Navy to seize seastead as evidence in criminal case

By The Nation 
Phuket

 

 

The Third Naval Area Command is on Saturday scheduled to remove the floating seastead structure off Phuket seashore belonging to an American bitcoin investor.

 

Thai authorities plan to seize it as evidence in a criminal case. They also fear the structure will block a shipping lane.

 

US national Chad Elwartowski and his Thai girlfriend, Suprenee Thepdet (aka Nadia Summergirl), are facing charges of threatening the Kingdom’s sovereignty. On Sunday, the Royal Thai Navy and Phuket Maritime personnel boarded the structure and said it violated Article 119 of the Criminal Code and also posed a navigational hazard.

 

The couple launched their seastead on February 2 off the coast of Phuket along with the company, Ocean Builders.

 

The floating structure is located to the southeast of Koh Racha Yai, approximately 12 nautical miles from the mainland.

 

Elwartowski has claimed that his seastead is outside Thailand’s territorial waters, but Thai authorities insist that it violates Article 119 and challenges Thailand’s territorial rights.

 

According to law firm Siam Legal international, “Section 119: Intent to cause injury to the nation” states that, “Whoever does any act with intent to cause the country or any part thereof to descend under the sovereignty of any foreign state, or to deteriorate the independence of the state, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.”

 

The couple’s seastead home is located in Thailand’s exclusive economic zone or 200 nautical miles off the mainland, which comes under the Royal Thai Navy, said Rear Admiral Krissana Kundeeya, the Third Naval Area’s chief of staff.

 

“The Royal Thai Navy has full authority and duty to protect national interest and marine sovereignty [in the area],” said Krissana.

 

Regarding the couple’s claim that they feared for their lives, Vice Admiral Sitthiporn Maskasem, commander of the Third Naval Area, said that authorities had followed the legal procedures.

 

“We are neither hunting them down nor threatening them,” said the commander.

 

Sitthiporn said that such a waterborne homestead was deemed a new kind of threat to national security so his command needed to closely monitor such activities and prevent such structures from being installed in the future.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30368010

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-04-20

Gives the Navy something else to do instead of pushing boats full of Refugee's back out to sea !

This whole story is generated by a stunning overreaction by the Thai authorities. 

8 minutes ago, trainman34014 said:

Gives the Navy something else to do instead of pushing boats full of Refugee's back out to sea !

If the refugees start to get ideas they will be very worried.

Over reaction is the standard response to most things by Thai authorities !! 

Death or imprisonment for life or which ever comes first? 

What were they thinking? Still massive knee jerk reaction by the authorities. Just kick them out and be done with it. 

In normal countries the authorities photograph immovable structures  as evidence in planning or other cases. Only here would they consider removing it entirely before the court case. Like to see them haul it into the courtroom with a big Exhibit A painted on it!

This could also be interpreted as an act of piracy by the Thai navy ????

  Why would anyone want to live in a tiny raft far out to sea? Unless this was some kind of elaborate tax dodge or legal scam.

What happened to the "manhunt" that was on for him and his Thai wife?

3 hours ago, trainman34014 said:

Gives the Navy something else to do instead of pushing boats full of Refugee's back out to sea !

Or trafficking them to the Malaysian border 

12 minutes ago, Stoker58 said:

  Why would anyone want to live in a tiny raft far out to sea? 

The serenity.

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

“The Royal Thai Navy has full authority and duty to protect national interest and marine sovereignty [in the area],” said Krissana.

but now it is a good place to rendezvous with mia nois

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Thai authorities plan to seize it as evidence in a criminal case. They also fear the structure will block a shipping lane.

Why don't they just put a flashing light on top and call it a lightstead!

33 minutes ago, Stoker58 said:

  Why would anyone want to live in a tiny raft far out to sea? Unless this was some kind of elaborate tax dodge or legal scam.

Perhaps doing some research or asking those involved would satisfy your curiosity. It seems you are asking a question, followed by an assumption.

SINK IT!

1 hour ago, Classic Ray said:

In normal countries the authorities photograph immovable structures  as evidence in planning or other cases. Only here would they consider removing it entirely before the court case. Like to see them haul it into the courtroom with a big Exhibit A painted on it!

Because is easier to say where it was. I guess the answer won't be same as the prosecutes. 

17 minutes ago, Benmart said:

Perhaps doing some research or asking those involved would satisfy your curiosity. It seems you are asking a question, followed by an assumption.

  If I’m not mistaken, those involved are in prison, which makes asking them questions a tad difficult.

1 hour ago, Classic Ray said:

In normal countries the authorities photograph immovable structures  as evidence in planning or other cases. Only here would they consider removing it entirely before the court case. Like to see them haul it into the courtroom with a big Exhibit A painted on it!

Remove  the shipping hazard and retain the evidence....seems reasonable given the circumstances.

Apparently he is not the owner nor did he invested any money/bitcoin.

 

Seems too difficult for journalist to read their website: 

https://ocean.builders/official-ocean-builders-stance-on-the-legality-of-the-worlds-first-seastead/

 

https://ocean.builders/independent-proof-that-the-first-seastead-was-outside-of-thai-national-waters/

 

https://ocean.builders/official-statement-about-the-sinking-of-the-first-seastead/

 

Or the faq: https://ocean.builders/faq/ 

 

Keep writing the same disinformation it is much more easier than taking 5min and do the research. 

 

Ps: I read the whole website in less than 20min.

So is it the position of many here that most anyone should be able to build a structure off the coast of most any county?

 

53 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So is it the position of many here that most anyone should be able to build a structure off the coast of most any county?

 

It's not part of the coast of Thailand. It's on their economic zone where they have a lot less power. If they don't like international law then can lobby to change it. 

Well, here the three submarines would come in handy - if they had been delivered already. 

19 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

It's not part of the coast of Thailand. It's on their economic zone where they have a lot less power. If they don't like international law then can lobby to change it. 

i imagine those could be very attractive to chinese......millions and millions of chinese who could seaB&B their lightsteads to zero sum tours, not to mention the chinese government might find the concept interesting.

Don’t worry later they will use it to monitor those illegal immigrations who are crossing by international water or maybe for deep sea fish farming.

Surely if it is a floating structure then surely it is a "BOAT"? Boat owners beware, do not moor up as you might threaten these idiots national security and get the death penalty. The idiot that charged them has already had the death penalty, his brain was dead many many years ago, absolute morons!

What kind of Visa does he have. Do they have to go immigration 

1 minute ago, Rocking Robert said:

What kind of Visa does he have. Do they have to go immigration 

well, considering the place is not ASEAN... even the girl would have had to stamp her Passport!

2 hours ago, Stoker58 said:

  If I’m not mistaken, those involved are in prison, which makes asking them questions a tad difficult.

 

I would have to agree.  If they were interviewed (as reported) then they must have been "detained".