Singaporean Suffering The Same Fate As Lee Chestnutt?: Thailand

[manarak]

I'm quite certain they could leave the country if they deposited some millions in a sequestrated Thai bank account to cover potential fines and damages while continuing to fight in absentia through their lawyer.

I wouldn't let someone leave the country either if I had a foreigner rent a flat from me and left without paying the damages.

[Para]

My goodness, why go to all the trouble? Just have a GF sign the rental/lease docs.

This is what I have always done and is very sound advice.

A Thai will never bother chasing another Thai for money......

I'm quite certain they could leave the country if they deposited some millions in a sequestrated Thai bank account to cover potential fines and damages while continuing to fight in absentia through their lawyer.

manarak to leave the country during a court case requires the court to issue you with a 'permission to travel' document and depending on your case even when you have achieved a not guilty at the criminal courts is not easy even with additional bond being offered as security.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Para

[SLESQ]

and every BF/GF can be fully trusted to be faithful and honor her BF's lease... yay! I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you guys!

[moe666]

and every BF/GF can be fully trusted to be faithful and honor her BF's lease... yay! I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you guys!

If the lease doesn't work out I guess the rest of the relationship is on the rocks as well

[manarak]

I'm quite certain they could leave the country if they deposited some millions in a sequestrated Thai bank account to cover potential fines and damages while continuing to fight in absentia through their lawyer.

manarak to leave the country during a court case requires the court to issue you with a 'permission to travel' document and depending on your case even when you have achieved a not guilty at the criminal courts is not easy even with additional bond being offered as security.

In criminal cases this is true, but in cases like this one where it's only about damaged property, posting a bong high enough to cover all proceeedings, potential damages and fines should be enough to be able to travel.

[A_Traveller]

Just to note that according to the reports ,at least originally, the charges were indeed Criminal Damage. Also in interviews given the night before the last hearing when they were acquitted [again] it was again stated that there was a risk of a custodial sentence.

So as stated above a "permission to leave" would therefore be required.

Regards

Edited January 23, 2013 by A_Traveller

[Para]

In criminal cases this is true, but in cases like this one where it's only about damaged property, posting a bong high enough to cover all proceeedings, potential damages and fines should be enough to be able to travel.

My knowledge is in criminal not civil law thank you for letting me know.

Just to note that according to the reports ,at least originally, the charges were indeed Criminal Damage. Also in interviews given the night before the last hearing when they were acquitted [again] it was again stated that there was a risk of a custodial sentence.

So as stated above a "permission to leave" would therefore be required.

I think the line between this being a criminal case or a civil case is very blurred I guess only the 2 guys involved really know.

[A_Traveller]

Given that as I understand it this matter was raised by the British family's Member of Parliament in the UK and represented to the Thai government, I would find it unlikely that this was therefore "simply" a civil case.

As an aside I have no special knowledge about this case apart from what I've read.

So, of course, I may be in error.

Regards

[Remix4]

Given that as I understand it this matter was raised by the British family's Member of Parliament in the UK and represented to the Thai government, I would find it unlikely that this was therefore "simply" a civil case.

As an aside I have no special knowledge about this case apart from what I've read.

So, of course, I may be in error.

Regards

Correct this is a criminal case.

Originally 2 charges - theft & criminal damage

Acquitted of both charges and prosecution only appealed criminal damage charge

1st appeal - acquitted of criminal damage charge

Now prosecution trying to appeal criminal damage charge to Supreme Court

[Lancelot]

Hmmmm, maybe being detained for furniture "damages" is the new Jet Ski scam- and legal to boot

I can see it now, a 15 year old picture tube type TV is supposedly "damaged: and the Landlord requires 20,000 baht to replace it with a new flat screen plasma type TV.

Can you say Depreciation?

Umm, I guess not

[Lancelot]

By the by, would a Thai view a Singaporean as a falang?

Depends on the potential monentary gain to be had

[Para]

Given that as I understand it this matter was raised by the British family's Member of Parliament in the UK and represented to the Thai government, I would find it unlikely that this was therefore "simply" a civil case.

As an aside I have no special knowledge about this case apart from what I've read.

So, of course, I may be in error.

Regards

Correct this is a criminal case.

Originally 2 charges - theft & criminal damage

Acquitted of both charges and prosecution only appealed criminal damage charge

1st appeal - acquitted of criminal damage charge

Now prosecution trying to appeal criminal damage charge to Supreme Court

Remix4 now I am confused.

I thought this had only been heard by the criminal court and that they missed the 30 day appeal court window hence the landlord appealing to the supreme court for an extension to take it to the appeal court?

Did the appeal court up hold the criminal courts decision or is it simply they missed the 30 day appeal window?

[Remix4]

Given that as I understand it this matter was raised by the British family's Member of Parliament in the UK and represented to the Thai government, I would find it unlikely that this was therefore "simply" a civil case.

As an aside I have no special knowledge about this case apart from what I've read.

So, of course, I may be in error.

Regards

Correct this is a criminal case.

Originally 2 charges - theft & criminal damage

Acquitted of both charges and prosecution only appealed criminal damage charge

1st appeal - acquitted of criminal damage charge

Now prosecution trying to appeal criminal damage charge to Supreme Court

Remix4 now I am confused.

I thought this had only been heard by the criminal court and that they missed the 30 day appeal court window hence the landlord appealing to the supreme court for an extension to take it to the appeal court?

Did the appeal court up hold the criminal courts decision or is it simply they missed the 30 day appeal window?

No - it's gone through to the 1st appeal court already, which took 2 years.

The 1st appeal court upheld the first court's verdict - not guilty on the 4th Dec 2012

Basically he is trying to appeal it a 2nd time to the Supreme Court

Obviously 2 not guilties is not enough and the accused require 3 in order to finally leave!

Edited January 25, 2013 by Remix4

[jbrain]

I'm quite certain they could leave the country if they deposited some millions in a sequestrated Thai bank account to cover potential fines and damages while continuing to fight in absentia through their lawyer.

manarak to leave the country during a court case requires the court to issue you with a 'permission to travel' document and depending on your case even when you have achieved a not guilty at the criminal courts is not easy even with additional bond being offered as security.

In criminal cases this is true, but in cases like this one where it's only about damaged property, posting a bong high enough to cover all proceeedings, potential damages and fines should be enough to be able to travel.

But you forgot that this is the land of extortion.

[Para]

No - it's gone through to the 1st appeal court already, which took 2 years.

The 1st appeal court upheld the first court's verdict - not guilty on the 4th Dec 2012

Basically he is trying to appeal it a 2nd time to the Supreme Court

Obviously 2 not guilties is not enough and the accused require 3 in order to finally leave!

Remix4 thank you for clearing that up.

As far as I understand the criminal law you have been found not guilty twice thats it game over. he has no grounds to try for a second appeal at the supreme court.

Its BS stalling tactics that will can not be endorsed by the supreme court.

IMO Lee Chestnutt and his partner just have to keep their heads down and give it a couple of weeks......

[tominbkk]

Who doesn't believe that this story is all about abuse of power and undue influence in an attempt to extort money from foreigners?

Or maybe he and his friend trashed the guy's house and tried to get away without paying for what they ruined. Might be able to get away with it most of the time, but they ended up fracking with the wrong landlord!

[tominbkk]

Stay aware from any business arrangement with Thais. Buyer beware!

Or, please don't try to rip off your Thai biz partner and flee the country.

[Para]

Or maybe he and his friend trashed the guy's house and tried to get away without paying for what they ruined. Might be able to get away with it most of the time, but they ended up fracking with the wrong landlord!

Whilst I don't doubt there are some that do that in this case they have been found not guilty in both the criminal court and appeal court so its pretty safe to say they were not the ones in the wrong.....