Australian Businesswoman Arrested In Thailand For Criminal Defamation

[midas]

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

Look at the post above yours to see that the "myth" is reality.

Sounds to me you might be confusing Les Majesty laws with defamation ... two completely different things with one being on topic and the other not. The fact is Defamation by definition needs to be untrue be it here or elsewhere and most all countries have laws dealing with defamation when it come to the punishment and compensation of defamation.

i think your are the one that is confused because you are forgetting

unlike in the West, defamation in Thailand may be both a criminal offense and/or a civil offense.

[Asiantravel]

In the case of Supinya Klanarong who was sued by Thaksin for defamation the court acquitted her on the grounds that the article she published information about potential conflicts of interest that she clearly believed with justification to be true and publication was held to be in the public interest. The truth is considered a defence in defamation cases in Thailand, as are the motives for making the allegations. Where the defendant is found guilty the court has to take into account the damages sustained by the defendant.

Without knowing what the dispute was about I would guess that a court would probably throw this one out, since the alleged defamation seems to have taken place in a private business meeting and the plaintiff is the one publicising it himself. So there could be no widespread damage to his reputation, which is less than sparkling anyway, unless he makes a song and a dance about this. The thing has an air of intimidation about it.

" The truth is considered a defence in defamation cases in Thailand, as are the motives for making the allegations "

not according to this written about criminal defamation

Imagine you believe you are the victim of fraud or self-dealing by a local business partner. Suppose this business partner is an “influential person”. Would you raise and pursue such claims even if you were convinced those claims are true? In Thailand, private parties can file criminal defamation claims, and truth is not necessarily a defense.

http://thailawandpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/criminal-defamation-as-a-business-tool/

[GeorgeO]

If it was a private conversation at a private meeting then what is the problem? Sounds like she was set up and secretly recorded without her knowledge. What next are they going to start charging people for pornography on the grounds of what two people do in the privacy of thier own bedroom?

Next story comes of the back of Yingluks visit to Australia to discuss Investments and doing business in Thailand. Yep come and do business in Thailand and invest your money but do not have a point of view whilst doing so.

There can be no defamation in anything that is said in a private meeting, unless there is an outsider present, at the invitation of the meeting parties, who may subsequently release what was said to the public.

If he has a recording, and subsequently releases it to the public, then he has defamed himself...!

[Suradit69]

So don't open your month and stick you're foot in it.

A favorite occupation amongst the barstool lawyers who fill the message boards with baseless speculation. If you read some of the first few messages in this thread, despite admitting to having no knowledge of what actually happened, some of our resident experts have both feet wedged in their mouths with room to spare.

[metisdead]

A post quoting content from another forum and linking to another forum has been removed. Read forum rule 10.

[Nisa]

If it was a private conversation at a private meeting then what is the problem? Sounds like she was set up and secretly recorded without her knowledge. What next are they going to start charging people for pornography on the grounds of what two people do in the privacy of thier own bedroom?

Next story comes of the back of Yingluks visit to Australia to discuss Investments and doing business in Thailand. Yep come and do business in Thailand and invest your money but do not have a point of view whilst doing so.

There can be no defamation in anything that is said in a private meeting, unless there is an outsider present, at the invitation of the meeting parties, who may subsequently release what was said to the public.

If he has a recording, and subsequently releases it to the public, then he has defamed himself...!

Being a private meeting only tells us it wasn't a public meeting and nothing about who or how many were in attendance but logic dictates there was somebody else there besides the defendant and plaintiff. One can certainly defame another even on a private phone call between 2 people.

[boomerexpat]

Most definitely seems like someone leaked this to embarrass the PM in his Aussie trip. Well, she should be embarrassed for letting a law like this stand. Won't do much to attract new Aussie business but will probably appeal to the Chinese government. Like minds.

I imagine some Australian execs when they find out about this will start sending more junior people to Thai meetings now.

[Nisa]

i think your are the one that is confused because you are forgetting

unlike in the West, defamation in Thailand may be both a criminal offense and/or a civil offense.

Now this is just way out there since that is the point I was clearly making (criminal / civil) as being the only significant difference in the laws. Try to keep up or at least read the quoted text you delete before deleting (to make room for your post).

Edit: However, keep in mind that there are numerous countries with criminal codes regarding defamation including Canada.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nisa

[Thai at Heart]

Thai Penal Code:

Section 329 Whoever, in good faith, expresses any opinion or statement:

• By way of self justification or defense, or for the protection of a legitimateinterest;
  
• In the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions;
  
• By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or
  
• By way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting, shall not beguilty of defamation.
  

Section 330 In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that theimputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and suchproof will not be benefit to the public.

In other words it IS NOT defamation if it is true unless you are disclosing something personal about a person that causes harm and in no way benefits the public . In other words hurting the good name of somebody publicly for no other reason than to hurt the good name of a private individual. Again, these similar laws are on the books elsewhere, though usually handled in civil procedures, to protect non-public individuals.

Once again, the only significant difference in the defamation laws in Thailand are they can be a criminal matter where in most other places (especially in the west) they are typically handled as a civil matter.

True statement. An accusation is generally not defamatory if it is true, unless it concerns

the victim’s personal matters and is not of benefit to the general public (Penal Code,

Section 330). For example, Y mentioned in his blog that X Hospital cheats by marking up the medicine prices 300%. If this fact is true, Y can be acquitted. On the other hand, if A informs a third party that B is having an affair with C, A can be convicted of criminal defamation against B even if the accusation is true, because this is a personal matter and it is not of any benefit to the public.

2. Good faith statements. Under Penal Code Section 329, an accusation does not amount to criminal defamation if it was an opinion or statement that the defendant expressed in good faith and believed was true, and fits one of the following criteria:

 Self-defense. The opinion or statement was issued in good faith to protect the

defendant’s legitimate interest. For example, an employer announces that a particular

employee has been terminated and the employer will not take any responsibility for

future dealings between the ex-employee and third parties.

 Exercise of official government functions. The opinion or statement was issued by an

official in good faith within the scope of his or her responsibility.

 Public figure doctrine. The opinion or statement was issued in good faith and

amounted to a fair comment on a person ordinarily subjected to public criticism, such

as a politician.

 Report of court proceedings or meetings. The opinion or statement is a fair report

regarding the open proceedings of any court or any open meeting.

3. Court proceedings. An accusation does not amount to criminal defamation if it is an opinion or statement expressed during court proceedings by the parties involved, their lawyers, or their witnesses (Penal Code, Section 331

Interestingly, a defamatory statement that is true is not actionable as a civil claim. It is only prosecutable as a crime.

http://www.tilleke.com/sites/default/files/2011_TLB.pdf

The difference is that in many other parts of the world, truth is an absolute defence. And the second point, that causing libel, even though it is true, is ONLY punishable as a criminal case.

[Nisa]

http://www.tilleke.c...es/2011_TLB.pdf

The difference is that in many other parts of the world, truth is an absolute defence. And the second point, that causing libel, even though it is true, is ONLY punishable as a criminal case.

That is not true -- at least in the US. A private citizen has right to a certain level of privacy. You can not go around spreading or publishing statements about a private (not public figure) that doesn't serve the public interest and that causes harm (such as embarrassment) to that person regardless if it is true or not.

Once again, the significant difference being that defamation can be a criminal matter vs. civil. However there are more difference too (like most laws & countries) but just not as significant such as some places requiring that the lie be told must have been told with malice. So, regardless of how much damage your false statement may have caused, you cannot be held liable for defamation unless you had malice.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nisa

[kmj]

Name me a country that has no stupid laws on its books... Thailands no different,

in her position as a former NSW chairperson of the Australia Thai Business Council she should / will have known about this law, it's no secret..

Some people have to learn the hard way...

Edited May 29, 2012 by kmj

[Thai at Heart]

http://www.tilleke.c...es/2011_TLB.pdf

The difference is that in many other parts of the world, truth is an absolute defence. And the second point, that causing libel, even though it is true, is ONLY punishable as a criminal case.

That is not true -- at least in the US. A private citizen has right to a certain level of privacy. You can not go around spreading or publishing statements about a private (not public figure) that doesn't serve the public interest and that causes harm (such as embarrassment) to that person regardless if it is true or not.

How to prove libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen

You cannot defame someone with the "truth".

[softgeorge]

Name me a country that has no stupid laws on its books... Thailands no different,

in her position as a former NSW chairperson of the Australia Thai Business Council she should / will have known about this law, it's no secret..

Some people have to learn the hard way...

WOW you have just found her guilty and passed execution. How did you know?

[DiamondKing]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

Well I speak from experience and the myth is no myth, I told the truth and was prosecuted, 12 months suspended Prison sentence, and 10,000 baht fine.

Here in Thailand, shut your noise u,p and even if what you say is true, it don't matter, you will still get done if your up against a thai. They even pay for their legal costs all free, as a right because they are thai.

In fact the cops in the station even told me when I said it was true they said even if it is true, you cant say it

DK

Edited May 29, 2012 by DiamondKing

[Nisa]

http://www.tilleke.c...es/2011_TLB.pdf

The difference is that in many other parts of the world, truth is an absolute defence. And the second point, that causing libel, even though it is true, is ONLY punishable as a criminal case.

That is not true -- at least in the US. A private citizen has right to a certain level of privacy. You can not go around spreading or publishing statements about a private (not public figure) that doesn't serve the public interest and that causes harm (such as embarrassment) to that person regardless if it is true or not.

How to prove libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen

You cannot defame someone with the "truth".

Privacy and defamation are often intertwined laws. I don't want to get way off topic and feed in to the nit picking of what I posted here but suggest you do some research to fully understand or start with a visit the wiki page "Defamation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation) to better understand.

Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.

Keep in mind too that the law is rarely ever simple, absolute or can be summed up in a sentence or two.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nisa

[DLock]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

Well I speak from experience and the myth is no myth I told the truth and was prosecuted 12 months suspended and 10,000 baht fine here in Thailand shut your noise up and even if what you say is true it don't matter you will still get done if your up against a thai.

In fact the cops in the station even told me even if its true you cant say it

DK

DK is correct. I have also had problems with defamation claims. In my case, the defamation claims were used to delay other legal matters and make things difficult for me. In the end, I proved that what I said was actually correct and justified and the cases were dismissed.

Defamation is a very convenient way to make things difficult for someone. True or false, putting defamation claims on someone makes them spend time and money defending the claim to find an outcome...which is pretty much the Thai legal system.

From my experience (and DK's outcome), she will likely end up with a fine and possibly suspended sentence. I would suggest the Malaysian has lost face because of her comments and this is way to return the favor...

[Asiantravel]

That is not true -- at least in the US. A private citizen has right to a certain level of privacy. You can not go around spreading or publishing statements about a private (not public figure) that doesn't serve the public interest and that causes harm (such as embarrassment) to that person regardless if it is true or not.

How to prove libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen

You cannot defame someone with the "truth".

Privacy and defamation are often intertwined laws. I don't want to get way off topic and feed in to the nit picking of what I posted here but suggest you do some research to fully understand or start with a visit the wiki page "Defamation" (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Defamation) to better understand.

Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.

Keep in mind too that the law is rarely ever simple, absolute or can be summed up in a sentence or two.

what about what DiamondKing just said above your post ?

[DiamondKing]

Nisa

You can keep quoting all this stuff, but until you have actually gone through the whole whacked out process like I have, you know nothing but the theory, and i can tell you that is a TOSH compared to the reality of going through it and the reality of the outcome.

Best bet is keep ya mouth shut in Thailand even if its the truth cos this country is the TWILIGHT ZONE

DK

Edited May 29, 2012 by DiamondKing

[tragickingdom]

Wow a Thai non fly list. There are trains, boats, cars and buses. Hire a speedboat go to Cambodia and wave goodbye.

[dalsobrook]

I'm a little confused. What exactly did she do?

Edited May 29, 2012 by metisdead
Bold font removed, again. Do not use bold font when posting.

[DiamondKing]

I'm a little confused. What exactly did she do?

HER JOB

Just did her job

Dk

Edited May 29, 2012 by DiamondKing

[lannachiangrai]

Did anyone else open the financials from the website and notice that there is a 836,000,000 baht "breach of contract" expense in 2010 yet somehow the management decide to pay themselves a "management benefit" expense of 17,000,000 baht in 2010 and 19,000,000 baht in 2011? Might be a slightly sensitive issue . . .

Edited May 29, 2012 by lannachiangrai

[JohnAllan]

Quote: "Mr Ng based the charge on things that he alleged Ms Florence had said in a private business meeting, Mr Wunderlich said."

Since when have exchanges of views in a private meeting, no matter how disagreeable they might be to one, or both, of the recipients, been grounds for prosecution under defamation laws - even in Thailand?

[OzMick]

'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'. Shakespeare's King Henry VI (part2)

[Buchholz]

Did anyone else open the financials from the website and notice that there is a 836,000,000 baht "breach of contract" expense in 2010 yet somehow the management decide to pay themselves a "management benefit" expense of 17,000,000 baht in 2010 and 19,000,000 baht in 2011? Might be a slightly sensitive issue . . .

it took exactly one hundred posts from Post # 12

[brit1984]

http://www.tilleke.c...es/2011_TLB.pdf

The difference is that in many other parts of the world, truth is an absolute defence. And the second point, that causing libel, even though it is true, is ONLY punishable as a criminal case.

That is not true -- at least in the US. A private citizen has right to a certain level of privacy. You can not go around spreading or publishing statements about a private (not public figure) that doesn't serve the public interest and that causes harm (such as embarrassment) to that person regardless if it is true or not.

How to prove libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen

You cannot defame someone with the "truth".

But "truth" is a subjective concept

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[anterian]

I nearly had a similar experience to DK, however I was firmly told by my Thai friends and the local police to shut up and let them deal with the situation. I don't know what they did but the outcome was satisfactory. A strange country where hints and suggestions are more powerful than facts and figures.

[softgeorge]

Ms Florence, an advisor to consultancy firm Business Management International, was arrested at Suvarnabhumi International Airport in Bangkok on May 5, before she was released on bail with a surety of 50,000 baht ($AU1600).

Mr Condie said BMI’s Sydney-based chief executive Bruce Wunderlich - the lead defendant in the case - was seeking to arrange Australian investment of funds and mining expertise into Thai gold mining company Tongkah Harbour.

‘‘His aim was to turn the company round and assist the 4000 small Thai shareholders,’’ Mr Condie said. Ms Florence, he said, has been a member of BMI’s advisory board.

The charges against Ms Florence were brought by Malaysian businessman Ronald Wai Choi Ng, the former managing director of Tongkah Harbour.

Mr Ng is understood to have based the charge on allegations Ms Florence and Mr Wunderlich raised in a private business meeting last November.

‘‘The conversation referred to in the charge brought against Clare by Malaysian businessman Ronald Wai Choi Ng took place during a private business meeting attended only by herself, Australian businessman Bruce Wunderlich and a director of Tongkah Harbour,’’ Mr Condie said.

‘‘The meeting was clearly flagged as private and confidential.’’

Mr Wunderlich told brisbanetimes.com.au earlier today that he and Ms Florence had been investigating Mr Ng’s business dealings on behalf of a potential investor, when he requested a private meeting with the Thailand businessman.

Read more: http://www.brisbanet...l#ixzz1wFsQtWwH

Sounds to me that they had uncovered some dirt on the Malaysian guy's business dealings. If the Malaysian guy wasn't at the private confidential meeting then what is he going on about. It was a private confidential business meeting b/w 3 people.

Edited May 29, 2012 by softgeorge

[Nisa]

what about what DiamondKing just said above your post ?

Reread it again. His paste/quoted text doesn't contradict mine. Together they simply tell more. The point being is that, like Thai law, you can be held accountable (civil not criminal) for statements that are true.

[hansgruber]

Tongkah Harbour's public website:

http://www.tongkahharbour.com/tongkah/TH/about_boardofdirector_th.html

Mr. Ronald Ng Wai Choi

Position on Board

-Director and Group Chief Executive Officer

-Chairman of Executive Director

-Member of Remuneration Committee

Education/Training

- Bachelor Degree (Honors) in Economics, University of Malaya

Work Experience

1970 - 1972 - Malaysian Industrial Department Bank

1972 - 1974 - Malaysian International Merchant Bankers

1974 - 1976 - CEO of Buildnore Industrial Limited, a Hong Kong Public Listed Company.

1977 - 1980 - Chairman of First Siam Corporation Limited

1980 - 1986 - Established Madam Tan Soo Lan Foundation Scholarship Fund, 198 corporate base in Hong Kong with acquisition of printing and packaging business and moving production into Shenzhen, China and set up joint ventures with provincial governments and City Municipalities to develop the hotel (six hotels) and travel industry as well. The Paron Group was incorporated in 1978. 1986 - 1996 - Entrepreneur in various countries.

1996 - Present - Managing Director of Tongkah Harbour Public Company Limited

Other present positions

- Chairman of Paron Holdings Limited

- President of Paron Resources Limited.

- Chairman of Davenport Sun International

- Chairman of Pamaron Holdings Limited

- Chairman of Sintana Holdings Limited

Positions in Other Core /Affiliated Companies

-Director of Tungkum Limited

-Director of Cholsin Limited

-Director of Sea Minerals Limited

-Director of Sky Cliff Limited

I know this guy, he is my next door neighbour in Nonthaburi. Riverine place.

Very wealthy and married to a younger western woman and have 2 children.

He does mining somewhere in Laos from what he told me.

Sent from my HTC One X using Thaivisa Connect App