Defamation suit hits veteran BBC correspondent for reports on fraud

[Jools]

If Thailand are so worried about what the outside world thinks , maybe they should just disconnect Internet and become N-Korea so all of us would leave for good.

The best, and most succinct post on this subject that I have seen. This needs to happen.

[spidermike007]

Anytime a journalist is treated in this fashion, it is a dangerous and very negative precedent, that is terrible for society. Defamation is nothing more than a cowards attempt to avoid being forced to face truth, and to be made to deal with his shortcomings. Rather than introspect, show humility, man up, take responsibility, and do the right thing, cowards like Thanarak use the defamation and libel laws here, to avoid blame, and to deflect. It is an act of a small man, who is fearful of truth, and often the act of criminals, who use libel as a shield against whistle blowers, and people who have been defrauded.

Jonathan Head is an excellent journalist, and the ultimate motivation here is to prevent the journalistic community from investigating guilty parties, and calling them out. This stinks. Fear mongering is something small men do, when they are guilty of something, and fear being busted for it.

The libel acts in Thailand are in drastic need of reform. Yesterday. Today. It is time for Thai society to mature, and to acknowledge how heinous these laws are.

[ridkun]

Ah, great. Being a reporter and holding "freedom of speech" sword and you can accuse pretty much anybody.

Why doesn't that country who championed "freedom of speech" eliminate their defamation law once and for all? Accusing someone outside the court can land you a defamation lawsuit, it is true all over the world not just for reporters and not just in Thailand.

[gamini]

As they say a fool and his money are easily parted …needless to say there are many mathe worstny fools in Thailand, they burnt me once, but never again …I give this country nothing

I shudder when is see people paying 10, 20, 30+ million for a house

the worst scammers in the real estate business here in my experience are farangs. My wife and I have bought and sold dozens of properties and condos to and from Thais with never a problem. We only had problems when dealing with Farangs.

Cant think why you shudder when people buy expensive houses. It is a good investment. I give this country everything, unlike you.

[stickylies]

Sadly, every day, people in popular Thai tourist destinations, part with money for property that is systematically being watched and targeted for removal from the owners by illicit means.

This is the big take away from this story. Don't invest in property in Thailand!

Slight correction: don't invest in thailand, period. It's a banana republic on too many levels no matter what the country itself thinks about itself. However, it is great to rent a place for 5000thb/month and enjoy the good things around here.

[pistachios]

At least, even if he wins the case, the lawyer will suffer bad publicity, as this story will appear in first page when googling him. I had never heard of him before, even having followed the phuket scam stories. Ironic that his own defamation case will actually "defame" him even more.

[candide]

The guy doesn't realise that, by doing so, he is further promoting his bad reputation. I guess many people did not notice or remember this interview, and he is now attracting again their attention on it.

[bendejo]

I would say that Mr Thanarak has faith in the Thai legal system.

[elgordo38]

A good offence is always a good defense. It also helps when your playing on your home turf, know the game and the officials and how they officiate. This is an All Star case and if the home team wins it should go a long way to intimidate others who think they can come here with their fancy ideas of how Thailand should be run. Another exemplary case is the Natural fruit case. Foreigners must be taught that their playing by Thai rules in Thailand and their high flautin Western ideas of justice carry no weight/water here. Thailand is an "island" unto itself justice wise. Just when you think you will win you loose. Its like a game of 3 card Monte.

[elgordo38]

It is illegal for a foreigner to own land. A fact.

It is illegal to use nominees to own land. Another fact.

Buying land for a spouse means gifting the money to the spouse. Another fact.

How did the foreigner suffer fraud?

Always remember men come equipped with 2 heads. We have a north/south way of thinking even the most clever and richest of men sometimes let their guard down or let their thinking go south. The big head does all the heavy lifting while the small head listens for the "Sirens song" The little head can become like a hypnotized cobra when the right tune is played. Its amazing also what a little petting can do. Men have a tendency to "sacrifice their all" for love its well a defective part or gene in our makeup. Women know our weaknesses and although we like to think we are the superior species we are not. Knock out punches can be delivered in many different ways. A beautiful/wiley woman can reduce us to putty in her hands. For the sake of fair disclosure I have been married 3 times so I speak from experience.

[tomross46]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

[MorristheRunt]

If Thailand are so worried about what the outside world thinks , maybe they should just disconnect Internet and become N-Korea so all of us would leave for good.

Some beleive that plan has begun in ernest already.

[mrrizzla]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

Got proof?

[gemguy]

Ah, great. Being a reporter and holding "freedom of speech" sword and you can accuse pretty much anybody.

Why doesn't that country who championed "freedom of speech" eliminate their defamation law once and for all? Accusing someone outside the court can land you a defamation lawsuit, it is true all over the world not just for reporters and not just in Thailand.

As noted before: The defamation and libel laws are more or less custom suited for the wealthy or the elite or the influential and over all those that can financially afford to have the lawsuit run its course.

The Libel and Defamation of Character laws are more or less used as a means of revenge that can be applied at their discretion rather than substantiating any meaningful substance to their allegations of supposed ( and yet to be proven ) damage done to them or their family or property or business

If a poor or middle class person was to launch a substantiated and totally legitimate libel lawsuit against a wealthy or influential person or someone of recognized social status or say a public figure such as the mayor of a city or council person etc. ....then how far do you think that particular lawsuit would go before the case was rejected or kyboshed ??....even if there was enough money available to be applied towards the lawsuit by the poor or middle class person to retain a lawyer and attempt to sue for defamation of character.

Meantime, the relevant information and or any known incriminating facts about the person or persons wrong doings previously revealed or exposed to the pubic, does not magically disappear because the angered plaintiff sues for libel or defamation and wins the case, if that is the outcome, rather the laws are sustained by the judicial system resulting in an underlying means to control the masses of people from criticizing anyone of said to be respected social status which covers a pretty broad range of people of importance that are further shielded from public scrutiny or public criticism...and certainly a meddling foreigner journalist

In other words...those laws seldom ever work for the common people but work well for the deemed to be or believed to be untouchables in Thai society.

Cheers

[Puccini]

Seems he's got a good case. Skip to about minute 6:30. Scary.

He who? Are you saying that the man who has filed the defamation suit, the lawyer Pratuan Thanarak, has a good case?

[MZurf]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

5555! It's drivel like this that makes me enjoy TVF

[Balance]

These Byzantine libel and slander laws are sitting in a spot that precisely protects the rich and connected at the expense of proper investigative journalism. In most of the western world, it is the Press that is the tip of the spear regarding finding, documenting and helping to root out business and government corruption.

It would seem to me that the current government would welcome these activities by legitimate journalists. Don't you think?

[Johnniey]

As they say a fool and his money are easily parted …needless to say there are many many fools in Thailand, they burnt me once, but never again …I give this country nothing

I shudder when is see people paying 10, 20, 30+ million for a house

Why, I bought one a few years ago having been married for 26 years a the time and with 4 kids who will inherit it.

Or maybe this has something to do with the people you hang around with.

[GinBoy2]

There have been many posts by esteemed posters on TVF decrying the quality of Thai journalism.

But ask yourself why an Thai would ever want to become a 'true' investigative reporter?

They know a heck of a lot better than we do what defamation and LM claims can do to destroy your life.

The fact that so much corruption, corporate, government, you name it, goes un punished is in good part to the lack of a truly free and independent press, constrained not only by LM & defamation, but now with an added Junta supplied frosting of repression.

The likelihood of a Woodward & Bernstein appearing anywhere in the Thai press is about as likely as pigs flying out of Prayuth's ass

[simonuk]

Another example of why the Thais are not free . The Laws exist only to protect the rich and influential so they can steal and exploit the masses.

[ridkun]

Ah, great. Being a reporter and holding "freedom of speech" sword and you can accuse pretty much anybody.

Why doesn't that country who championed "freedom of speech" eliminate their defamation law once and for all? Accusing someone outside the court can land you a defamation lawsuit, it is true all over the world not just for reporters and not just in Thailand.

As noted before: The defamation and libel laws are more or less custom suited for the wealthy or the elite or the influential and over all those that can financially afford to have the lawsuit run its course.

The Libel and Defamation of Character laws are more or less used as a means of revenge that can be applied at their discretion rather than substantiating any meaningful substance to their allegations of supposed ( and yet to be proven ) damage done to them or their family or property or business

If a poor or middle class person was to launch a substantiated and totally legitimate libel lawsuit against a wealthy or influential person or someone of recognized social status or say a public figure such as the mayor of a city or council person etc. ....then how far do you think that particular lawsuit would go before the case was rejected or kyboshed ??....even if there was enough money available to be applied towards the lawsuit by the poor or middle class person to retain a lawyer and attempt to sue for defamation of character.

Meantime, the relevant information and or any known incriminating facts about the person or persons wrong doings previously revealed or exposed to the pubic, does not magically disappear because the angered plaintiff sues for libel or defamation and wins the case, if that is the outcome, rather the laws are sustained by the judicial system resulting in an underlying means to control the masses of people from criticizing anyone of said to be respected social status which covers a pretty broad range of people of importance that are further shielded from public scrutiny or public criticism...and certainly a meddling foreigner journalist

In other words...those laws seldom ever work for the common people but work well for the deemed to be or believed to be untouchables in Thai society.

Cheers

Please name me a country that you can file a lawsuit for free, or a country which have better defamation law than Thailand. We need good example.

[gemguy]

They will do anything to stop "Freedom of speech"

Freedom of speech has its limitations.

You cannot just go around saying what you like - if it is a pack of lies being told and this impacts on your life negatively in some way as a direct consequence of what was said, then that is not acceptable (even if you are a journalist or reporter). Many a life has been ruined through false accusations being made - even if they are proved to be wrong later, as here say has a habit of sticking and can follow you around for years.

What if you lose your business over someone spreading false rumors as to how it is being run (in terms of legality or morality for example) or you are wrongly accused of rape.

I'm afraid there are boundaries and rules when it comes to freedom of speech and rightly so.

Yes..Yes in deed ...but it is a 2 sided coin and what if it can be proven that the previous actions ( and for the record ) those actions of a person or persons caused harm and grief to another person or other people while that person or those people are publically exposing the harm and grief perpetrated by the party that is, in effect, claiming innocence of any wrong doing by way of a Defamation of Character law suit.

It is a legal means to say, in effect, that all of what has been alleged is not true and fight those allegations by launching a lawsuit against the person or persons alleging the wrong doing.

Problem is of course the law suit can and often does garner all the more public attention and public scrutiny on the plaintiff who may regret drawing all the attention to themselves or their company or family members and even their friends who get caught up in the media coverage.

According to the Tort Laws, usually it is required that the person alleging the wrong doing, having been previously and intentionally perpetrated by another person or person, while they must accept the onus of first proving that their public allegations are true or can be proven true.

Any reporter is subjected to or can subject themselves to the existing Tort Laws and can be held libel for what they publically print and publically state for the record.

Correct me if I am wrong on that.

The Tort Laws are quite broad and far reaching in many respects.

Now let us say I am a reporter and I am covering you and your businesses activities, which are in question and allegedly practicing fraudulent accounting practices and tax evasion activities within your corporate structure.

If I publically state in a news paper or any form of public media that you are laundering money and bribing tax officials to ignore significant revenues so you do not pay taxes on those revenues, then you could sue me for defamation of character.

Why, because I am publically insinuating that you are involved in and or perpetrating criminal practices.

If the deliberate public exposure creates any number of ramifications that negatively effects you or your family or your business or your well being and or endanger you or you family or your business then you have the right to sue me because what I have publically stated are only allegations until I prove the allegations to be fact and true.

The onus is on the person who has already alleged..... to prove the allegations are true.

Why?,,,Because another person could make up any kind of story about another person and claim it is true while the talk remains just gossip and hearsay until it is printed or broadcast publically and seen for the record and becomes widespread information amongst public where multiple people, as in thousands or potentially millions of people are influenced to believe you are a raging homosexual that likes little boys...for example...when that is totally false...but.... the damage or potential damage has been initiated.

Meantime the plaintiff has to prove to a reasonable degree that the libel law suit is justified because they have supposedly suffered, Or will suffer.... to an extent, the ramifications of publically stated allegations of wrong doing ..what ever those allegations may be.

Often such law suits end in deadlock, more or less, because the person stating the allegations can not satisfactorily prove them to be true while the plaintiff can not prove that there has been a significant degree of damage or harm done by the allegations.....but... often enough the plaintiff is awarded ( because?? ) the record shows that the allegations were in fact publically stated ( often repeatedly ) and could potentially cause damage or grief and anxiety etc. to the plaintiff in any number of recognized ways so the courts tend to sympathize with the plaintiff.

Many reporters know they can be sued for libel but they have performed their job, so to speak, and know they have exposed a wrong doing or exposed people involved in practiced and perpetrated grievous illegal undertakings and hope that the accused will suffer the ramifications of the exposure.

Meantime, because I do not know yet, I would like to know what the penalties are for the defendant when the court decides in favor of the plaintiff.

Jail time maybe??......or some monetary compensation paid to the plaintiff....maybe????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

Cheers

[selftaopath]

As they say a fool and his money are easily parted …needless to say there are many many fools in Thailand, they burnt me once, but never again …I give this country nothing

I shudder when is see people paying 10, 20, 30+ million for a house

"As they say a fool, and his money are easily parted". What the? did you read the post? are you at all familiar with the story?

This bloke did everything right, and protected himself as far as possible, unfortunately his wife (possibly with help) found ways to relive him of his assets.

The lawyer that notarized the signature giving her power of attorney according to the story did so without the man standing in front of him and just notarized the signature anyway which I believe is not legal, and J. head pointed that out to him and he is being shown up for it and doesn't like it.

Now if the country wants to regain face on an international level then there really is only one thing it can do, the world is watching, and there are several high profile cases out there.

The only other way to not be ripped off is don't a home rent, BUT, there's plenty of stories out there of people renting and also being ripped off.

Land of Scans/ Lack of Sanctions = LOS

[lucky11]

They will do anything to stop "Freedom of speech"

Freedom of speech has its limitations.

You cannot just go around saying what you like - if it is a pack of lies being told and this impacts on your life negatively in some way as a direct consequence of what was said, then that is not acceptable (even if you are a journalist or reporter). Many a life has been ruined through false accusations being made - even if they are proved to be wrong later, as here say has a habit of sticking and can follow you around for years.

What if you lose your business over someone spreading false rumors as to how it is being run (in terms of legality or morality for example) or you are wrongly accused of rape.

I'm afraid there are boundaries and rules when it comes to freedom of speech and rightly so.

Yes..Yes in deed ...but it is a 2 sided coin and what if it can be proven that the previous actions ( and for the record ) those actions of a person or persons caused harm and grief to another person or other people while that person or those people are publically exposing the harm and grief perpetrated by the party that is, in effect, claiming innocence of any wrong doing by way of a Defamation of Character law suit.

It is a legal means to say, in effect, that all of what has been alleged is not true and fight those allegations by launching a lawsuit against the person or persons alleging the wrong doing.

Problem is of course the law suit can and often does garner all the more public attention and public scrutiny on the plaintiff who may regret drawing all the attention to themselves or their company or family members and even their friends who get caught up in the media coverage.

According to the Tort Laws, usually it is required that the person alleging the wrong doing, having been previously and intentionally perpetrated by another person or person, while they must accept the onus of first proving that their public allegations are true or can be proven true.

Any reporter is subjected to or can subject themselves to the existing Tort Laws and can be held libel for what they publically print and publically state for the record.

Correct me if I am wrong on that.

The Tort Laws are quite broad and far reaching in many respects.

Now let us say I am a reporter and I am covering you and your businesses activities, which are in question and allegedly practicing fraudulent accounting practices and tax evasion activities within your corporate structure.

If I publically state in a news paper or any form of public media that you are laundering money and bribing tax officials to ignore significant revenues so you do not pay taxes on those revenues, then you could sue me for defamation of character.

Why, because I am publically insinuating that you are involved in and or perpetrating criminal practices.

If the deliberate public exposure creates any number of ramifications that negatively effects you or your family or your business or your well being and or endanger you or you family or your business then you have the right to sue me because what I have publically stated are only allegations until I prove the allegations to be fact and true.

The onus is on the person who has already alleged..... to prove the allegations are true.

Why?,,,Because another person could make up any kind of story about another person and claim it is true while the talk remains just gossip and hearsay until it is printed or broadcast publically and seen for the record and becomes widespread information amongst public where multiple people, as in thousands or potentially millions of people are influenced to believe you are a raging homosexual that likes little boys...for example...when that is totally false...but.... the damage or potential damage has been initiated.

Meantime the plaintiff has to prove to a reasonable degree that the libel law suit is justified because they have supposedly suffered, Or will suffer.... to an extent, the ramifications of publically stated allegations of wrong doing ..what ever those allegations may be.

Often such law suits end in deadlock, more or less, because the person stating the allegations can not satisfactorily prove them to be true while the plaintiff can not prove that there has been a significant degree of damage or harm done by the allegations.....but... often enough the plaintiff is awarded ( because?? ) the record shows that the allegations were in fact publically stated ( often repeatedly ) and could potentially cause damage or grief and anxiety etc. to the plaintiff in any number of recognized ways so the courts tend to sympathize with the plaintiff.

Many reporters know they can be sued for libel but they have performed their job, so to speak, and know they have exposed a wrong doing or exposed people involved in practiced and perpetrated grievous illegal undertakings and hope that the accused will suffer the ramifications of the exposure.

Meantime, because I do not know yet, I would like to know what the penalties are for the defendant when the court decides in favor of the plaintiff.

Jail time maybe??......or some monetary compensation paid to the plaintiff....maybe????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

Cheers

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. I assume you are......but there again.

[does]

Jayboy, since you descended into an over the top rant of angry insults, I rest my case. Good luck with your struggle casting Thailand in to your own (Western?) image. But try to do so without insulting those who disagree with your views.

[stickylies]

It is illegal for a foreigner to own land. A fact.

It is illegal to use nominees to own land. Another fact.

Buying land for a spouse means gifting the money to the spouse. Another fact.

How did the foreigner suffer fraud?

Always remember men come equipped with 2 heads. We have a north/south way of thinking even the most clever and richest of men sometimes let their guard down or let their thinking go south. The big head does all the heavy lifting while the small head listens for the "Sirens song" The little head can become like a hypnotized cobra when the right tune is played. Its amazing also what a little petting can do. Men have a tendency to "sacrifice their all" for love its well a defective part or gene in our makeup. Women know our weaknesses and although we like to think we are the superior species we are not. Knock out punches can be delivered in many different ways. A beautiful/wiley woman can reduce us to putty in her hands. For the sake of fair disclosure I have been married 3 times so I speak from experience.

some men u mean. this man was never married, never bought a ring/sinsod, never impregnated any XX chromo, ... and i'm not gay

common sense keeps me going when dealing with other humans.

oh and i don't believe in love when it concerns thai women ;-)

[gemguy]

Ah, great. Being a reporter and holding "freedom of speech" sword and you can accuse pretty much anybody.

Why doesn't that country who championed "freedom of speech" eliminate their defamation law once and for all? Accusing someone outside the court can land you a defamation lawsuit, it is true all over the world not just for reporters and not just in Thailand.

As noted before: The defamation and libel laws are more or less custom suited for the wealthy or the elite or the influential and over all those that can financially afford to have the lawsuit run its course.

The Libel and Defamation of Character laws are more or less used as a means of revenge that can be applied at their discretion rather than substantiating any meaningful substance to their allegations of supposed ( and yet to be proven ) damage done to them or their family or property or business

If a poor or middle class person was to launch a substantiated and totally legitimate libel lawsuit against a wealthy or influential person or someone of recognized social status or say a public figure such as the mayor of a city or council person etc. ....then how far do you think that particular lawsuit would go before the case was rejected or kyboshed ??....even if there was enough money available to be applied towards the lawsuit by the poor or middle class person to retain a lawyer and attempt to sue for defamation of character.

Meantime, the relevant information and or any known incriminating facts about the person or persons wrong doings previously revealed or exposed to the pubic, does not magically disappear because the angered plaintiff sues for libel or defamation and wins the case, if that is the outcome, rather the laws are sustained by the judicial system resulting in an underlying means to control the masses of people from criticizing anyone of said to be respected social status which covers a pretty broad range of people of importance that are further shielded from public scrutiny or public criticism...and certainly a meddling foreigner journalist

In other words...those laws seldom ever work for the common people but work well for the deemed to be or believed to be untouchables in Thai society.

Cheers

Please name me a country that you can file a lawsuit for free, or a country which have better defamation law than Thailand. We need good example.

You can look that up yourself.

Meantime, the difference is seen in how many defamation lawsuits are accepted verses defamation lawsuits that are rejected by the courts.

The difference is there is a more practiced degree of scrutinizing the validity of the defamation law suit(s) while someone of authority has the sensibility to reject a much higher percent of the defamation lawsuits because they are obviously frivolous and unworthy of going to court.

But here in Thailand??? ...Well.......Need I say more.

Cheers

[MZurf]

Ah, great. Being a reporter and holding "freedom of speech" sword and you can accuse pretty much anybody.

Why doesn't that country who championed "freedom of speech" eliminate their defamation law once and for all? Accusing someone outside the court can land you a defamation lawsuit, it is true all over the world not just for reporters and not just in Thailand.

As noted before: The defamation and libel laws are more or less custom suited for the wealthy or the elite or the influential and over all those that can financially afford to have the lawsuit run its course.

The Libel and Defamation of Character laws are more or less used as a means of revenge that can be applied at their discretion rather than substantiating any meaningful substance to their allegations of supposed ( and yet to be proven ) damage done to them or their family or property or business

If a poor or middle class person was to launch a substantiated and totally legitimate libel lawsuit against a wealthy or influential person or someone of recognized social status or say a public figure such as the mayor of a city or council person etc. ....then how far do you think that particular lawsuit would go before the case was rejected or kyboshed ??....even if there was enough money available to be applied towards the lawsuit by the poor or middle class person to retain a lawyer and attempt to sue for defamation of character.

Meantime, the relevant information and or any known incriminating facts about the person or persons wrong doings previously revealed or exposed to the pubic, does not magically disappear because the angered plaintiff sues for libel or defamation and wins the case, if that is the outcome, rather the laws are sustained by the judicial system resulting in an underlying means to control the masses of people from criticizing anyone of said to be respected social status which covers a pretty broad range of people of importance that are further shielded from public scrutiny or public criticism...and certainly a meddling foreigner journalist

In other words...those laws seldom ever work for the common people but work well for the deemed to be or believed to be untouchables in Thai society.

Cheers

Please name me a country that you can file a lawsuit for free, or a country which have better defamation law than Thailand. We need good example.

"...or a country which have better defamation law than Thailand."

And exactly how are the defamation laws in Thailand good??

Oh cr@p, I think I've just fed a troll.

[Asiantravel]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

oh okay! I will make a mental note of that for the future. BBC world reporters always hang out with the bad guys ! duh !

[Adeeos]

Aren't laws in Thailand quite clear?

You can't own a house.

He bought a house.

I could be wrong, but Yes, you CAN own a house,, you just can't own the land it's built on,, An Aussie friend is nearly finished with a huge home in Hui Hin,, His Thai wife owns the land, he owns the house,, He told me that it's common to do so, The wife signs a 99 yrs lease on the land to you, and she can't sell the land, "out from under it" while you own the 99 yr lease,,, To sell it?, the home owner has to sign the 99 yr lease over to the new owners since it's leased to HIM, (of course all must be agreeable to the Thai land owner I'm sure),, what sounds to me what happened, (from the video), is that she forged his signature on the "title" to the house, AND the 99 yr lease in his name, back to her, then had it notorized, then she technically owned both the land, AND the house.. which she then sold.. I think his battle, is to get it back from the current owners, (whom it was sold to using fraud), which probably assumed they were buying it free and clear, without the fraud, It was also mentioned that she was convicted of fraud, and was at that time in prison,, I don't remember if she was in prison for THIS fraud, or some other fraud. IF she was in prison for THIS particular fraud? it's even scarier, as Why in the WORLD couldn't he argue that, "You KNOW she committed the fraud in my case, YOU put her in prison for it!"...