chooka Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Did they keep her passport? If not, why not cross border and take off or go to embassy, get another passport and flee. Seems like embassy would back her with press going on back in home country. I wouldn't even screw with trying to resolve through Thai judicial process as it appears they are just throwing more good money in the direction of the problem. Says something about her being put on some kind of no fly list but often in these cases the person is granted the permission to leave the country and come back for court. No fly list would mean they have her passport and it is a bloody long way to swim back and forth for court appearances. but then again christamas island is not to far. Why not govto embassy and get new or better yet, since Australia is making such big stink about this, embassy could get her out passport or no passport. Stand up to Thai corruption and maybe less chance of being treated this way. because embassies around the world do not interfer in the judicial process of other countries. It is just not good politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gand Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Says something about her being put on some kind of no fly list but often in these cases the person is granted the permission to leave the country and come back for court. No fly list would mean they have her passport and it is a bloody long way to swim back and forth for court appearances. but then again christamas island is not to far. Why not govto embassy and get new or better yet, since Australia is making such big stink about this, embassy could get her out passport or no passport. Stand up to Thai corruption and maybe less chance of being treated this way. because embassies around the world do not interfer in the judicial process of other countries. It is just not good politics. The embassy should call her an Asylum seeker, or give her diplomatic immunity. The embassy should at least file a protest with YS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttelise Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Says something about her being put on some kind of no fly list but often in these cases the person is granted the permission to leave the country and come back for court. No fly list would mean they have her passport and it is a bloody long way to swim back and forth for court appearances. but then again christamas island is not to far. Why not govto embassy and get new or better yet, since Australia is making such big stink about this, embassy could get her out passport or no passport. Stand up to Thai corruption and maybe less chance of being treated this way. because embassies around the world do not interfer in the judicial process of other countries. It is just not good politics. They actually do. I get that, but we don't necessarily have some average Joe blow claiming drugs planted or framed. She us caught in a political jaugernaught and Australia should either help her or stop whining. If she was in Colmbia or some dangerous third world country for pleasure, I can also see the hesitancy. She apparently was conducting due diligence for substantial foreign investors to protect perhaps citizens of Australia from risky business dealings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The embassy should call her an Asylum seeker, or give her diplomatic immunity. The embassy should at least file a protest with YS. What kind of Asylum? She is not even in jail and there is little doubt she will even have to stay in Thailand (where she has worked 10-years) if she simply posts required bail and agrees to return for court proceedings. She was charged with a crime and like it or not the laws differ in different countries and people should realize this if they intend to be in another country. This is a women (a lawyer and business person) who has been working in Thailand for 10-years. So, if we go by what many posters here say, she is either an incredibly stupid person or one who sought this type of problem since it is supposedly so painfully obvious how corrupt things are here and how much this law is used to unjustly attack foreigners ... yet, she still chose to investigate a businessman and provide negative information to a potential investor. It truly is a shame when foreigners anywhere are charged with crimes that aren't crimes in their home country but isn't this also a common known fact for travelers in terms of their both needing to obey the laws of the country and how they may be applied ... especially if they are laws that are likely to affect you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze01 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The normal cure for vexatious litigation is for judges to award defendant's costs and even punitive penalties against the litigant if the legislation allows it. If it doesn't, an amendment to allow for this would be a quite straightforward parliamentary procedure. OTOH as this was a favourite pastime of a prior PM related to the current, this may not occur soon. Well they will have to do something as they are probably losing billions of baht lost from investments, investments that may now find thier way to Burma. Which would be shame. Sending investment funds to Burma will only continue to bolster the military junta which keeps the Burmese people firmly under their heals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze01 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It appears that these defamation laws are being abused by Thai business people to scam foreign investors, companies and business people. I think there is an extremely larger warning sign here. Do not invest or do business in Thailand especially whilst the government allows this scam to continue and they (the gov) are out there trying to coax victims into the net. You choose your words poorly. Defamation is not used to "scam" anyone. It's a valid legal tactic that is used to intimidate, delay and divert attention. Having gone through the legal process and won, it is just that - a process. In this Australian woman's case, she does not live here, so having her ability to travel home is probably quite distressing. But it is not a "scam". Call it what you like, but the end effect is the same. People are being arrested on trumped up charged to gain a legal advantage in a business situation. Personally, scam is the right word IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It appears that these defamation laws are being abused by Thai business people to scam foreign investors, companies and business people. I think there is an extremely larger warning sign here. Do not invest or do business in Thailand especially whilst the government allows this scam to continue and they (the gov) are out there trying to coax victims into the net. You choose your words poorly. Defamation is not used to "scam" anyone. It's a valid legal tactic that is used to intimidate, delay and divert attention. Having gone through the legal process and won, it is just that - a process. In this Australian woman's case, she does not live here, so having her ability to travel home is probably quite distressing. But it is not a "scam". Call it what you like, but the end effect is the same. People are being arrested on trumped up charged to gain a legal advantage in a business situation. Personally, scam is the right word IMO. The shareholders meeting is June 22nd. It seems unlikely she would be in much after that date. If the targets are removed, their power and backing and need to pursue this will be greatly diminished. I suppose revenge would still be there, but not from the backers. Everyone else will go where the money is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farang000999 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Disturbing that farang think they can come here and break any laws they want. If found guilty in a Thai court of law, this woman deserves the full severity of her crimes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttelise Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The embassy should call her an Asylum seeker, or give her diplomatic immunity. The embassy should at least file a protest with YS. What kind of Asylum? She is not even in jail and there is little doubt she will even have to stay in Thailand (where she has worked 10-years) if she simply posts required bail and agrees to return for court proceedings. She was charged with a crime and like it or not the laws differ in different countries and people should realize this if they intend to be in another country. This is a women (a lawyer and business person) who has been working in Thailand for 10-years. So, if we go by what many posters here say, she is either an incredibly stupid person or one who sought this type of problem since it is supposedly so painfully obvious how corrupt things are here and how much this law is used to unjustly attack foreigners ... yet, she still chose to investigate a businessman and provide negative information to a potential investor. It truly is a shame when foreigners anywhere are charged with crimes that aren't crimes in their home country but isn't this also a common known fact for travelers in terms of their both needing to obey the laws of the country and how they may be applied ... especially if they are laws that are likely to affect you. I disagree. Though we don't know the details, your explanation seems illogical. Looks like she was performing due diligence for foreign investors and she perhaps told the guy something like they found a misappropriation if funds and she cannot recommend the investment to her clients. She apparently emailed this to the guy back and November and guys apparently says he does nit completely understand, can we meet face to face and get a better explanation. The meeting appears to be nothing but a rouse as he went in with the intention of taping and them pressing charges. This was done quickly and premeditatedly. Complete set up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttelise Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Disturbing that farang think they can come here and break any laws they want. If found guilty in a Thai court of law, this woman deserves the full severity of her crimes. She did not break any laws. The law is actually unconstitutional if it applies in any shape or form to what she allegedly did. She told shady business guy what they found in a due diligence investigation, in private mind you, and that age cannot recommend the investment to her clients. If that us breaking Thai laws, Thailand will quickly become another Vietnam or Cambodia third world country without infussion of foreign money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gand Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The embassy should call her an Asylum seeker, or give her diplomatic immunity. The embassy should at least file a protest with YS. What kind of Asylum? She is not even in jail and there is little doubt she will even have to stay in Thailand (where she has worked 10-years) if she simply posts required bail and agrees to return for court proceedings. She was charged with a crime and like it or not the laws differ in different countries and people should realize this if they intend to be in another country. This is a women (a lawyer and business person) who has been working in Thailand for 10-years. So, if we go by what many posters here say, she is either an incredibly stupid person or one who sought this type of problem since it is supposedly so painfully obvious how corrupt things are here and how much this law is used to unjustly attack foreigners ... yet, she still chose to investigate a businessman and provide negative information to a potential investor. It truly is a shame when foreigners anywhere are charged with crimes that aren't crimes in their home country but isn't this also a common known fact for travelers in terms of their both needing to obey the laws of the country and how they may be applied ... especially if they are laws that are likely to affect you. You mean like TS obeyed the Thai laws? Maybe this lady can be part of the amnesty deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttelise Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) For those that say she broke a Thai law, please tell us what facts, allegations or evidence and how that constitutes a violation of any law. None of this conclusory assertion stuff that she broke a law or committed defamation, but specific facts or allegations and how those constitute a crime. Looks like her only crime was standing up to the wrong people to me. Edited May 31, 2012 by ttelise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It is amazing that none of us has any facts over what this women said and/or the damage she might have caused this person or if what she said was true or not but there are almost factual beliefs in her innocence or guilt. She will have her day in court and has an attorney. At this point, the only thing that is apparent is there was enough probably cause to believe she broke the law for both police to arrest her and a court to set a bail. It may turn out to all be BS and the case is dismissed at her next hearing but in most cases people who get arrested are guilty. The only real difference in this case is it involves a foreigner and a criminal court case for a matter that most of us are used to seeing handled as a lawsuit in our home countries. Just like everybody else. this women will have her day in court and at the moment she is free and living where she has worked the past 10-years and will almost certainly be granted the right to leave the country if what is being reported is close to being a fairly accurate description of the events. Although possible, I doubt this women spent any time in a cell or was even handcuffed and the chance of her doing any time, unless she did defame this person for the purposes of her own financial gain, are slim to none. I really just don't see the point in some of the over dramatic responses here especially with all the real injustices going on against people who can't afford bail or don't have a country to watch over a case and apply pressure if things are not done by the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 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. yes I learnt this the hard way last year I sent an e-mail to an Australian manufacturer because I felt their agent here in Thailand ( which was coincidentally also run by Australians but under a Thai company ) was not representing them well because I consistently had difficulty purchasing the product in some locations.admittedly I was frustrated when I did it but what I wrote was factual but they called me and said they were referring the matter to their lawyers and I would be sued for defamation? So it looked like I as customer anxious to buy the product was going to get into serious trouble just for expressing my frustration at not being able to buy what i wanted because the agent didn't appear organised. When I looked into these laws I was astonished to find out what you can be potentially sued for even when all you doing is complaining? Maybe that's why the Thai culture is not to complain? Yes. I think you point out one of the underlying facets of the culture. The quiet people keep more quiet. Lots of problems if you stick your head up or "non conform". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Disturbing that farang think they can come here and break any laws they want. If found guilty in a Thai court of law, this woman deserves the full severity of her crimes. Everyone equal before the law without discrimination, right? Is that what "farang" actually think? Is that what this woman thinks? Do you have a shred of evidence that she thinks this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Disturbing that farang think they can come here and break any laws they want. If found guilty in a Thai court of law, this woman deserves the full severity of her crimes. You forget that this was a private and confidential conversation in a private and confidential business meeting b/w 3 people whom the complainant was not involved. This would not have come to light if the complainant had not made it public. I do not know what the laws are in Thailand in regards to recording anothers private and confidential conversations but I do know that in Australia you require a Supreme Court warrant to do so. Anothing obtained ilegaly is not admissible in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 The embassy should call her an Asylum seeker, or give her diplomatic immunity. The embassy should at least file a protest with YS. What kind of Asylum? She is not even in jail and there is little doubt she will even have to stay in Thailand (where she has worked 10-years) if she simply posts required bail and agrees to return for court proceedings. She was charged with a crime and like it or not the laws differ in different countries and people should realize this if they intend to be in another country. This is a women (a lawyer and business person) who has been working in Thailand for 10-years. So, if we go by what many posters here say, she is either an incredibly stupid person or one who sought this type of problem since it is supposedly so painfully obvious how corrupt things are here and how much this law is used to unjustly attack foreigners ... yet, she still chose to investigate a businessman and provide negative information to a potential investor. It truly is a shame when foreigners anywhere are charged with crimes that aren't crimes in their home country but isn't this also a common known fact for travelers in terms of their both needing to obey the laws of the country and how they may be applied ... especially if they are laws that are likely to affect you. I disagree. Though we don't know the details, your explanation seems illogical. Looks like she was performing due diligence for foreign investors and she perhaps told the guy something like they found a misappropriation if funds and she cannot recommend the investment to her clients. She apparently emailed this to the guy back and November and guys apparently says he does nit completely understand, can we meet face to face and get a better explanation. The meeting appears to be nothing but a rouse as he went in with the intention of taping and them pressing charges. This was done quickly and premeditatedly. Complete set up. I don't want to comment on your accusations, lest to say that there has been a battle for control of the company which has been well reported in the papers. The company is suspended from trading on the SET - which says alot. Any examination from its annual reports from a few years back show that its gold production had stopped, and it was forced to buy gold at spot on the market to sell to contracted buyers - at a much lower price. The company was hemmoraging money, which I don't think it had. I think there were also issues on a loan to one of the big investment banks - but would need to check that one. Anywhere else, this would have been a company ripe for take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If it turns out that on the next hearing the charges are all dismissed, does she have any recourse? I also wonder if the charges are dismissed, if anyone is allowed to actually find out what she said? It isn't the fact that defamation laws are wrong per se, it is that so often these accusations are completely frivilous and the system takes so long to get to the point of making a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinclapham Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Disturbing that farang think they can come here and break any laws they want. If found guilty in a Thai court of law, this woman deserves the full severity of her crimes. Equally disturbing that on someones "say so" this woman was arrested. How on earth anyone can make a judgement on something we dont know about god only knows. The law is an ass in many countries and I do hope she receives the assistance from her employer and embassy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gand Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Is this how Thais want to be treated in other countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLock Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If it turns out that on the next hearing the charges are all dismissed, does she have any recourse? I also wonder if the charges are dismissed, if anyone is allowed to actually find out what she said? It isn't the fact that defamation laws are wrong per se, it is that so often these accusations are completely frivilous and the system takes so long to get to the point of making a decision. Finally, someone who understands that this defamation case is purely a business tactic that has been used very effectively. It is there for everyone to use if you feel you have been defamed, or feel you can use the law to cause your business opponent problems - such as this case. It is a valid legal process that will run through the courts as every other case does. If she wins, she will have the opportunity to reverse the charges. She will likely get bail and be able to fly home until the case is heard. If she happens to lose then it will likely be a fine and possibly suspended sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gand Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If it turns out that on the next hearing the charges are all dismissed, does she have any recourse? I also wonder if the charges are dismissed, if anyone is allowed to actually find out what she said? It isn't the fact that defamation laws are wrong per se, it is that so often these accusations are completely frivilous and the system takes so long to get to the point of making a decision. Finally, someone who understands that this defamation case is purely a business tactic that has been used very effectively. It is there for everyone to use if you feel you have been defamed, or feel you can use the law to cause your business opponent problems - such as this case. It is a valid legal process that will run through the courts as every other case does. If she wins, she will have the opportunity to reverse the charges. She will likely get bail and be able to fly home until the case is heard. If she happens to lose then it will likely be a fine and possibly suspended sentence. Must be a good place for lawyers? As a business tactic, at least in this case it exposed what a bad investment that company is and how bad an investment Thailand is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gand Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Interesting, hired to evaluate, and then when asked for your evaluation, the proper response is, no comment. That will be $60,000 baht please. Edited June 1, 2012 by gand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackspratt Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I do not know what the laws are in Thailand in regards to recording anothers private and confidential conversations but I do know that in Australia you require a Supreme Court warrant to do so. Wrong Anothing obtained ilegaly is not admissible in court. Wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttelise Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) It is amazing that none of us has any facts over what this women said and/or the damage she might have caused this person or if what she said was true or not but there are almost factual beliefs in her innocence or guilt. She will have her day in court and has an attorney. At this point, the only thing that is apparent is there was enough probably cause to believe she broke the law for both police to arrest her and a court to set a bail. It may turn out to all be BS and the case is dismissed at her next hearing but in most cases people who get arrested are guilty. The only real difference in this case is it involves a foreigner and a criminal court case for a matter that most of us are used to seeing handled as a lawsuit in our home countries. Just like everybody else. this women will have her day in court and at the moment she is free and living where she has worked the past 10-years and will almost certainly be granted the right to leave the country if what is being reported is close to being a fairly accurate description of the events. Although possible, I doubt this women spent any time in a cell or was even handcuffed and the chance of her doing any time, unless she did defame this person for the purposes of her own financial gain, are slim to none. I really just don't see the point in some of the over dramatic responses here especially with all the real injustices going on against people who can't afford bail or don't have a country to watch over a case and apply pressure if things are not done by the book. I am going by what was said and alleged. Perhaps the article was incorrect or something was amiss due to translation. We know she was conducting due diligence for investors. This was her job so not a great leap here. We know in November an email was sent that Malaysian dude and/or company apparently did not like. We can assume she found something and advised she could not recommend investment to het clients. We know Malysian guy requested an in person meeting to apparently have her explain the decision. We know that dude tapped the conversation and acted swiftly in getting her arrested so, once again, not much of a leap that this was planned and set up way before she arrived in Thailand for this meeting. Edited June 1, 2012 by ttelise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If it turns out that on the next hearing the charges are all dismissed, does she have any recourse? I also wonder if the charges are dismissed, if anyone is allowed to actually find out what she said? It isn't the fact that defamation laws are wrong per se, it is that so often these accusations are completely frivilous and the system takes so long to get to the point of making a decision. Finally, someone who understands that this defamation case is purely a business tactic that has been used very effectively. It is there for everyone to use if you feel you have been defamed, or feel you can use the law to cause your business opponent problems - such as this case. It is a valid legal process that will run through the courts as every other case does. If she wins, she will have the opportunity to reverse the charges. She will likely get bail and be able to fly home until the case is heard. If she happens to lose then it will likely be a fine and possibly suspended sentence. But at what point does a court look at the evidence at the beginning and issue a warrant? There isn't the equivalent of an organisation to vet the application first to detect the validity of the accusation? So the whole thing becomes open to enormous abuse. Of course, this is exactly how the pooyais like it, so it won't change anytime soon. I would hope if the whole thing is dismissed instantly at the next hearing, she would probably be considering to sue the other guy back for damage to her reputation, loss of time, inconvenience and whatever she can think of. Which obviously suggests that for the warrant to be issued in the first place, someone didn't really check the validity of the claim at the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttelise Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 The embassy should call her an Asylum seeker, or give her diplomatic immunity. The embassy should at least file a protest with YS. What kind of Asylum? She is not even in jail and there is little doubt she will even have to stay in Thailand (where she has worked 10-years) if she simply posts required bail and agrees to return for court proceedings. She was charged with a crime and like it or not the laws differ in different countries and people should realize this if they intend to be in another country. This is a women (a lawyer and business person) who has been working in Thailand for 10-years. So, if we go by what many posters here say, she is either an incredibly stupid person or one who sought this type of problem since it is supposedly so painfully obvious how corrupt things are here and how much this law is used to unjustly attack foreigners ... yet, she still chose to investigate a businessman and provide negative information to a potential investor. It truly is a shame when foreigners anywhere are charged with crimes that aren't crimes in their home country but isn't this also a common known fact for travelers in terms of their both needing to obey the laws of the country and how they may be applied ... especially if they are laws that are likely to affect you. I disagree. Though we don't know the details, your explanation seems illogical. Looks like she was performing due diligence for foreign investors and she perhaps told the guy something like they found a misappropriation if funds and she cannot recommend the investment to her clients. She apparently emailed this to the guy back and November and guys apparently says he does nit completely understand, can we meet face to face and get a better explanation. The meeting appears to be nothing but a rouse as he went in with the intention of taping and them pressing charges. This was done quickly and premeditatedly. Complete set up. I don't want to comment on your accusations, lest to say that there has been a battle for control of the company which has been well reported in the papers. The company is suspended from trading on the SET - which says alot. Any examination from its annual reports from a few years back show that its gold production had stopped, and it was forced to buy gold at spot on the market to sell to contracted buyers - at a much lower price. The company was hemmoraging money, which I don't think it had. I think there were also issues on a loan to one of the big investment banks - but would need to check that one. Anywhere else, this would have been a company ripe for take over. This post actually makes sense and is good information. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I do not know what the laws are in Thailand in regards to recording anothers private and confidential conversations but I do know that in Australia you require a Supreme Court warrant to do so. Wrong Anothing obtained ilegaly is not admissible in court. Wrong again. Links? Examples? Anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackspratt Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I do not know what the laws are in Thailand in regards to recording anothers private and confidential conversations but I do know that in Australia you require a Supreme Court warrant to do so. Wrong Anothing obtained ilegaly is not admissible in court. Wrong again. Links? Examples? Anything? Australia has numerous legal jurisdictions, each with their own laws on these subjects. If you are really interested, look them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Is this how Thais want to be treated in other countries? Its how they treat each other in Thailand, would they expect it to be different in another country? The woman being charged and arrested being a farang has nothing to do with it, it could just as easlily been a Thai, and the result would have been the same. The only difference is the English press would not have picked it up. Can anyone confirm her husband is indeed the Bangkok correspondent for The Guardian/Observer? TH Edited June 1, 2012 by thaihome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now