Will 'The Galt' go to jail?

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

"I think my post was on topic."

 

Which is why I allowed the post to stay.

 

"although not being part of the case"

 

Which is exactly why he can post freely.

 

Sanuk!

 

[chuckwoww]

So how do you rate your chances Mr. Galt. Jail or something else?

 

(On topic hopefully).

[Julian2]

I tend to think any reasonable court would decided Wade hasn't suffered any financial loss from Galt's allegations. Indeed, anyone who's been looking for a property developer may even give him a ring, fully aware that when you're dealing with people in this line of work it's usually a case of "let the buyer beware".

On the other hand Stick almost certainly has been out of pocket. But then he's not the one pursuing Galt is he?

[chuckwoww]

Yes I guess Stick has more to complain about.

 

I can't remember all the details anymore to be honest. Galt did some business with Wade in Pattaya that went sour. Or so he said. He then went after Wade on his website and got sued for libel.

[Gadfly]

TH wrote that my "reading comprehension has fallen to new lows" (Post#813973) when I responded and, he claims, mischaracterized, his arguments about why the FCPA could not possibly apply here. This is not only only insulting (which is why it was rebuked), but also demonstrably wrong. Read on...

 

Here is what TH previously wrote about why the FCPA could not possibly apply here: I believe Wade is suing as an individual, not in the name of his business, which I don’t think is under the jurisdiction of the FCPA anyway assuming this is an entirely Thai company in which his Thai wife is the majority stockholder. The FCPA only applies to companies and its employees that have a principal place of business in the United States or organized under U.S. law (Post#813702)

 

Now I am supposed to read this post to mean that the FCPA does not apply when a payment is not made to retain or obtain business? TH's claims we all should read this post to refer to the business retention. Pause for a moment, and carefully read that post above and see if that is a fair reading of TH's post. Also ask yourself if it s is fair and honest for TH to claim a poster (meaning you) here has "poor reading skills" if he doesn't see this "business retention" requirement in his post?

 

To summarize, TH was arguing that the TH doesn't apply because Wade is an individual, and because the "The FCPA only applies to companies and its employees that have a principal place of business in the United States or organized under U.S. law." That is a fair reading, and I responded to it.

 

This is clearly wrong. Go to the FCPA blogsite and you will plenty of individuals being prosecuted when acting through agents through foreign companies. Its hard to imagine any dispute over this, but it was raised as a dispute, and I responded, demonstrating this was sheer nonsense.

 

And now, we are talking about the somewhat arcane subject of the business retention rule.

 

TH's comments about the business retention rule go to far, but to be fair, it is a better argument (at least it has some basis in the FCPA), and arguments are clever – clever to the point of being hair splitting. And this why it would incredibly foolish to rely on them and absurd to say my arguments about the FCPA have been absolutely refuted. Don't agree?

 

This is what the leading blogsite on the FCPA had to say about just these arguments: But judges haven't wanted to hear much about them. In the Kay and Murphy case, for example, the Fifth Circuit even warned against defendants who try "splitting hairs" (they were talking about the meaning of "obtaining or retaining business"). So that's reason number one why defendants don't do well in court. Judges don't welcome a lot of legal argument about the FCPA...

 

Reason number two: Juries hate graft. That's what we said when the Greens [a case arising of Thailand] were convicted in September. There's no other conclusion to draw from the trial record in FCPA-related prosecutions stretching back eighteen years. We'll say it again: FCPA cases are about bribes to corrupt foreign officials. They're about sophisticated and often wealthy people looking for shortcuts, hoping to subvert foreign governments for personal or corporate gain."

 

When you think about this, it makes sense. The FCPA is a law intended to criminalize foreign bribery. A leading U.S. law firm firm in this area described the FCPA this way: it "broadly criminalizes improper payments made to obtain any government benefit". A favorable decision in a criminal defamation is a government benefit.

 

Is there any business nexus at all here? You see it all over the posts in this thread, including the following from TH himself: "This is a criminal libel/defamation case brought by Clayton Wade, a Pattaya property developer, because of an article Galt did about his experience dealing with Wade’s company (Premier Proerpty)." (Post#811249) Or this from TH: "He (Galt) pretty much just chronicled his experience in trying to buy something using Wade as an agent. This experience led him make some judgments on Wade’s ethics and business practices which he put into the article." Post#811655) Silencing a critic of your business practices is not a business benefit?

 

The whole conversation about the FCPA suggests or assumes a bribe was paid. Others brought this up before it even occurred to me. I am not the one who raised that. I started discussing the FCPA after seeing websites here and elsewhere by others suggesting that an influential American was using improper means to put another America in jail. If true, it doesn't seem right to me, irrespective of what the other American said. And I don't think it will seem right to other Americans.

 

Now imagine yourself in a U.S. Court arguing to a U.S. jury or judge that you didn’t really didn’t violate the FCPA when using corrupt means to put a critic - a U.S. citizen - of your business

practices in a Thai prison - or at least expose him to that risk. I wouldn't count on a hairsplitting defense about a "business nexus" to beat the charges.

 

And certainly not here, where this has been posted over the net, there is a thread on it, and it has caught the attention of those who will decide whether a prosecution is warranted or not. Will it happen. No idea. Others have suggested that corrupt means where employed, and I also have no idea if that is true or not.

 

The FCPA is one of many interesting aspects about this matter. Fundamentally, my comments are about the foolishness of two Farangs duking this sort of dispute out in a Thai court. Flashermac said it best: "I agree that it's quite strange - two Farangs battling it out in a Thai court under Thai law."

 

That is my point.

[zzzz]

The FCPA is one of many interesting aspects about this matter. Fundamentally, my comments are about the foolishness of two Farangs duking this sort of dispute out in a Thai court. Flashermac said it best: "I agree that it's quite strange - two Farangs battling it out in a Thai court under Thai law."

 

In a criminal case, it would be the State against a farang, so not farang vs farang. If it were a civil case, you could have a farang vs farang situation.

[ozpharlap]

I made the same point a few days ago. My understanding is that the matter currently before the Thai courts is a criminal defamation case, if I am not mistaken, the matter is the crown/Thai government v. a citizen (Thai or farang). Indeed, this would be a novel application of the FCPA legislation - however, I again repeat my previous statement, there is no implication that a bribe has been made in this matter, implied or otherwise, comments are made solely for the purposes of debate).

[kamui]

I again repeat my previous statement, there is no implication that a bribe has been made in this matter, implied or otherwise, comments are made solely for the purposes of debate).

 

Therefore the whole discussion about the validity of US bribery laws in regard to LOS is completely baseless and hypothetical. Maybe those who are interested in discussing it do it via PM?

 

[ozpharlap]

At the moment this board wrestles with itself about its own validity. IMO I don't think the thread has been hijacked or skewed with discussions on FCPA legislation as it is relevant ... I just put my disclaimer in for obvious reasons.

 

I would imagine that this thread is one of the most ardent threads for some time.

 

Although I agree that maybe the arguments on the FCPA legislation have reached a stalemate but hey, no need to go to PM when the board needs posts, especially posts with verve and vigour.

[chuckwoww]

Well it's all speculation. The only people who can add anything meaningful are the principals and they aren't talking. Wisely IMO.