

 

Surely that's not correct.

 

There must be cases where even a very professional investigation (any country) takes 3 or more months to finally pin down a very elusive perpetrator. 

 

If 3 months is true surely that's strongly lacking in justice for the victim. 

[PoorSucker]

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Statute of Limitations - three months maximum for investigation to be completed.

 

Surely that's not correct 

Section 95. Prescription

 

In a criminal case, if the offender is not prosecuted and brought to the Court within the following specified periods of time as from the date of the commission of the offence, the prosecution shall he precluded by prescription:

1. Twenty years in case of offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment of twenty years;
2. Fifteen years in case of offences punishable with imprisonment of over seven years but not up to twenty years;
3. Ten years in case of offences punishable with imprisonment of over one year up to seven years;
4. Five years in case of offences punishable with imprisonment of over one month up to one year;
5. One year in the case of offences punishable with imprisonment of one month downwards or other punishment.

If the offender has been prosecuted and brought to the Court, but the offender escapes, or is insane, and the Court gives order suspending the trial till the specified period has expired reckoning from the date of escape, or the date of giving order suspending the trial, it shall be deemed that prosecution be likewise precluded by prescription.

Section 96. Compound Offenses

 

Subject to Section 95, in case of compoundable offence, if the injured person does not lodge a complaint within three months as from the date of offence and offender to be known by the injured person, the criminal prosecution is precluded by prescription.

[MalandLee]

2 hours ago, PoorSucker said:

Section 95. Prescription

 

In a criminal case, if the offender is not prosecuted and brought to the Court within the following specified periods of time as from the date of the commission of the offence, the prosecution shall he precluded by prescription:

1. Twenty years in case of offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment of twenty years;
2. Fifteen years in case of offences punishable with imprisonment of over seven years but not up to twenty years;
3. Ten years in case of offences punishable with imprisonment of over one year up to seven years;
4. Five years in case of offences punishable with imprisonment of over one month up to one year;
5. One year in the case of offences punishable with imprisonment of one month downwards or other punishment.

If the offender has been prosecuted and brought to the Court, but the offender escapes, or is insane, and the Court gives order suspending the trial till the specified period has expired reckoning from the date of escape, or the date of giving order suspending the trial, it shall be deemed that prosecution be likewise precluded by prescription.

Section 96. Compound Offenses

 

Subject to Section 95, in case of compoundable offence, if the injured person does not lodge a complaint within three months as from the date of offence and offender to be known by the injured person, the criminal prosecution is precluded by prescription.

It is clear at least to me, given the above..  The Guardian have not performed due dilligence

[hotchilli]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

Statute of Limitations - three months maximum for investigation to be completed.

 

Surely that's not correct.

 

There must be cases where even a very professional investigation (any country) takes 3 or more months to finally pin down a very elusive perpetrator. 

 

If 3 months is true surely that's strongly lacking in justice for the victim. 

You've hit the nail on the head in your own observation...

justice.... victim

two things that never go together here!

[seahorse]

22 hours ago, MalandLee said:

It is clear at least to me, given the above..  The Guardian have not performed due dilligence

Surely not. The Guardian is beyond reproach. They would never stoop so low as to have an agenda.