Australian Businesswoman Arrested In Thailand For Criminal Defamation

[Nisa]

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.

And what was it she told the potential investor in this company? Was it true? How much damage (if any) was caused to his company by her words to this potential investor?

We don't know jack because about what she said has not been reported .. which in itself is kind of interesting when it comes to the foreign press.

The fact the guy taped it would indicate he thought the she was telling the investor was something he believed he could prove untrue and information that could hurt him.

[samran]

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.

And what was it she told the potential investor in this company? Was it true? How much damage (if any) was caused to his company by her words to this potential investor?

We don't know jack because about what she said has not been reported .. which in itself is kind of interesting when it comes to the foreign press.

The fact the guy taped it would indicate he thought the she was telling the investor was something he believed he could prove untrue and information that could hurt him.

Here are a few clues.

Go back and read the news story. Take note of the guy she did the work for. His name starts with one of the last letters of the alphabet.

Then go and google that blokes name. Have a read what he's been up to, and the public statements he has made.

Then do a general google on the company. What it has been up to. Production (or lack of) and liabilities. Its suspension from the SET.

Then sit down, have a cup of tea. The penny will drop.

It doesn't matter what was said in the meeting. A much bigger struggle going on here.

[gand]

How do Thai police arrest anybody in Thailand without being charged with defamation?

[swillowbee]

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.

.

This is not an exceptional business practice in Thailand. A farang friend in a business dispute with a hi-so Thai was falsely accused of criminal (as opposed to civil) defamation ... jail time. My friend said nothing that was not provable by the plaintiff's own documents, none of which were confidential.

What makes the Thai law on criminal defamation so ripe for corrupted use, is that criminal defamation in Thailand can be privately prosecuted ... the hi-so Thai plaintiff in this case hired a private attorney who filed the charges and prosecuted my friend. My friend was threatened with arrest and having his passport 'red-jacketed' to prevent him from leaving the country.

A man with a wife and young children, my friend was understandably deeply shaken by this violent legal assault. The criminal defamation suits were nothing more than legal extortion to get him and his family to leave the country.

The Thai with whom he is in dispute was eventually charged with fraud (after two years of persistence, and a lot of my friend's money), convicted of stealing more than THB 40.0 million from him, and sentenced to jail (amazingly, despite the parade of generals who attended court in her support). Collecting his stolen money from a hi-so Thai is another nightmare story, and of course a Thai hi-so will never see the inside of an unchauffeured car, much less a Thai jail cell.

My friend, a man of exceptional character, chose not to concede to the legal extortion, but stayed and spent millions vigorously defending his reputation and going after this hi-so Thai crook. I doubt many farang are similarly able to spend the kind of money he could spend, or are willing to place themselves and their families at risk. His story is a real testament to his integrity, and will make quite a case study for doing business in Thailand.

This is a legal corruption that could have a chilling effect on foreign investment in Thailand as the practice becomes more publicized ... I've seen none of the Australian woman's case covered by the Thai press, nor was my friend's case covered by the press, presumably owing to the Thai hi-so's name and meaningful influence.

When buying director's and officer's liability insurance (D&O) and errors and ommisions insurance (E&O) against this risk in Thailand 10 years ago, Lloyds of London (an ultra high-risk underwriter that goes where few insurers will go) was the only company in the world that would provide us this protection in Thailand. Although at a high premium, it was worth it. While small investors are probably oblivious to the risk in legal extortion in Thailand (as was my friend), this practice will only send a chill through major investors.

While high-risk insurers can cover the financial consequences of this corrupted abuse of the Thai legal system, they can do nothing to prevent a farang falsely accused of criminal defamation from being put into a Thai jail.

The law really should be changed before it becomes open season on farang investors in Thailand.

.

Edited June 1, 2012 by swillowbee

[jackspratt]

Here are a few clues.

Go back and read the news story. Take note of the guy she did the work for. His name starts with one of the last letters of the alphabet.

Then go and google that blokes name. Have a read what he's been up to, and the public statements he has made.

Then do a general google on the company. What it has been up to. Production (or lack of) and liabilities. Its suspension from the SET.

Then sit down, have a cup of tea. The penny will drop.

It doesn't matter what was said in the meeting. A much bigger struggle going on here.

While googling the company name, throw businessreportthailand into the search.

The picture becomes very clear.

[chooka]

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?

I am sorry Jack but you are the one who is wrong. I have had a lot to do with listening devices in the course of employment and applied for and obtained warrants and presented recording as evidence.

listening device means any instrument, apparatus, equipment or device capable of being used to record or listen to a private conversation simultaneously with its taking place.

You cannot install, use or maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a Private Conversation unless you're a party to the conversation, or you have consent of all the parties to that conversation.

Penalty not exceeding $20,000 or two (2) yrs imprisonment.

LISTENING DEVICES ACT 1991 - SECT 14

14. Inadmissibility of evidence of private conversations when unlawfully obtained

(1) Where a private conversation has come to the knowledge of a person as a result, direct or indirect, of the use of a listening device in contravention of section 5 –

(a) evidence of the conversation; and

(

evidence obtained as a direct consequence of the conversation so coming to the knowledge of that person –

may not be given by that person in any proceedings before any court or person authorized to receive evidence.

[jackspratt]

chooka, while that may be the law in Tassie (which I grant is part of Australia ), it is not the law of the Commonwealth, the other 5 states, or the Territories.

[Thai at Heart]

http://www.highgrade.net/article/2012-05-30/Australian_arrested_in_Thai_gold_deal_negotiations

[softgeorge]

chooka, while that may be the law in Tassie (which I grant is part of Australia ), it is not the law of the Commonwealth, the other 5 states, or the Territories.

Same in Victoria it is ilegal to record a private conversation if you are not party to the conversation or have permission of the parties involved in the conversation.

Any recording of a conversation that has not been obtained legally is inadmissable in court. I think you will find that all states are the same. You can be charged with a criminal offence given the circumstances.

[simple1]

chooka, while that may be the law in Tassie (which I grant is part of Australia ), it is not the law of the Commonwealth, the other 5 states, or the Territories.

Same in Victoria it is ilegal to record a private conversation if you are not party to the conversation or have permission of the parties involved in the conversation.

Any recording of a conversation that has not been obtained legally is inadmissable in court. I think you will find that all states are the same. You can be charged with a criminal offence given the circumstances.

Looks like it is covered in all States & Territories in Australia, Take a look at http://www.privacy.gov.au/faq/individuals/q1

[jackspratt]

Victoria

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sda1999210/s11.html

Surveillance Devices Act 1999 - SECT 6

Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

6. Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or

maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a

private conversation to which the person is not a party, without the express

or implied consent of each party to the conversation.

Penalty: Deleted

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to-

(a) the installation, use or maintenance of a listening device in

accordance with a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding

warrant or corresponding emergency authorisation; or

(b ) the installation, use or maintenance of a listening device in

accordance with a law of the Commonwealth; or

(c ) the use of a listening device by a law enforcement officer to monitor

or record a private conversation to which he or she is not a party if-

(i) at least one party to the conversation consents to the monitoring or

recording; and

(ii) the law enforcement officer is acting in the course of his or her

duty; and

(iii) the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that it is necessary

to monitor or record the conversation for the protection of any

person's safety.

Surveillance Devices Act 1999 - SECT 5A

Application of Act

5A. Application of Act

(1) This Act is not intended to limit a discretion that a court has-

(a) to admit or exclude evidence in any proceeding;

I'm off for a beer - you guys can determine the applicability or otherwise of the above to my original points.

Edited June 1, 2012 by jackspratt

[softgeorge]

Victoria

http://www.austlii.e...999210/s11.html

Surveillance Devices Act 1999 - SECT 6

Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

6. Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or

maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a

private conversation to which the person is not a party, without the express

or implied consent of each party to the conversation.

Penalty: Deleted

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to-

(a) the installation, use or maintenance of a listening device in

accordance with a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding

warrant or corresponding emergency authorisation; or

(b ) the installation, use or maintenance of a listening device in

accordance with a law of the Commonwealth; or

(c ) the use of a listening device by a law enforcement officer to monitor

or record a private conversation to which he or she is not a party if-

(i) at least one party to the conversation consents to the monitoring or

recording; and

(ii) the law enforcement officer is acting in the course of his or her

duty; and

(iii) the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that it is necessary

to monitor or record the conversation for the protection of any

person's safety.

Surveillance Devices Act 1999 - SECT 5A

Application of Act

5A. Application of Act

(1) This Act is not intended to limit a discretion that a court has-

(a) to admit or exclude evidence in any proceeding;

I'm off for a beer - you guys can determine the applicability or otherwise of the above to my original points.

And if you have used the acts then you would understand what has been said previously

[Nisa]

While the laws regarding taping of conversations and their admissibility in Australia are interesting, I'd be more curious of the same laws related to Thailand since this didn't happen in Australia and the laws there are completely irrelevant to this case. In fact, probably something people need to remind themselves in terms of laws in your homeland pretty much being irrelevant when in another country.

[nontabury]

My Thai wife and I, have just been thru the Thai courts, having been accused of defaming a Thai lawyer, who is representing a Thai man that we are in legal dispute with.( case finely comes to court later this month). The Thai mans wife FALSELY accused us of defaming their lawyer, went all the way to trial,case dropped,one of the reasons being that we could prove we where over 1000km away when the deformation

Was supposed to have taken place.My wife has now privately instigated criminal defamation against this lady. Will she win, I think so, because she has taken the case to court as a Thai V Thai ,no farang involved, will she recieve compensation I think not.When will Farangs realise that the legal system here is completly different to that in a developed country,and that there is no justice at all for Farangs.

[softgeorge]

While the laws regarding taping of conversations and their admissibility in Australia are interesting, I'd be more curious of the same laws related to Thailand since this didn't happen in Australia and the laws there are completely irrelevant to this case. In fact, probably something people need to remind themselves in terms of laws in your homeland pretty much being irrelevant when in another country.

I think that question was asked earlier but no one seems to have an answer (Thai laws regarding recording private conversations)

[Nisa]

While the laws regarding taping of conversations and their admissibility in Australia are interesting, I'd be more curious of the same laws related to Thailand since this didn't happen in Australia and the laws there are completely irrelevant to this case. In fact, probably something people need to remind themselves in terms of laws in your homeland pretty much being irrelevant when in another country.

I think that question was asked earlier but no one seems to have an answer (Thai laws regarding recording private conversations)

Without knowing much more, I am slightly skeptical of the recording being inadmissible based only on the reports in the news and which appear to originate from the defendants side of the argument. One thing I also found a little interesting, though don't want to read into it too much, is that there seems to be no denial that what she said wasn't untrue and the defense, at least to the press, seems to be it was a private meeting and the tape is inadmissible. Just surprised there are no comments saying she did her job accurately by informing the investor in a fair and truthful way of the risks of investing in this company.

Again, can't trust everything we read, but the defense we've read is kind of like having people who are close to a person accused of drunk driving making statements about how the alcohol blood testing machine wasn't calibrated recently and that the road the car was on was a private road but not denying anything about the driver not being drunk. Sure these facts may help get the person off but it doesn't tell us if the person was actually drunk and driving.

[jackspratt]

Victoria

http://www.austlii.e...999210/s11.html

Surveillance Devices Act 1999 - SECT 6

Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

6. Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or

maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a

private conversation to which the person is not a party, without the express

or implied consent of each party to the conversation.

Penalty: Deleted

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to-

(a) the installation, use or maintenance of a listening device in

accordance with a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding

warrant or corresponding emergency authorisation; or

(b ) the installation, use or maintenance of a listening device in

accordance with a law of the Commonwealth; or

(c ) the use of a listening device by a law enforcement officer to monitor

or record a private conversation to which he or she is not a party if-

(i) at least one party to the conversation consents to the monitoring or

recording; and

(ii) the law enforcement officer is acting in the course of his or her

duty; and

(iii) the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that it is necessary

to monitor or record the conversation for the protection of any

person's safety.

Surveillance Devices Act 1999 - SECT 5A

Application of Act

5A. Application of Act

(1) This Act is not intended to limit a discretion that a court has-

(a) to admit or exclude evidence in any proceeding;

I'm off for a beer - you guys can determine the applicability or otherwise of the above to my original points.

And if you have used the acts then you would understand what has been said previously

As you appear to have "used the acts (sic)" you are in a perfect position to point out where my interpretation is incorrect.

[ttelise]

While the laws regarding taping of conversations and their admissibility in Australia are interesting, I'd be more curious of the same laws related to Thailand since this didn't happen in Australia and the laws there are completely irrelevant to this case. In fact, probably something people need to remind themselves in terms of laws in your homeland pretty much being irrelevant when in another country.

I think that question was asked earlier but no one seems to have an answer (Thai laws regarding recording private conversations)

Without knowing much more, I am slightly skeptical of the recording being inadmissible based only on the reports in the news and which appear to originate from the defendants side of the argument. One thing I also found a little interesting, though don't want to read into it too much, is that there seems to be no denial that what she said wasn't untrue and the defense, at least to the press, seems to be it was a private meeting and the tape is inadmissible. Just surprised there are no comments saying she did her job accurately by informing the investor in a fair and truthful way of the risks of investing in this company.

Again, can't trust everything we read, but the defense we've read is kind of like having people who are close to a person accused of drunk driving making statements about how the alcohol blood testing machine wasn't calibrated recently and that the road the car was on was a private road but not denying anything about the driver not being drunk. Sure these facts may help get the person off but it doesn't tell us if the person was actually drunk and driving.

Who has more control over media on this and what would be medias agenda. No prudent lawyer defending her or her firm should comment on case with an ongoing criminal investigation as such is unethical in civilized judicial systems.

[ttelise]

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.

And what was it she told the potential investor in this company? Was it true? How much damage (if any) was caused to his company by her words to this potential investor?

We don't know jack because about what she said has not been reported .. which in itself is kind of interesting when it comes to the foreign press.

The fact the guy taped it would indicate he thought the she was telling the investor was something he believed he could prove untrue and information that could hurt him.

Here are a few clues.

Go back and read the news story. Take note of the guy she did the work for. His name starts with one of the last letters of the alphabet.

Then go and google that blokes name. Have a read what he's been up to, and the public statements he has made.

Then do a general google on the company. What it has been up to. Production (or lack of) and liabilities. Its suspension from the SET.

Then sit down, have a cup of tea. The penny will drop.

It doesn't matter what was said in the meeting. A much bigger struggle going on here.

Wow. Found the article setting out malfeasance and mismanagement by board. The 35 million US dollar loan from Duetsche bank, default on it, failure to report to anyone including Thai shareholder in diligence or auditing, and etc. Boards pledge of gold at 820 ceiling when gold ultimately hits 1850 is either incredibly near sighted or an incredibly desperate attempt by board to get access to 35 million US dollars. Haha, did anyone actually have a clue about what they were potentially doing. Someone needs to remind them the basic axiom of what happens to commodity prices during periods of inflation and instability in equities.

Sounds as if a lot of innocent Thai investors are really being shafted. A possible solution presents itself to help the investors and the board does what, defamation against white knight to retain control of books and situation. Complete abuse of process for business tactical reasons.

[Nisa]

While the laws regarding taping of conversations and their admissibility in Australia are interesting, I'd be more curious of the same laws related to Thailand since this didn't happen in Australia and the laws there are completely irrelevant to this case. In fact, probably something people need to remind themselves in terms of laws in your homeland pretty much being irrelevant when in another country.

I think that question was asked earlier but no one seems to have an answer (Thai laws regarding recording private conversations)

Without knowing much more, I am slightly skeptical of the recording being inadmissible based only on the reports in the news and which appear to originate from the defendants side of the argument. One thing I also found a little interesting, though don't want to read into it too much, is that there seems to be no denial that what she said wasn't untrue and the defense, at least to the press, seems to be it was a private meeting and the tape is inadmissible. Just surprised there are no comments saying she did her job accurately by informing the investor in a fair and truthful way of the risks of investing in this company.

Again, can't trust everything we read, but the defense we've read is kind of like having people who are close to a person accused of drunk driving making statements about how the alcohol blood testing machine wasn't calibrated recently and that the road the car was on was a private road but not denying anything about the driver not being drunk. Sure these facts may help get the person off but it doesn't tell us if the person was actually drunk and driving.

Who has more control over media on this and what would be medias agenda. No prudent lawyer defending her or her firm should comment on case with an ongoing criminal investigation as such is unethical in civilized judicial systems.

Yes a lawyer saying his client is innocent is unheard of before trial

And, I never suggested the media had an agenda. Even though most of the reports I've read are coming out of Australia, the defendants home country, it was simply a point of what I thought was common knowledge in that the media often get things wrong or are missing information ... especially in a story like this where only one side's statements are being printed and it doesn't appear anyone has investigated what was said and what is in the charges.

[ttelise]

I think that question was asked earlier but no one seems to have an answer (Thai laws regarding recording private conversations)

Without knowing much more, I am slightly skeptical of the recording being inadmissible based only on the reports in the news and which appear to originate from the defendants side of the argument. One thing I also found a little interesting, though don't want to read into it too much, is that there seems to be no denial that what she said wasn't untrue and the defense, at least to the press, seems to be it was a private meeting and the tape is inadmissible. Just surprised there are no comments saying she did her job accurately by informing the investor in a fair and truthful way of the risks of investing in this company.

Again, can't trust everything we read, but the defense we've read is kind of like having people who are close to a person accused of drunk driving making statements about how the alcohol blood testing machine wasn't calibrated recently and that the road the car was on was a private road but not denying anything about the driver not being drunk. Sure these facts may help get the person off but it doesn't tell us if the person was actually drunk and driving.

Who has more control over media on this and what would be medias agenda. No prudent lawyer defending her or her firm should comment on case with an ongoing criminal investigation as such is unethical in civilized judicial systems.

Yes a lawyer saying his client is innocent is unheard of before trial

And, I never suggested the media had an agenda. Even though most of the reports I've read are coming out of Australia, the defendants home country, it was simply a point of what I thought was common knowledge in that the media often get things wrong or are missing information ... especially in a story like this where only one side's statements are being printed and it doesn't appear anyone has investigated what was said and what is in the charges.

After reading your racist type posts about your supposed ex farang wife and how all whites really want to be black I understand where you bias and closed mindedness stem. Nevertheless, if you actually look into the reports on thus company you will see th board's action are causing a lot of damage to your average Joe blow Thai investors who are clueless as to how to deal with such actions by the board. Thus lady who you apparently condemn was offering a solution to help the Thai investors stop losing money, but the board apparently has something to hide and prefers to use other tactics to remain in charge.

Your inability to see this for what it is, is exactly the type if problem that keeps Thailand well behind the economic curve of civilized countries. Demonize who you want but the fact is this board's actions resulted in suspension from SET/SEC and economic damages to it's current Thai investors who should have been making large profits with the current precious metal market.

Candidly, the more I read the more I am absolutely amazed that such actions could occur at this level in a publically traded company without anyone having the ability to remove the board and fix the problem. My opinion is not entirely misinformed as I have practiced law in firms that had huge international transactional departments in Dubai, Homg Kong, Singapore, Sydney, and Moscow among other offices. This us on level with what one might expect in Russia in certain circumstances which is why companies like Walmart have been so cautious to enter such markets.

[Nisa]

After reading your racist type posts about your supposed ex farang wife and how all whites really want to be black I understand where you bias and closed mindedness stem. Nevertheless, if you actually look into the reports on thus company you will see <snip> ...

As a claimed lawyer, it is surprising you seem to miss some obvious facts such as my never referring to an ex farang wife and never saying whites want to be black as well as your statements here and on another thread that I am anything but a farang.

But more on topic ... The information about this company that is publicly available to any interested investor has nothing to do, as far as we know, with these defamation charges as we don't know what the women said to the investor. We might also consider that the defamation charges have nothing to do with the business but rather were comments made about this man personally since he no longer a director at the company and it is not the company who filed the charges but rather him personally.

By the way, I am not a lawyer.

[ttelise]

After reading your racist type posts about your supposed ex farang wife and how all whites really want to be black I understand where you bias and closed mindedness stem. Nevertheless, if you actually look into the reports on thus company you will see <snip> ...

As a claimed lawyer, it is surprising you seem to miss some obvious facts such as my never referring to an ex farang wife and never saying whites want to be black as well as your statements here and on another thread that I am anything but a farang.

But more on topic ... The information about this company that is publicly available to any interested investor has nothing to do, as far as we know, with these defamation charges as we don't know what the women said to the investor. We might also consider that the defamation charges have nothing to do with the business but rather were comments made about this man personally since he no longer a director at the company and it is not the company who filed the charges but rather him personally.

By the way, I am not a lawyer.

What comments did she make about him personally? Did they relate to his actions of running the business into the ground, millions of dollars missing, gross mismanagement, fraudulently concealing the liabilities of the company, or did it concern money he may owe the company or investors? Or did she defame him on a personal level by saying he has a small penis or his breathe stinks?

Back to the point. If Thailand has a law that defines criminal defamation as a statement between two parties, i.e., not public, that is potentially injurious to one party regardless of veracity, such law would be unconstitutional as overly broad, vague or arbitrary in application. The law has arbitrary application because potentially anyone or everyone could be subjected to criminal prosecution regardless of intent or veracity of the statement.

This is like saying breathing is criminal and then only using the law to threaten your competitors or for those that don't align with something like political views.

Please tell me another country that would have such a law on their books.

Now if she went public and said he was a thief or misapporpuated funds when funds were really just lost through bad management, then perhaps she should be charged. This did not happen.

[Nisa]

Back to the point. If Thailand has a law that defines criminal defamation as a statement between two parties, i.e., not public, that is potentially injurious to one party regardless of veracity, such law would be unconstitutional as overly broad, vague or arbitrary in application. The law has arbitrary application because potentially anyone or everyone could be subjected to criminal prosecution regardless of intent or veracity of the statement.

So, a statement made in private by one person to another shouldn't ever be considered defamation even if those comments are untrue and hurt a third party?!??!? Are you really a lawyer? And if you suggestion that there were only two people (the accused and the plaintiff) that were part of this conversation then you are wrong. There is absolutely nothing in this story to say this man is claiming he was defamed by something the accused said solely to him. It has made clear the potential investor was privileged to the comments. And regardless if comments are made to a single person or the public in large forum or during a private or public meeting has nothing to do with if comments rise to defamation or slander,

By the way, Criminal Defamation is applicable in many countries ... including some states in the US.

[simple1]

Thai penal Code (English tranlation) Defamation is covered in Chapter 3

http://www.thailandlawonline.com/Laws/criminal-law-thailand-penal-code.html

[Nisa]

Thai penal Code (English tranlation) Defamation is covered in Chapter 3

http://www.thailandl...penal-code.html

from the link ...

OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION

Section 326 Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely toimpair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated orscorned, is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment notexceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both.

Section 327 Whoever, imputing any thing the deceased person before the third person, and thatimputation to be likely to impair the reputation of the father, mother, spouse or child of thedeceased or to expose that person hated or scammed to be said to commit defamation, andshall be punished as prescribed by Section 326.

Section 328 If the offence of defamation be committed by means of publication of a document, drawing,painting, cinematography film, picture or letters made visible by any means, gramophonerecord or an other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting orspreading picture, or by propagation by any other means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years and fined not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht.

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.

Section 331 The party in a case or party's lawyer expressing opinion or statement in the proceeding ofthe Court in favor of his case shall not be offence of defamation.

Section 332 In case of defamation in which judgment is given that the accused is guilty, the Court maygive order:

• To seize and destroy the defamatory matter or part thereof;
  
• To publish the whole or part of the judgment in one or more newspapers once orseveral times at the expense of the accused.
  

Section 333 The offences in this Chapter are compoundable offences.If the injured person in the defamation dies before making a complaint, the father, mother,spouse or child of the deceased may ma ke a complaint, and it shall be deemed that suchperson is the injured person.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Nisa

[chooka]

While the laws regarding taping of conversations and their admissibility in Australia are interesting, I'd be more curious of the same laws related to Thailand since this didn't happen in Australia and the laws there are completely irrelevant to this case. In fact, probably something people need to remind themselves in terms of laws in your homeland pretty much being irrelevant when in another country.

I think that question was asked earlier but no one seems to have an answer (Thai laws regarding recording private conversations)

Without knowing much more, I am slightly skeptical of the recording being inadmissible based only on the reports in the news and which appear to originate from the defendants side of the argument. One thing I also found a little interesting, though don't want to read into it too much, is that there seems to be no denial that what she said wasn't untrue and the defense, at least to the press, seems to be it was a private meeting and the tape is inadmissible. Just surprised there are no comments saying she did her job accurately by informing the investor in a fair and truthful way of the risks of investing in this company.

Again, can't trust everything we read, but the defense we've read is kind of like having people who are close to a person accused of drunk driving making statements about how the alcohol blood testing machine wasn't calibrated recently and that the road the car was on was a private road but not denying anything about the driver not being drunk. Sure these facts may help get the person off but it doesn't tell us if the person was actually drunk and driving.

She is fighting the allegations, I think that is denial. If she was admitting the allegations then she would probably get a fine and deported and she wouldn't be held in Thailand on bail. Yep I would say she is denying the allegations. It is quite common for defendants and thier council to decline comment in criminal matters that are before the courts.

[Baloo22]

Who has more control over media on this and what would be medias agenda. No prudent lawyer defending her or her firm should comment on case with an ongoing criminal investigation as such is unethical in civilized judicial systems.

The problem is that this event is NOT taking place in a country with a civilized judicial system. It is happening in Thailand.

[Nisa]

While the laws regarding taping of conversations and their admissibility in Australia are interesting, I'd be more curious of the same laws related to Thailand since this didn't happen in Australia and the laws there are completely irrelevant to this case. In fact, probably something people need to remind themselves in terms of laws in your homeland pretty much being irrelevant when in another country.

I think that question was asked earlier but no one seems to have an answer (Thai laws regarding recording private conversations)

Without knowing much more, I am slightly skeptical of the recording being inadmissible based only on the reports in the news and which appear to originate from the defendants side of the argument. One thing I also found a little interesting, though don't want to read into it too much, is that there seems to be no denial that what she said wasn't untrue and the defense, at least to the press, seems to be it was a private meeting and the tape is inadmissible. Just surprised there are no comments saying she did her job accurately by informing the investor in a fair and truthful way of the risks of investing in this company.

Again, can't trust everything we read, but the defense we've read is kind of like having people who are close to a person accused of drunk driving making statements about how the alcohol blood testing machine wasn't calibrated recently and that the road the car was on was a private road but not denying anything about the driver not being drunk. Sure these facts may help get the person off but it doesn't tell us if the person was actually drunk and driving.

She is fighting the allegations, I think that is denial. If she was admitting the allegations then she would probably get a fine and deported and she wouldn't be held in Thailand on bail. Yep I would say she is denying the allegations. It is quite common for defendants and thier council to decline comment in criminal matters that are before the courts.

You are somewhat missing the point. Her people are the ones where this story came from and how have have spoke. I haven't seen this in the Thai news or any news reports not based on Australia news article. I also have not only seen comments from Thai Police or the Plaintiff or anyone connected with them.

She also has not had an opportunity to make any plea (guilty or not guilty) in this matter yet. It should also be noted the majority of trials (in just about all places) the person is found guilty and they are not fighting because they didn't do anything wrong but because the simply thing they can beat a charge(s) .. and there is nothing wrong or illegal about this. It also happens that people plead guilty who are innocent because they think they can't get off.

I made clear we shouldn't read too much into this for a number of reasons (but lets not distort reality to prevent even considering) but as I said, I simply found it interesting that it seemed most of the insinuated defense is about the tape of what she said not being admissible and it being a private meeting. Sure this is obviously a suggestion the charges are without merit but haven't seen anyone saying that she never said anything untruthful about the plaintiff while doing her job investigating him ... in fact there is even another legal argument (not she didn't say something wrong/untrue) I read later that originated from her husband ...

‘‘Clare is deeply distressed by the position she finds herself in, facing a charge of criminal defamation that

her Thai lawyers advise is totally unfounded

.'

Again .. shouldn't read too much into this but just interesting to consider. If my wife didn't do anything then I would be saying that and not saying the lawyers say she didn't break the law. Consider too this women is an lawyer and has been doing business in Thailand for 10-years.

If I was forced to guess what happened given the very limited and one sided info out there, I would guess this women said something she shouldn't have but that she will likely get off or have the charges dropped because it was a mistake and not done in a manner to purposely cause this person harm and/or she will apologize to the other party and make things right before this gets to a trial. I just don't think this guy is looking for compensation or punishment and don't believe there is a lot to be had or that there was any significant damage done to the plaintiff by the defendant.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Nisa

[TheyCallmeScooter]

She is fighting the allegations, I think that is denial. If she was admitting the allegations then she would probably get a fine and deported and she wouldn't be held in Thailand on bail. Yep I would say she is denying the allegations. It is quite common for defendants and thier council to decline comment in criminal matters that are before the courts.

But I don't understand; if the only evidence is inadmissible, of course she'd deny. What am I missing?

I made clear we shouldn't read too much into this for a number of reasons (but lets not distort reality to prevent even considering) but as I said, I simply found it interesting that it seemed most of the insinuated defense is about the tape of what she said not being admissible and it being a private meeting. Sure this is obviously a suggestion the charges are without merit but haven't seen anyone saying that she never said anything untruthful about the plaintiff while doing her job investigating him ... in fact there is even another legal argument (not she didn't say something wrong/untrue) I read later that originated from her husband ...

‘‘Clare is deeply distressed by the position she finds herself in, facing a charge of criminal defamation that

her Thai lawyers advise is totally unfounded

.'

Again .. shouldn't read too much into this but just interesting to consider. If my wife didn't do anything then I would be saying that and not saying the lawyers say she didn't break the law. Consider too this women is an lawyer and has been doing business in Thailand for 10-years.

If I was forced to guess what happened given the very limited and one sided info out there, I would guess this women said something she shouldn't have but that she will likely get off or have the charges dropped because it was a mistake and not done in a manner to purposely cause this person harm and/or she will apologize to the other party and make things right before this gets to a trial. I just don't think this guy is looking for compensation or punishment and don't believe there is a lot to be had or that there was any significant damage done to the plaintiff by the defendant.

I've been following this thread closely and I completely concur with the above. If she was just doing due diligence, her husband would have said something like:

"Clare is deeply distressed by the position she's been placed in, facing a charge of criminal defamation just for doing her job well and uncovering shady business practices" ....or something like that.

Nisa is onto something; you only have to look at the language he used. It seems obvious to me?

I can't help but feel something bigger is going on here, and she's caught up in it. Business can get pretty cut-throat at times.