Azure Hotel (formally Centara) Soi 15 Seized/closed

[scubascuba3]

Police were there apparently, closed

 

https://time.com/6984244/superhacker-arrest-singapore-financial-hub-cybercrime-scandal/

[AlwaysThere]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/911-s5-botnet-dismantled-and-its-administrator-arrested-coordinated-international-operation

[treetops]

37 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Police were there apparently, closed

 

They must have known it was coming.  Residents in the condos were told recently that their access to Soi 15 through the hotel could be cut off.  Current hotel guests were informed a couple of days ago they would have to leave by today.

 

What is the link to the cybercrime guy?

[AlwaysThere]

11 minutes ago, treetops said:

 

They must have known it was coming.  Residents in the condos were told recently that their access to Soi 15 through the hotel could be cut off.  Current hotel guests were informed a couple of days ago they would have to leave by today.

 

What is the link to the cybercrime guy?

 

Obviously he is linked to that property. They already seized other months ago, as per the Bangkok Post. This one obviously took some time to work through the system, since the order is marked the 20th of Feb last year.

[Pattaya57]

I really don't understand cases like this. When a business gets into financial trouble it can go into "Administration" whereby business still runs until it is in better health or sold. This way the business retains it's value and all the staff keep their jobs.

 

In this case, to seize and close the hotel just seems stupid. The value of the hotel would have plummeted and all the staff have lost their jobs. If the point of seizing assets is to return as much fraudulent money as possible then they should have retained the value of the asset by running it under Administration.

 

And what happens now, does it just become an abandoned building eyesore taking up prime real estate while court cases take years?

[Seppius]

The hotel on Pratumnak 5 down near the beach was a Centara, now called Sanctuary, any connection?

[NickyLouie]

Good Lord !!!!

 

Pandering to those horrible Amerikan policies again 

 

 

[Pattaya57]

If I've got this right, Centara sold the hotel to a 35 year Chinese criminal who has now had all his assets seized worldwide by the United States.

 

Why didn't Thailand just kick the criminal out and seize the property for themselves?

[mran66]

13 hours ago, Seppius said:

The hotel on Pratumnak 5 down near the beach was a Centara, now called Sanctuary, any connection?

 

Well, at least it is still open for business, so either no connection or connection not found yet. 

[Petemcc64]

As a resident of the condos, I can tell you that I was unaware of the closure until I read about it on a Facebook forum yesterday. There was no prior warning, and the only notice that had been posted recently was to tell condo residents that the hotel lobby was for hotel guests only.

I did however notice a latch had been put on the sliding door from the pool area, and condos, to reception. At the time I wondered why, but it is now apparent it was in preparation for the closure. 

I did not believe the post I read yesterday as I had returned from an overnight stay via the car park, however looking out my window I noticed the pool was empty and the hotel block had no lights. A check revealed tape across the exit to the lobby. 

It remains to be seen how this will affect condo residents. The gym, sauna and steam room are closed, apparently because power from them comes from the hotel. There are no sunbeds out but the pool pump appears to be working. I'm just hoping this gets resolved soon, though I doubt it!

[scubascuba3]

This was posted on another forum, interesting read

[jas007]

Either I'm going crazy, or there's something missing here.  Was there not an order of some Thai court?

 

Typically, there's a treaty that might control the international enforcement of court orders. The US court needs to obtain jurisdiction, and I'm not so sure that Thailand is a signatory of any existing treaty.

 

In fact, Thailand has not signed the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which was concluded in 2019, and as far as I know, there is no current treaty that would specifically deal with seizures related to a criminal matter.  

 

So, where is the Thai court order? 

[Pattaya57]

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

So, where is the Thai court order? 

Yep the notice on the door is in English from a US Court. How does the US seize a hotel in Thailand with that?

 

 

[jas007]

5 minutes ago, Pattaya57 said:

Yep the notice on the door is in English from a US Court. How does the US seize a hotel in Thailand with that?

 

 

Like I said, something is missing.  US courts do not have jurisdiction in Thailand.  That's not to say the property couldn't be seized, but I'm sure Thailand must have a procedure for that.  Where is it? 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

23 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Like I said, something is missing.  US courts do not have jurisdiction in Thailand.  That's not to say the property couldn't be seized, but I'm sure Thailand must have a procedure for that.  Where is it? 

 

I think you're correct. The DoJ would need to file a case in the Thai court system and get a separate judgement. I don't think there's any mechanism to enforce a US judgement otherwise. I'm sure it would be possible to petition the Thai courts somehow.

[jas007]

3 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

 

I think you're correct. The DoJ would need to file a case in the Thai court system and get a separate judgement. I don't think there's any mechanism to enforce a US judgement otherwise. I'm sure it would be possible to petition the Thai courts somehow.

I looked this up three or four years ago when I was advising someone in the USA. And at that time, there simply wasn't a mechanism.  

 

There were international treaties, but Thailand wasn't a signatory.  Since then, Thailand has become a member of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), joining on March 3, 2021, when it deposited its instrument of acceptance to the HCCH Statute, making it the 88th member. However, Thailand has not yet signed the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which was concluded in 2019, and I haven't been able to find anything about any exception for criminal matters. 

 

So, whatever happened here happened, but I think a piece of the puzzle is missing.  

[1tent42]

Per Google: 

 

The United States and Thailand have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) in force, which was signed on March 19, 1986, and entered into force on June 10, 1993. This treaty facilitates cooperation between the two countries in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses. It allows for the exchange of evidence and information, including the execution of requests for search and seizures, serving of documents, and transferring persons in custody for testimonial purposes.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

17 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I looked this up three or four years ago when I was advising someone in the USA. And at that time, there simply wasn't a mechanism.  

 

There were international treaties, but Thailand wasn't a signatory.  Since then, Thailand has become a member of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), joining on March 3, 2021, when it deposited its instrument of acceptance to the HCCH Statute, making it the 88th member. However, Thailand has not yet signed the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which was concluded in 2019, and I haven't been able to find anything about any exception for criminal matters. 

 

So, whatever happened here happened, but I think a piece of the puzzle is missing.  

 

Yes, something is missing.

 

This subject also came to my attention some years ago in conjunction with work I was performing.

[jas007]

28 minutes ago, 1tent42 said:

Per Google: 

 

The United States and Thailand have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) in force, which was signed on March 19, 1986, and entered into force on June 10, 1993. This treaty facilitates cooperation between the two countries in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses. It allows for the exchange of evidence and information, including the execution of requests for search and seizures, serving of documents, and transferring persons in custody for testimonial purposes.

Sure, but at the end of the day, there has to be an order from a Thai court.  A US court cannot simply reach into Thailand and seize property.

 

Thailand has apparently been reluctant to enter into any such agreement, and probably for good reason.  Imagine the nonsense that could ensure if it were otherwise. 

[1tent42]

7 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Sure, but at the end of the day, there has to be an order from a Thai court.  A US court cannot simply reach into Thailand and seize property.

 

Thailand has apparently been reluctant to enter into any such agreement, and probably for good reason.  Imagine the nonsense that could ensure if it were otherwise. 

 

You're correct.  A Thai court must approve the US request for the property seizure.  And I would assume that it would be true in this case otherwise it would be pretty easy to for a local lawyer to undo.

 

How could Thailand be reluctant to enter into such treaty they already signed?

 

 

[jas007]

6 minutes ago, 1tent42 said:

 

You're correct.  A Thai court must approve the US request for the property seizure.  And I would assume that it would be true in this case otherwise it would be pretty easy to for a local lawyer to undo.

 

How could Thailand be reluctant to enter into such treaty they already signed?

 

 

II think you've answered your own question: 

 

The United States and Thailand have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) in force, which was signed on March 19, 1986, and entered into force on June 10, 1993. This treaty facilitates cooperation between the two countries in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses. 

 

" It allows for the exchange of evidence and information, including the execution of requests for search and seizures, serving of documents, and transferring persons in custody for testimonial purposes."

 

In other words, the US can request the execution of a request for seizure., but the. US court does not have jurisdiction, so a Thai court must finish the process.  In this case, where is there Thai seizure order? 

 

Either there is something missing here, or the hotel was seized without legal process. on the assumption that there was no one with standing who could argue about it in court, except a criminal.  

[CallumWK]

8 minutes ago, jas007 said:

In other words, the US can request the execution of a request for seizure., but the. US court does not have jurisdiction, so a Thai court must finish the process.  In this case, where is there Thai seizure order? 

 

Who say the US request was not made and approved by a Thai court?

[jas007]

17 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Who say the US request was not made and approved by a Thai court?

Where is the approval order from the Thai court?  

 

These things are fairly simple.  There's a definite legal process, and that process must include some order of a Thai court. Where is it? 

[Petemcc64]

I echo the other posters' queries about jurisdiction. What has been provided so far does not mention the hotel name, which I assume is somewhere in pages 2-7.

There has to be some kind of Thai court order that has not been supplied, otherwise anyone in charge would have ignored the order and there would be no way of enforcing it.

The fact that someone in authority knew in advance suggests there was some Thai jurisdictional decision, we just haven't been made aware of it. 

This restraining order was filed in Feb 2024, and if the Centara Azure was mentioned then, why did it take so long for action to be taken, or is that because of an application to a Thai court? At the end of the day, the restraining order from Texas means absolutely nothing in Thailand, so why is this all we are being fed? 

I care because I live in the condos, though only renting, but the hotel is likely to be closed for years and may not open again. Where will that leave to condos, which rely on the hotel for the facilities? I have attached a notice received from the Juristic office

[SiSePuede419]

Did they make their employees buy cosplay uniforms so the guests feel like they're on safari in Africa 🙄

[SiSePuede419]

7 hours ago, Petemcc64 said:

I echo the other posters' queries about jurisdiction. What has been provided so far does not mention the hotel name, which I assume is somewhere in pages 2-7.

There has to be some kind of Thai court order that has not been supplied, otherwise anyone in charge would have ignored the order and there would be no way of enforcing it.

The fact that someone in authority knew in advance suggests there was some Thai jurisdictional decision, we just haven't been made aware of it. 

This restraining order was filed in Feb 2024, and if the Centara Azure was mentioned then, why did it take so long for action to be taken, or is that because of an application to a Thai court? At the end of the day, the restraining order from Texas means absolutely nothing in Thailand, so why is this all we are being fed? 

I care because I live in the condos, though only renting, but the hotel is likely to be closed for years and may not open again. Where will that leave to condos, which rely on the hotel for the facilities? I have attached a notice received from the Juristic office

Get a "law-er". 🍜

[CallumWK]

7 hours ago, Petemcc64 said:

I care because I live in the condos, though only renting, but the hotel is likely to be closed for years and may not open again. Where will that leave to condos, which rely on the hotel for the facilities?

 

I'm sure my friend will be delighted.

He first was <deleted> over when he bought a condo in the building opposite (same developers) and had to take them to court to get his money back.

Now he has 2 condos in Centara Residence, one which he lives, and another one which now will be un-rentable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the developers are somehow involved in the whole criminal scheme.

[Thingamabob]

This is ridiculous. There is no way a county court in Texas has any form of jurisdiction in Thailand. 

[Petemcc64]

2 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Get a "law-er". 🍜

I have no need for a lawyer, perhaps the owner of the condo I am in does.

2 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Get a "law-er". 🍜

 

[jas007]

4 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

This is ridiculous. There is no way a county court in Texas has any form of jurisdiction in Thailand. 

Of course.  People who think otherwise just do not understand how things work.  Something is missing.