Resort owner agrees to return land to state if it is found to encroach on park



BANGKOK: -- The owner of a resort in Koh Chang which collapsed early this month resulting in the death of one tourist has offered to return parts of the land which encroach on the national park to the state.

An agreement was signed today (Thursday) by Mr Boonchuey Kulsriworachai, owner of Siam Beach resort, Mr Veera Khunchairak, chief of Koh Chang islands national park, Trat province, Pol Col Arwat Pibulsawat, superintendent of Koh Chang police, under which Mr Boonchuey pledged to return parts of his 58-rai of land on the island to the state if it is proven later on that they encroach on the national park.

Mr Boonchuey told the media after the signing of the agreement that although the whole land plot was issued with Nor Sor Sam Kor and was owned by his father before the establishment of the national park in 1982, he was willing to return to the state the land which is proven to encroach on the park in order to set an example for the society not to encroach on state land and to help in the conservation of water catchment area.

The Siam Beach resort collapsed on June 4 due to substandard construction resulting in the death of one tourist. The incident led to an investigation of the owner’s land ownership.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/resort-owner-agrees-return-land-state-found-encroach-park/

-- Thai PBS 2016-06-17

How thoughtful.

Plea bargain?

But we stole that land before you created the park.

These translations are getting terrible, here's the corrected one:

"he was willing to return to the state the land which is proven to encroach on the park in order to ( set an example for the society not to encroach on state land ) ensure he is released on bail and serve zero jail time".

Edited June 17, 201610 yr by Tatsujin

Take it all off him and send him down for manslaughter.

The owner hasn't got much choice , however what about the death of the tourist in the building collapse , if that building encroached, criminal charges should be laid. Either way the building and all the others should be examined for illegal construction by a building inspector/engineer to ensure all the construction was up to building standards specifications............................................. .

...duhh...

How very generous of him.

The owner hasn't got much choice , however what about the death of the tourist in the building collapse , if that building encroached, criminal charges should be laid. Either way the building and all the others should be examined for illegal construction by a building inspector/engineer to ensure all the construction was up to building standards specifications............................................. .

He is looking for a get out of jail free card on all counts. If he looks like a model citizen maybe the building collapse charges will never materialize. Kind of reminds me of a fish out of watering wriggling on the ground.

Yes. How generous.

How about charging him with criminal negligence in the death of a tourist "due to [the] substandard construction" of his illegally built shacks?

Saves the army the trouble of demolishing the building.