Thai lawyer drops defamation suit against BBC reporter

[HHTel]

5 minutes ago, terryofcrete said:

“As the trial of his co-defendant is continuing we cannot comment any further “ said the BBC , so no publicity fir the time being.  

As has already been said, charges against both defendants have been dropped. 

[wakeupplease]

34 minutes ago, realenglish1 said:

And you still think its a good idea to own condos in Thailand ? 

Its not a good idea to be here but owning stuff is a big no no and that includes a car.

 

The country uses the CCA to stop Whistle blowing of corrupt people and is used by many by the looks of things as there are 50.000+ on going now all costing the state billions and the bib time, just make it a civil act and you will see corruption drop as the so called PM wants so he says.

 

If an idiot lawyer thinks he will not get his face in the news across the world and the island is not slagged off big time at the end of this case he has another thing coming, he and the country will be very big news but I guess those who cannot read English will still arrive for a couple of years then it will be all over as far as tourism is concerned as they are the last in the line.

[realenglish1]

This is what Thailand does not understand Tourists are fickle and the tourist trade can change overnight without warning

Lets see what happens 

[wgdanson]

7 hours ago, champers said:

Some good news, but now the BBC are out of the dock I hope they give the fullest possible coverage to Ian Rance. It is heartening that the BBC is funding his defence.

No, WE are funding his defence because WE fund the BBC.................don't we?

 

[Psimbo]

7 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

No, WE are funding his defence because WE fund the BBC.................don't we?

 

Is this the Royal 'We'- I don't fund the BBC, nor do may people who post here.

 

On the bright side either way I expect this arrogant lawyer will see a sharp decline in foreign clients.

[Psimbo]

1 hour ago, HHTel said:

As has already been said, charges against both defendants have been dropped. 

Edit: apologies for my original comment about Vard still being in the dock I now understand his charges have been dropped as well. This lawyer has made himself look extremely foolish, which is no bad thing.

 

As an aside is there no way to delete a comment once posted- it would be far easier than a disclaimer!

Edited August 24, 2017 by Psimbo
Updated situation

[lometogo]

Sorry to hear about this land and property grab, but isn't this practice well-enough known that one might consider renting instead of purchase? 

[sawadeeken]

Smart move on the part of the lawyer and Thai justice system in general.......................

I think they (All Thai Gov't. plus Thai Hiso's) all know what the collective news outlets around the world would have done if he had been charged...............

Some 'Thai' factions 'Pushed' the court and lawyer on this one..............

[TheThaiMe]

I have no sympathy for foreigners here that use fake companies in order to buy homes and land here. As with most countries, if you are found to be skirting the law, you should expect to lose your assets or at least understand that the whole things is a risk.

 

It is quite possible that there was corruption involved in this case. But to the 'victim' in this case.... you sow your seeds.

[Watchful]

10 hours ago, TheThaiMe said:

I have no sympathy for foreigners here that use fake companies in order to buy homes and land here. As with most countries, if you are found to be skirting the law, you should expect to lose your assets or at least understand that the whole things is a risk.

 

It is quite possible that there was corruption involved in this case. But to the 'victim' in this case.... you sow your seeds.

You make a very good point!  The answer is never, ever buy anything of value in Thailand. Never start a business or build a factory or hire a Thai.

 

This is the only way to protect your assets.

 

If you are interested in investing and building factories consider Vietnam or Malaysia.  

[mike324]

15 hours ago, Briggsy said:

I beg to differ. If you think the loan sharks and the Land Registry were not in up to their necks, then I find your viewpoint extremely unlikely.

the guy paid for his condo and he owns it, where did you get the loan sharks from? Its a simple case of forged signature. Don't see why you would expect the land registry to be involved. You don't need to go in person to transfer properties.  Either way, we both are just guessing

[Briggsy]

1 hour ago, mike324 said:

paid for his condo

It was two houses, a restaurant and two empty plots of land.

1 hour ago, mike324 said:

he owns it

He put all in his wife's name under a company structure

 

1 hour ago, mike324 said:

where did you get the loan sharks from

The properties were transferred out of his wife's name and out of the company structure by loan sharks and the use of the properties as collateral with the connivance of the crooked lawyer. The scheme was complex but the aim was to place all the blame on Rance's wife.

 

1 hour ago, mike324 said:

Don't see why you would expect the land registry to be involved

How are you going to transfer 5 properties without involving the Land Registry. If you have ever dealt with these people, you will know they check everything and with the beneficial owner and majority shareholder of the company not present, they would have immediately smelt a rat. They were very much in on the scam.

 

I am not guessing. But you are wrong on 4 key points and right on none. Your last comment tacitly admits this but also states you are not a person who likes to admit mistakes.

 

Here's some reading for you.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34346620

[bobthomas]

13 hours ago, TheThaiMe said:

I have no sympathy for foreigners here that use fake companies in order to buy homes and land here. As with most countries, if you are found to be skirting the law, you should expect to lose your assets or at least understand that the whole things is a risk.

 

It is quite possible that there was corruption involved in this case. But to the 'victim' in this case.... you sow your seeds.

That's just sour grapes. If you put a house in a Company name and actually have a real Company that's just fine. Probably a better decision than  putting the house in some Thai Hooker broads name.

[mike324]

1 hour ago, Briggsy said:

It was two houses, a restaurant and two empty plots of land.

He put all in his wife's name under a company structure

 

The properties were transferred out of his wife's name and out of the company structure by loan sharks and the use of the properties as collateral with the connivance of the crooked lawyer. The scheme was complex but the aim was to place all the blame on Rance's wife.

 

How are you going to transfer 5 properties without involving the Land Registry. If you have ever dealt with these people, you will know they check everything and with the beneficial owner and majority shareholder of the company not present, they would have immediately smelt a rat. They were very much in on the scam.

 

I am not guessing. But you are wrong on 4 key points and right on none. Your last comment tacitly admits this but also states you are not a person who likes to admit mistakes.

 

Here's some reading for you.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34346620

Yes you are correct, I did make mistakes in my statements. It was transfer out of his wifes name, which also needed his signature for his company. My point is for all we know, your guess is no better than mine in pointing fingers saying the land registry is running the scam along with the lawyer.

[bobthomas]

14 hours ago, mike324 said:

Yes you are correct, I did make mistakes in my statements. It was transfer out of his wifes name, which also needed his signature for his company. My point is for all we know, your guess is no better than mine in pointing fingers saying the land registry is running the scam along with the lawyer.

I have to agree, the Land Office is really serious about making sure all the paperwork is spot on. That said, when the numbers of money get high, even a person that has not formerly given in to corruption might consider to make some quick cash. But more than likely, the Land Office was given the proper paperwork so thus the deal went through legally.  Therefore, a statement like, "the land registry is running the scam along with the lawyer ", would likely be not accurate.

[cheeryble]

On August 24, 2017 at 5:38 PM, smotherb said:

Doesn't there, somewhere in the halls of logic and forethought, reside some fault at the hands of any foreigner who would attempt to be a landed property owner in a place where he cannot legally own landed property?

Remember a sale is registered presumably meaning it is accepted as valid.

If it is later brought into question it doesn't mean property can just be confiscated at will.

Edited October 24, 2017 by cheeryble

[smotherb]

1 minute ago, cheeryble said:

That may be true and culpable if a court decides so, but it;s a separate issue from any fraud that may have taken place.

He may be fined or a sale made invalid and has to be sold in six months or whatever, butif someone bends, or even breaks, the rules, it doesn't mean his property gets confiscated at will. 

Well, the stories of farangs losing property in Thailand seem to have no end;  and in many the courts seemed bias toward the Thai. Why would any person with normal intelligence subject himself to such prejudice--perhaps that warm wet spot makes fools of us all. 

[cheeryble]

18 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Well, the stories of farangs losing property in Thailand seem to have no end;  and in many the courts seemed bias toward the Thai. Why would any person with normal intelligence subject himself to such prejudice--perhaps that warm wet spot makes fools of us all. 

I've never seen any figures to back up the bias you speak of, but anecdotally I've personally  known of a farang v Thai property case which have come out in favour of the farang. 

I would point out that the quote from me above was speaking in general rather than of this particular case (as I think you were?), and that I edited it to bring out the point that if a LO inspects and registers a transfer how can the parties to the transfer be culpable if they have supplied authentic documentation?

Edited October 24, 2017 by cheeryble

[smotherb]

15 minutes ago, cheeryble said:

I've never seen any figures to back up the bias you speak of, but anecdotally I've personally  known of a farang v Thai property case which have come out in favour of the farang. 

I would point out that the quote from me above was speaking in general rather than of this particular case (as I think you were?), and that I edited it to bring out the point that if a LO inspects and registers a transfer how can the parties to the transfer be culpable if they have supplied authentic documentation?

Never insinuated it was empirical fact--" . . . stories . . . seemed bias . . ." However, what is empirical is only a Thai can own property in Thailand. I would never pay money for property anywhere I could not own it in my name. Let me relate another anecdotal tale of woe. A farang friend and his wife decided to divorce, they went to an attorney and arranged a sale of the property for which he would receive 50%, supposedly according to Thai law. After several years of many prospective buyers, none of which managed to buy; the wife claimed poverty and the  lawyer arranged a sale at a fraction of the worth of the property. The farang got his 50%, even though he tried to stop the sale with another lawyer, who only took more money from him, all to no avail.  Well guess what, the wife, her parents, and her "brother" still live in the house.   

[cheeryble]

10 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Never insinuated it was empirical fact--" . . . stories . . . seemed bias . . ." However, what is empirical is only a Thai can own property in Thailand. I would never pay money for property anywhere I could not own it in my name. Let me relate another anecdotal tale of woe. A farang friend and his wife decided to divorce, they went to an attorney and arranged a sale of the property for which he would receive 50%, supposedly according to Thai law. After several years of many prospective buyers, none of which managed to buy; the wife claimed poverty and the  lawyer arranged a sale at a fraction of the worth of the property. The farang got his 50%, even though he tried to stop the sale with another lawyer, who only took more money from him, all to no avail.  Well guess what, the wife, her parents, and her "brother" still live in the house.   

To be fair the wife could have been in a state of poverty and it may have been only fair that a house which was not selling was brought down to a more reasonable price. 

The woman and her mother do after all need a home, and sounds like no income, and she may have put a lot of time and effort being a homemaker in times past.

I guess we need the detail about the "fraction" of the price at which it was sold, the first price was obviously unrealistic and the extremely long wait may have been ok for the farang with a cosy pension but how about her?.

As for the "brother", are you saying she should abstain from relationships for life? "Several years" have already passed. Perhaps she should go to a nunnery?

(Devil's advocate haha you may be right)

Edited October 24, 2017 by cheeryble

[smotherb]

27 minutes ago, cheeryble said:

To be fair the wife could have been in a state of poverty and it may have been only fair that a house which was not selling was brought down to a more reasonable price. 

The woman and her mother do after all need a home, and sounds like no income, and she may have put a lot of time and effort being a homemaker in times past.

I guess we need the detail about the "fraction" of the price at which it was sold, the first price was obviously unrealistic and the extremely long wait may have been ok for the farang with a cosy pension but how about her?.

As for the "brother", are you saying she should abstain from relationships for life? "Several years" have already passed. Perhaps she should go to a nunnery?

(Devil's advocate haha you may be right)

Yes, prices may have fallen on the property, but he received less than B1M on a property he paid over B12M ten years before. Yes, again, the brother may have indeed been a sibling rather than a boyfriend. However, why are they all still living in the house; a benevolent purchaser, perhaps?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Quote

a network of Phuket criminals, aided by corrupt officials, stole properties from foreigners by forging land title transfers.

 

The OP report mentions that the victim's Thai wife went to jail for the fraud.

 

But somehow, these reports never seem to mention what, if anything, happened to the network of criminals and corrupt officials -- to quote the news report -- who were behind all this B.S.

 

It would be too much to hope that they didn't skate away untouched, as is often the case here, sadly. The lawyer certainly seems to be running around a free man, filing criminal defamation actions.

 

 

[YetAnother]

On 8/24/2017 at 11:32 AM, webfact said:

According to the report, Pratuan admitted on tape to certifying Rance's signature without him being present, a move which helped the wife transfer his properties out of his name

but no mention of any criminal actions against him....

[YetAnother]

On 8/24/2017 at 11:32 AM, webfact said:

Rights groups said the case highlighted how Thailand's broad defamation and computer crime laws scupper investigative journalism and make it difficult to uncover wrongdoing in an endemically corrupt country.

if you could condense all thais into a single person and inject intelligence into this new thai everyman, then the defamation and computer laws look pretty smart; absent the condensation, i ascribe it to thais general intolerance of criticism

[Drago]

On 10/24/2017 at 5:44 AM, smotherb said:

Let me relate another anecdotal tale of woe. A farang friend and his wife decided to divorce, they went to an attorney and arranged a sale of the property for which he would receive 50%, supposedly according to Thai law. After several years of many prospective buyers, none of which managed to buy; the wife claimed poverty and the  lawyer arranged a sale at a fraction of the worth of the property. The farang got his 50%, even though he tried to stop the sale with another lawyer, who only took more money from him, all to no avail.  Well guess what, the wife, her parents, and her "brother" still live in the house. 

I would suggest that either you have misunderstood the story, you have been lied too, or you have just made the story up.

 

When I divorced my previous Thai wife we needed to go to court where a list of assets from either side was submitted to a judge. The judge then formulated a final list of assets and assigned them a monetary value. The assets could only be sold through the court, and the value of any given asset could only be altered either up or down by mutual consent of both parties, and again this needed to be done through the court.

 

It sounds to me, unless you just made the story up, that the house has not been sold to anyone, and your 'friend' has been palmed off with a token gesture of cash. He should hire a decent lawyer and seek clarification from the courts.

[cyberfarang]

In theory the foreigners were not scammed because on paper those foreigners owned nothing. 

 

This is what happens when westerners throw sack loads of cash into businesses and projects in Thailand solely on verbal agreements and trust.

 

When we they even learn?

[Drago]

27 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

In theory the foreigners were not scammed because on paper those foreigners owned nothing. 

 

This is what happens when westerners throw sack loads of cash into businesses and projects in Thailand solely on verbal agreements and trust.

 

When we they even learn?

How do you know he owned nothing on paper? I legally fully owned a house in Thailand which I subsequently sold for a large sum. I just didn't own the land it was on. No problem though it was sold, at a decent profit I may add, and the new owner had a company dismantle it and rebuild it on their property.

 

Not every farang throws money in to something in Thailand without thinking it through.

[cheeryble]

1 hour ago, Drago said:

I would suggest that either you have misunderstood the story, you have been lied too, or you have just made the story up.

 

When I divorced my previous Thai wife we needed to go to court where a list of assets from either side was submitted to a judge. The judge then formulated a final list of assets and assigned them a monetary value. The assets could only be sold through the court, and the value of any given asset could only be altered either up or down by mutual consent of both parties, and again this needed to be done through the court.

 

It sounds to me, unless you just made the story up, that the house has not been sold to anyone, and your 'friend' has been palmed off with a token gesture of cash. He should hire a decent lawyer and seek clarification from the courts.

To me SmotherB seems to show a bias against the Thais involved.

 

We also hear that the second (Thai) lawyer is expected to at least inspect the case without payment and regardless of what he finds to guarantee a result. Basic consultations are sometimes free. Further inspection of a case without which an opinion might not be possible is not.

I agree with Drago something doesn't compute here, a 12megabaht house for a million?

Would be interesting to hear the story with the missing bits filled in. Could you give a call and find out?

(nothing personal SmoB)

Edited October 25, 2017 by cheeryble

[cyberfarang]

10 hours ago, Drago said:

How do you know he owned nothing on paper? I legally fully owned a house in Thailand which I subsequently sold for a large sum. I just didn't own the land it was on. No problem though it was sold, at a decent profit I may add, and the new owner had a company dismantle it and rebuild it on their property.

 

Not every farang throws money in to something in Thailand without thinking it through.

You owned a house built on someone else`s land, the land that you did not purchase with your money? Is that correct? Good luck if you managed to pull this off. Others are not so lucky if the crap hits the fan as in the cases of the OP.

 

I have to wonder how many would buy land in their own countries they cannot own and have no legal jurisdiction over? Maybe they believe Thai people are more trust worthy then their own countrymen. What could possibly go wrong? 

[smotherb]

14 hours ago, Drago said:

I would suggest that either you have misunderstood the story, you have been lied too, or you have just made the story up.

 

When I divorced my previous Thai wife we needed to go to court where a list of assets from either side was submitted to a judge. The judge then formulated a final list of assets and assigned them a monetary value. The assets could only be sold through the court, and the value of any given asset could only be altered either up or down by mutual consent of both parties, and again this needed to be done through the court.

 

It sounds to me, unless you just made the story up, that the house has not been sold to anyone, and your 'friend' has been palmed off with a token gesture of cash. He should hire a decent lawyer and seek clarification from the courts.

Well, I am telling you what was related to me--and I agree, it appears they simply bought him off with a fraction of the property's worth.