Australian Businesswoman Arrested In Thailand For Criminal Defamation

[chingching]

I can hardly see Yingluck approving of this esp. as she is in Australia at the moment. Perhaps initiated by an enemy of hers to embarass her or make her visit unsuccessful.

[Buchholz]

Tongkah Harbour's public website:

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

Mr. Ronald Ng Wai Choi

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.

Gold mining in Loei is close to what he told you.

http://www.tongkahharbour.com/Tongkah/company_TKL.html

Edited May 29, 2012 by Buchholz

[JohnAllan]

I give up trying to reply to Nisa's earlier post re quoting from Wikipaedia etc. Seems my tags are wrong . . .

So, by way of a separate reply: Libel - which, in any case, is written, as opposed to slander, which is oral - IS defamation. And the generally accepted best defence for either one is that the libellous, or slanderous, statement is true.

[gand]

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.

So it does appear.

[gand]

I hope the reporters give her a grilling trying to explain away this ridiculous law.

So you take Yingluck to task to explain this, to you, "ridiculous" law to the Australians when it has been on the law books since 1957? Any other old laws you'd like her to take responsibility for?

As the current PM of the country, with a majority, her government is largely free to write any law it likes.

It would be interesting if she even dares to mention whether she agrees with the law or not. Criminal defamation in Thailand has been held up to international scrutiny for many years. I wonder what her views of it are. After all, she is only the PM. The law has far more far reaching implications that business discussions.

it certainly does,

JUST before this arrest news broke,

Australian business told to look to Asia

May 27, 2012

The Australian-Thai Chamber of Commerce has called on Australian business to better prepare for economic integration in Asia. The call from its spokesman Mark Carroll comes as Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra arrives for a three-day official visit to boost bilateral trade and investment.

Mr Carroll says if Australian business wants to grow, or even just survive, it needs to look offshore.

He says Thailand offers Australian businesses some incredible advantages.

http://wap.news.bigp...sia_754406.html

*missing:

.... and a pallet-load of some incredible disadvantages*

Or even a truckload?

[Nisa]

I give up trying to reply to Nisa's earlier post re quoting from Wikipaedia etc. Seems my tags are wrong . . .

So, by way of a separate reply: Libel - which, in any case, is written, as opposed to slander, which is oral - IS defamation. And the generally accepted best defence for either one is that the libellous, or slanderous, statement is true.

And this is true in Thailand too but like in other places you can still be held liable for making statements that are true and as I pointed out that these privacy laws also fall under defamation but even if they didn't the point is still the restrictions are similar. Thailand (like a number of countries) allow for defamation to be a criminal matter as opposed to a civil one. There may be more differences, as there are with laws from countries to countries, but this is the significant difference.

Example re: truth... Both in the US (and I believe in many other western countries) and Thailand, you can be held liable for broadcasting (print or verbally) that your neighbor has a small penis and doesn't satisfy his wife. In the US you can probably get away with it only if the person was a public figure but I am guessing that in Thailand you couldn't even get away with it if it was a public figure unless there was some right or good for the public to know this.

Again, my point being is that it is not the law that is so different in Thailand but the fact that it is criminally based and not civil. As for corruption in less developed nations and how money buys justice and those with power get away with stuff all over the world ... that is another discussion.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Defamation

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

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

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nisa

[pacovl46]

Sounds funny. Why does he record a conversation secretly? Was she trying to extort/expose him or was he trying to set her up???

[Estrada]

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.

He is still a Director of Tong Ka Harbour, but her actions appear to have been to seek his dismisal as a Director of the Company.

This from the Tong Ka Harbours official notification to the SET:

May 23, 2012 The Managing Director The Stock Exchange of Thailand Dear Sir, Subject: Schedule EGM No.1/2012 Regarding Tongkah Harbour Public Company Limited received a letter from 41 Shareholders, which holding total 90,142,231 shares, 12% of the aggregate shares distributed, to request the Company to call an EGM to consider on the dismissal of 3 Directors as the Shareholders opined that their management made the damages to the Company, the 3 Directors consist of;

1. Mr. Ronald Ng Wai Choi Director

2. Dr. John Peter Mills Director

3. Mr. Reywat Floro Independent Director

On 22 may 2012, the Board of Directors considered and approved to call for the Extraordinary Meeting No.1/2012, to be held on Friday 22 June 2012 at 9.30 hrs. at Ball Room Hall, 3rd Floor, The Emerald Hotel, 99/1 Ratchadapisek Road, Din Daeng Bangkok 10400 as the proposed agendas is outlined below; Agenda 1 Consider and if accepted, confirm the minutes of the previous Shareholders’ AGM No.18/2012, dated 30 April 2012. Agenda 2 Consider and if accepted, proposed to dismiss the Directors which consist of;

1. Mr. Ronald Ng Wai Choi Director

2. Dr. John Peter Mills Director

3. Mr. Reywat Floro Independent Director

It sounds like a battle for control of the company has been taking place with no holds barred. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[gand]

BMI's Sydney-based chief executive Bruce Wunderlich said Ms Florence was fearful for her safety.

"Life is very cheap in Thailand ... and she can't get out of the country," he told brisbanetimes.com.au this morning.

"I can't go back, because I'll be arrested."

Amazing!

[gand]

Sounds funny. Why does he record a conversation secretly? Was she trying to extort/expose him or was he trying to set her up???

Inscrutable?

[Nisa]

Sounds funny. Why does he record a conversation secretly? Was she trying to extort/expose him or was he trying to set her up???

Pretty sure he had an idea of what the other person was going to say or at least knew they were not a friend to him. Although not mentioned in the OP, another news report says something about a previous email that has something to do with defamation charges.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nisa

[kkerry]

BMI's Sydney-based chief executive Bruce Wunderlich said Ms Florence was fearful for her safety.

"Life is very cheap in Thailand ... and she can't get out of the country," he told brisbanetimes.com.au this morning.

"I can't go back, because I'll be arrested."

Amazing!

Not so amazing for those of us who remember Michael Wansley...

[Pinot]

This is about doing business in Thailand. The Malaysian in this is irrelevent.

If you do business in Thailand; somehow, somewhere down the road, it's always going to go end badly. This isn't just about farangs. They do it to each other. It's business as usual here.

Enjoy yourself and this beautiful country, but don't do business here. Don't buy property. Don't expect to be treated fairly. Never expect the courts to resolve anything.

Here is the bottom line: EXPECT TO BE SCREWED.

I love the place and I'm staying, but I'm never doing business here.

[KeyserSoze01]

So typical about the face aspect of life in SEA. It will all come to naught and the charges will be dropped in time, but only after she has had the crap scared out of her to shut her up. The truth will only come out once she is back in Australia where she is beyond the reach of the Thai "authorities".

The tape is inadmissible as evidence because the taping was done secretly.

The hi-so Thai that brought the charges won't divulge what was said as it was obviously derogatory.

No tape + no witness willing to testify = his word against her's = no case.

[sawadeeken]

What's shocking is that the Thais acted on this charge to "arrest" her rather than defer it to a civil process. Amazing at risk Thailand.

Thailand is not the same as many/most other countries, defamation/libel can be a criminal case.

Criminal Defamation

Defamation as a criminal act in Thailand is defined by the Thai Criminal Code as a statement made by a person who imputes anything to another in a manner which is likely to impair the reputation of the latter or to expose him to hatred or contempt. Under the same Code, such person is liable for an imprisonment up to two years or he can be ordered by the court to pay a fine of 200,000 Baht or may be both.

thailandlaw

However:

Civil defamation in Thailand is defined under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code as a statement made contrary to the truth which is asserted or circulated as a fact which is injurious to the reputation or credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner.

Compare the fines mentioned here with the fines mentioned in the other story about the 17 year old boy driving too fast in his Mini-Cooper, recklessly hitting some people assisting another accident and leaving a girl in a coma. 6,000 baht fine for that but 200,000 baht fine for 'speaking poorly- probably telling the truth' about somebody. And Thailand blames Lady Gaga for tarnishing their 'reputation' over FAKE ROLEX

[Tatsujin]

Compare the fines mentioned here with the fines mentioned in the other story about the 17 year old boy driving too fast in his Mini-Cooper, recklessly hitting some people assisting another accident and leaving a girl in a coma. 6,000 baht fine for that but 200,000 baht fine for 'speaking poorly- probably telling the truth' about somebody. And Thailand blames Lady Gaga for tarnishing their 'reputation' over FAKE ROLEX

"Thailand" (fiercely independent as they are and never wrong) are quite capable of tarnishing their own reputations without the help of anyone else!

[bigbamboo]

My money is on that these charges will be dropped especially as Miss Yingluk is currently in Australia trying to encourage investment and Australian business in Thailand. Had it of been another time then the charges may stay. The timing is not good at the moment. A political hot potatoe that will be dropped faster than a rat up an aquaduct.

Indeed incredibly bad timing. Or intentional timing.

If it isn't dropped, it might be an indication of the behind the scenes clout of the complainants in upper echelon Thai circles. Or a shot across the bows of her government and it's aims. ie. Playball with us too, or we will make life even more difficult.

Or it could just be the oldest political trick of all. Allow a problem to develop today and then look good when you solve it tomorrow. As you say the timing is remarkable.

[Tep]

It sounds like a battle for control of the company has been taking place with no holds barred. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The SET filings are quite revealing. The Annual Report and Form 56-1 filings seem to show a major source of financing being a loan and now a legal dispute with the lender over non payment. This combined with Arkady's comment over share price makes interesting reading. As far as I can see, the bulk of the business is selling crushed rock to State Railway of Thailand. I wonder what the Australian investor's plan is/was for this company. A resources company like this would depend heavily on its ability to get the necessary licenses and permits I think. I am not sure an international investor would add value in that regard. I recall the experience of the foreign planners brought into the TPI restructuring and not to mention the accounting firm looking into a sugar company up North a little. There is probably a lot more to be revealed as background and context and I wold find that more interesting that discussions on local defamation laws and their interpretation.

[rubl]

Australian businesswoman arrested in Thailand for criminal defamation

With our PM (the Thai one that is) just having returned and having been quoted as saying that "meeting between the two women leaders could provide an advantage in helping strengthen bilateral ties", I have no doubt that this minor problem will be sorted out to every one's satisfaction very soon. I mean we're taking about another woman, not just some man, for crying out loud :-)

[animatic]

So typical about the face aspect of life in SEA. It will all come to naught and the charges will be dropped in time, but only after she has had the crap scared out of her to shut her up. The truth will only come out once she is back in Australia where she is beyond the reach of the Thai "authorities".

The tape is inadmissible as evidence because the taping was done secretly.

The hi-so Thai that brought the charges won't divulge what was said as it was obviously derogatory.

No tape + no witness willing to testify = his word against her's = no case.

Some reasonable inference and supposition based on the above:

She wasn't the real target anyway, her boss was, but she was the one they could lay hands on.

And this only days after an 'Extraordinary General Meeting, EGM, of Shareholders' was publicly called to remove certain directors.

I suspect certain parties may think they can keep their jobs/profits/stipends/good names, if certain others are possibly scared into silence, between now and June 22nd.

No doubt after her probable scare, she is on bail and parked in a seriously nice Bangkok hotel, all expenses on her company tab. And when she gets more calm, she will work on the issue discretely. No doubt the telephones have been running double time behind the scenes amongst several segments of shareholders.

It would appear; IF several posts quoting sources in this thread are correct, that.

a ) this company has potentially VERY lucrative mineral resources rights contracts.

b ) but seemingly not the cash, nor apparently the competence, to properly make use of them.

c ) said company was trying to bring in a likely Australian mining or metal works company as an investor white knight. Or international sucker born ever minute.

d ) but the investors due diligence uncovered things about the company,

that some seemingly would rather were not known.

e ) the quid pro quo for saving the company / major investment,

is the removal of certain persons, that due diligence has deemed likely

might have been involved with the companies lack of ability to make use of those contracts properly.

f ) a nasty proxy fight has broken into the open in a bid to maintain or gain control.

Western methods of waging a proxy fight may be actionable under Thai law, or at least Thai laws can for a time be used as a cudgel.

g ) one lady of lady of probity and intelligence, stated facts in a private meeting, likely involving the removal for a stated cause, of certain company players. But there was a person of questionable integrity recording the private meeting, and may have leaked that hint of a proxy fights reasons and methods to the targets.

h) fear and loathing in Bangkok for those with possible dirt to hide.

All supposition, but based on a reading of much above that has attribution.

Edited May 29, 2012 by animatic

[ttelise]

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...

There USA difference between stupid laws and laws that are unconstitutionally over broad, arbitrary in its application or ambiguous. This statute would be stricken in any civilized country that has something called a Constitution. A court would strike and send back to the legislature to try again.

[khaowong1]

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is currently visiting Australia, is reportedly due to hold a press conference in Sydney today, where she will address the matter.

Read more:

http://www.brisbanet...l#ixzz1wDgnVsyZ

I hope the reporters give her a grilling trying to explain away this ridiculous law.

So you take Yingluck to task to explain this, to you, "ridiculous" law to the Australians when it has been on the law books since 1957? Any other old laws you'd like her to take responsibility for?

Phiphidon, you are something else.. I'll bet your the life of the party wherever you go.

[pastitche]

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is currently visiting Australia, is reportedly due to hold a press conference in Sydney today, where she will address the matter.

Read more:

http://www.brisbanet...l#ixzz1wDgnVsyZ

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is currently visiting Australia, is reportedly due to hold a press conference in Sydney today, where she will address the matter.

Read more:

http://www.brisbanet...l#ixzz1wDgnVsyZ

I don't doubt you but when I looked at this link, it made no mention of her addressing this matter at a press conference

[Lite Beer]

A post discussing moderation has been removed.

[pastitche]

A good reminder to all that the laws on defamation of character and slander in Thailand are NOT the same as in Austrailia.

This is Thailand and you can not pubicaly say certain things as perhaps you could in Austrailia.

I don't know the details of this particular case....but just remember....the laws in Thailand are different.

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

It was apparently said in private and not publically.

But said in front of other potential business associates or investors.

So from a Thai business stand point members of the public were there,

even if it was an open meeting free to all the public.

And most of the partners are high-net-worth Thais, not Malaysians,

he is just the point man for this, possibly because he was running the meeting.

It was said in front of her boss, the complainant and a member of the board, according to Nisa's link. How can you make that "potential business associates or investors"?

It's a nonsensical case even by Thai standards and if what she and her company say about who was present, the confidential nature of the meeting and the impermissible recording is true it will go no further

[Time Traveller]

Bypass Thailand alltogether and look at other S/E Asian countries like Burma. There just may be a bright future for business over the border.

It seems Australia is generally giving Thailand a pass and looking elsewhere. Also in the business news today is that primary reason Yingluck and her entourage are talking up Thai businesses so much is because of the huge disparity in bilateral investments, with Thailand investments in Australian businesses being multitudes of what the investments are the other way.

Incidents like what has befallen this Australian businesswoman can't help.

.

.

Don't worry Australia. Yingluck is sending thousands of "skilled" Thai workers your way very soon.

[Time Traveller]

Honestly sometimes I think the goal of the Thai government is to keep this country downtrodden..Clearly it is not to move Thailand onto the global playing field.

Why would you think otherwise?

[gk10002000]

Sad but seems pretty obvious what happened. She was asking some tough questions and the guy did not like that. The guy is afraid some bad press might get out about his company.

[gand]

A sheila in trouble?

[rubl]

A sheila in trouble?

A perfect example why the two lady PMs had to get together. I'm told that in Australia there are women who are called Sheila, but women are no longer Sheilas. If I understood an Ozzie block correctly you can get a government sponsored re-education when a female accuses you of 'sheila harassment' and the judge agrees