There have been a number of threads about the recent seasteaders. Do you believe they should face prosecution?   Which choice best describes your opinion.  

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

For reference here is one of the threads:

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1096688-couple-accused-of-violating-thailand’s-sovereignty-‘in-hiding’/

 

 

No.

They should face prosecution as they were operating (or trying to) a commercial venture in an area that is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, within Thailand's Economic zone. It is also obvious that they were also trying to avoid paying taxes on any money they made as well as possibly violating some other laws (such as dumping their raw sewage and garbage into the ocean and, according to their site, possibly attempting to do things like farm edible kelp/seaweed).

 

All while expecting Thailand to support them (by giving access to the mainland so they can go shopping, get to/from the airport and - as they also mentioned - dump their garbage (or whatever garbage that doesn't "accidentally" end up getting tossed into the sea).

Additionally, they expected to build their seasteads in Thailand, but wanted payment only in non-traceable "Bitcoin" so as to avoid taxes (and make it easier to get away if it is all just a scam).

 

However, I highly doubt the death penalty would have even been considered, period. Thailand should have made that clear from the beginning. The death penalty is simply the maximum penalty for the crime they were accused of but, as we KNOW, when it comes to foreigners, even if they do get a "death sentence" (i.e. for serious drug crimes) it would almost immediately be commuted to life anyways.

 

But that wouldn't make the story as dramatic, or generate as much attention (and sympathy) would it ? Better to pretend that the firing squad is on stand-by, especially if you KNOW that you are guilty and are desperate for an "out".

You should add another option to the poll. Something like "prosecution without the possibility of a death sentence".

I pick option 4/ As they considered themselves outside Thailand and in international waters, they should be prosecuted for each time they entered/exited Thailand and if didn't check in and then check out of Thailand. 

Google sealand off of the essex coast in uk. Internatioal waters. Their own stamps and currency etc. They are their own country. Legal. 

25 minutes ago, helloagain said:

Google sealand off of the essex coast in uk. Internatioal waters. Their own stamps and currency etc. They are their own country. Legal. 

More like tolerated as  harmless  squatters on a structure originally  put there by the UK.

And I'd like to know  where a passport issued from there would  get entry to.And  what after Brexit? I guess they will  have to rely on dual nationality even if only 6 miles  out.

I would like to know  what the reaction would  be if  China  or the Russians  stumped up with  the asking price  for a near  80 years old  rusting hull ! lmao

It seems wrong that big companies can build Islands or airports in the sea without a problem. An individual with sovereign rights? 

2 hours ago, helloagain said:

Google sealand off of the essex coast in uk. Internatioal waters. Their own stamps and currency etc. They are their own country. Legal. 

I can attest to that being a Baron of that country

Confiscate the rig, give him and or Sealand a heavy penalty and note them as persona non grata. Case closed.

What to do with the Thai woman? Nothing as she was probably dragged into this I guess. 

My concern with this story is that if/when a big storm kicks up and our bonny lad Chad and his girl start panicking they are going to call and expect the Thai authorities to rescue them. Apart from that, it is clearly a shipping hazard. I don't see why he doesn't just buy a nice catamaran or something, it could do everything his seatead could do and more. Toss out the anchor wherever he wants, move when he wants. No big drama.

If they stay far enough outside any country's interests – including commercial/financial 200 NM zones, and shared divisions, i.e. like 400+ NM out – and not interfere any traffic ways, and are adequate marked, including digital markings, why not...????

Edit: But not including any rights for undergorund resources or the like...????

Edited April 28, 20197 yr by khunPer

4 hours ago, Kerryd said:

They should face prosecution as they were operating (or trying to) a commercial venture in an area that is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, within Thailand's Economic zone.

To the extent that they are only being targeted for locating their own home past the 12-mile limit, I'm not sure how you can call that a "commercial venture."  But, to the extent they were selling or maybe even trying to sell others these floating/anchored "homes" within the economic zone, maybe.

 

But, with respect to their own home only, this presents a unique question of law.  By international law, Thailand owns absolutely nothing past the 12-mile area with the exception of the ability to regulate certain commercial activity within their so-called "economic zone."  To the extent that Thailand can adequately prove there was a violation of their economic zone interests under international law, then that's what legally they could charge (and that's hardly a hanging offense, sedition, treason, or whatever).  They also could charge illegal entry into Thailand presuming the couple motor-boated in and out of the 12-mile zone without going through immigration. 

 

Not that I'm suggesting Thailand will follow any particular rule-of-law scenario as, given the comments made by gov't officials, they're clearly not.  The couple, if they have any ability and/or brains, should do whatever it takes to surreptitiously exit the country and never come back....or they are going to languish in a Thai prison for a substantial length of time.  By the way, I do think this guy is a bit wacky and crazy as hell for trying to pull this off (let alone attempting to live in that structure on any of the world's oceans subject to storms, cyclones, tsunamis, etc...dumb, dumb, dumb). 

 

This brings back memories, "Caroline, Caroline."