Picture: Thai Rath

 

The lawyer acting for the owner of Mountain B nightclub where a fire last week killed 15 and injured dozens was at the police station in Sattahip yesterday making multiple excuses for his young client and saying he deserved bail.

 

The club that was operating illegally and had sub-standard building materials, according to police, is owned by a 27 year old man called Pongsiri Panprasong - now known in the Thai media as "Sia B".

 

Sia is a word for a wealthy businessperson, notes ASEAN NOW.

 

Lawyer Anucha Wongsrirat was at Phlu Ta Luang police station yesterday trying to get sympathy for his client.

 

He said that he deserved bail because there might have been negligence but there was no intent, reported Thai Rath.

 

He had made no attempt to flee and was actively engaged in working with family members to provide compensation to the growing list of claimants, a tough task.

 

He hoped the court would understand that and realise that giving bail to his client would facilitate the arranging of compensation payments.

 

He would not try to run away.

 

He said the family were shocked by what happened. 

 

Speaking of the owner he said:

 

"He's just a kid making his way in life, making a future for himself.

 

"He doesn't have much knowledge or understanding of the world and has made mistakes".

 

He said that the compensation would be a difficult business as it involves many people and the land couldn't be used for that purpose.

 

Mountain B was on rented land. 

 

The lawyer further claimed that the nightclub was a "family business" and that the family were not connected to politicians or people high up in the civil service.

 

"They're just normal business folk," he claimed.

 

He said that the press should check their sources when they claim that influential people were behind Mountain B's operation.

 

Meanwhile police continue their investigation with the possibility of many more charges in the pipeline.

 

The tragedy was the worst nightclub fire since the Santika blaze in Bangkok at New Year 13 years ago. 

 

Clubs throughout Thailand are being double checked and many in Bangkok have been ordered temporarily shut, notes ASEAN NOW. 

 

Pongsiri has reportedly confessed to two charges related to negligence and operating without a licence pressed so far. He has been in custody since Saturday.

 

The bail application is imminent according to media reports. 

 

-- © Copyright  ASEAN NOW 2022-08-08

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Monthly car subscription with first-class insurance, 24x7 assistance and more in one price - click here to find out more!

 

Get your business in front of millions of customers who read ASEAN NOW with an interest in Thailand every month - email [email protected] for more information

So which is it ? A successful businessman or just a poor simple kid making hos way in life?

Speaking of which is it

"

He said that the compensation would be a difficult business as it involves many people and the land couldn't be used for that purpose.

 

Mountain B was on rented land. 

 

The lawyer further claimed that the nightclub was a "family business

 

So did the poor simple kid know he couldnt use the land for a nightclub and is it his or the families? Talk aboit contradictory b.s

Edited August 8, 20223 yr by starky

With the propensity of Thai rich-kids to flee, bail should be denied.

 

18 minutes ago, Crossy said:

With the propensity of Thai rich-kids to flee, bail should be denied.

 

Exactly, regardless of who they are.

"He doesn't have much knowledge or understanding of the world and has made mistakes".

 

I could puke if I read something like that.

 

A 27 year old businessman with an intellectual development level of a 3 year old? That's supposed to excuse his negligent actions, which caused a lot of people to die?

 

Ridiculous argument by the lawyer.

2 most likely scenarios if he gets bail:

 

- He goes to a temple and become a monk for a while. Becomes reborn a new man while many brown envelopes are being exchanged and he'll be free as if nothing happened.

 

- He gets the heck out of here and he'll post pics of himself on social media partying with the likes of "Boss" in London, Geneva or Dubai.

 

Unlikely scenario: justice is served and he goes to prison for a lengthy period of time. Bottom line, it all depends on his family's actual wealth.

Edited August 8, 20223 yr by BKKTRAVELER

Police asked the court to extend the detention of the owner of Mountain B pub pending prosecution on charges of negligence causing death and the unauthorized operation of the pub. He apologized for the loss of dead and injured victims and promised full compensation.

@TNAMCOT

 

https://twitter.com/TNAMCOTEnglish/status/1556494980293595143

1 hour ago, Crossy said:

With the propensity of Thai rich-kids to flee, bail should be denied.

 

But then it will be much  more difficult for him to rapidly transfer his assets to family members before the coming personal lawsuits.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

The lawyer further claimed that the nightclub was a "family business" and that the family were not connected to politicians or people high up in the civil service

So that suggests then that they are covering up the exact opposite

This kid seems to be trying to deal with this in the best way a 27 year old can that has caused negligent death. I do not see him as denying the facts - in fact he seems to be facing his responsibilities and must be feeling pretty terrible about this and the somewhat avoidable mistakes that were made. It could have been avoided but it went very bad for every-one concerned ... there are no winners in this terrible tragedy.

Dear BiB.

 

Your next task is to locate the architect who specified the less than fireproof insulation and the contractor who installed it!

 

It's no excuse but the owner could have been given poor advice in order to keep costs down.

Just now, Crossy said:

Dear BiB.

 

Your next task is to locate the architect who specified the less than fireproof insulation and the contractor who installed it!

 

It's no excuse but the owner could have been given poor advice in order to keep costs down.

How do you know the architect did specify the "less than fireproof insulation".  Could it have been the building contractor did not follow the architects specifications ?

2 minutes ago, Excel said:

How do you know the architect did specify the "less than fireproof insulation".  Could it have been the building contractor did not follow the architects specifications ?

 

Yup, hence the need for investigations.

 

It should (yeah, I know) all be documented somewhere, however the evidence is likely already going through the shredder.

 

Just now, Crossy said:

 

Yup, hence the need for investigations.

Agreed but this is Thailand. If they look, or as it has been suggested they look to overseas building control standards and investigation procedures and rectification process let's hope they don't look to the UK and the Grenfell Tower block.

"Clubs throughout Thailand are being double checked and many in Bangkok have been ordered temporarily shut, notes ASEAN NOW. "

 

Same same after the Santika fire.

 

They should shut down Soi 2 in BKK. All rear fire escapes blocked off and no access for fire engines front or back in a very narrow lane packed with bars and a huge club that gets absolutely choker at weekends and esp Xmas and New Year. A tragedy screaming to happen.

1. The guy knowingly operated the business when he didn't have the necessary approvals.

2. Causing deaths and serious injury whilst carrying out an illegal activity should attract the maximum penalty.

Just now, law ling said:

1. The guy knowingly operated the business when he didn't have the necessary approvals.

2. Causing deaths and serious injury whilst carrying out an illegal activity should attract the maximum penalty.

Well based on his lawyers comments it could be interpreted that he didn't actually know what he was doing.

Just now, Excel said:

Well based on his lawyers comments it could be interpreted that he didn't actually know what he was doing.

 

"Here son, be the front man for this great business".

"Ah, sorry, it's all gone horribly wrong, you're now the fall guy!"

And the authorities and inspectors didn't notice that a nightclub had just popped up? I'll call BS on that. 

 

A lot of inspectors and regulators are likely to be trying to distance themselves from this business now after getting their monthly stipend. Hopefully the 27 year old points them out to his lawyer.

 

RIP again to the victims. I'm sure the burn victims must be going through hell right now with agonizing burn treatment.

13 minutes ago, Crossy said:

 

"Here son, be the front man for this great business".

"Ah, sorry, it's all gone horribly wrong, you're now the fall guy!"

Many a true word spoken in jest unfortunately.

39 minutes ago, Crossy said:

Dear BiB.

 

Your next task is to locate the architect who specified the less than fireproof insulation and the contractor who installed it!

 

It's no excuse but the owner could have been given poor advice in order to keep costs down.

And the inspectors who issued to license assuming one was issued.

Just now, Photoguy21 said:

And the inspectors who issued to license assuming one was issued.

The place was "built" as a restaurant.

Highly doubt any architect or inspector know anything about soundproofing that was likely added at a later date.

3 hours ago, starky said:

So which is it ? A successful businessman or just a poor simple kid making hos way in life?

Speaking of which is it

"

He said that the compensation would be a difficult business as it involves many people and the land couldn't be used for that purpose.

 

Mountain B was on rented land. 

 

The lawyer further claimed that the nightclub was a "family business

 

So did the poor simple kid know he couldnt use the land for a nightclub and is it his or the families? Talk aboit contradictory b.s

I think what is meant is that the land can't be sold because he was only renting, so he can't personally sell it. 

 

And that the club had different investors, so he wasn't able to figure out how or if any of them would help

 

Probably the landlowners let them rent the building for the club with different people investing from his family? But he was the one running the show, and he can't depend on any of them;

 

Just a guess

12 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

The place was "built" as a restaurant.

Highly doubt any architect or inspector know anything about soundproofing that was likely added at a later date.

You still need a license which includes inspections

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

But then it will be much  more difficult for him to rapidly transfer his assets to family members before the coming personal lawsuits.

Shouldn't be any problem transferring his money,  just use the mobile phone he will have in prison,  even though they are not allowed  - but that's just a minor issue to many. 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

He hoped the court would understand that and realise that giving bail to his client would facilitate the arranging of compensation payments.

 

He would not try to run away.

Well on that note , set him free . Shouldn't think that " legal " argument has ever been used.

8 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

You still need a license which includes inspections

Licence for an illegal premises..... Bwahahahahahahahaha

43 minutes ago, Aussieroaming said:

And the authorities and inspectors didn't notice that a nightclub had just popped up? I'll call BS on that. 

 

A lot of inspectors and regulators are likely to be trying to distance themselves from this business now after getting their monthly stipend. Hopefully the 27 year old points them out to his lawyer.

 

RIP again to the victims. I'm sure the burn victims must be going through hell right now with agonizing burn treatment.

Inspectors and regulators,  come on now - this is Thailand you're talking about. 

Just now, Ralf001 said:

Licence for an illegal premises..... Bwahahahahahahahaha

If they are illegal the police and land office should have been all over it a long time ago.

35 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

The place was "built" as a restaurant.

Highly doubt any architect or inspector know anything about soundproofing that was likely added at a later date.

Never seen a restaurant built without windows