French jail sentence for former airline CEO

[Mike Flynn]

A French court on Tuesday sentenced the former head of a Thai budget airline to four years in jail over a 2007 crash that killed 90 people, nearly two-thirds of them foreigners.

The suit, filed by the families of the nine French victims aboard the flight, claimed the crash landing on the resort island of Phuket was "an accident waiting to happen".

The Paris court found Udom Tantiprasongchai, the former head of the airline One-Two-Go, guilty of voluntary manslaughter and also set a fine of 75,000 euros ($82,300).

https://www.france24.com/en/20190903-paris-court-hands-ex-thai-airline-ceo-4-year-term-over-2007-crash

[B772]

This is an interesting development. I wonder if there has been any serious attempts to locate Udom ?

[Mike Flynn]

Udom will never appear in any court as he is too well connected
The AFP agency report on this case was quickly removed from the Bangkok Post.

The NTSB report was damning but the Thai Aviation Authorities tried to cover it up.

The result was a serious downgrading of Thailand’s aviation operations.

In the case of the accident below it appears neither the captain or co pilot was flying the aircraft. One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269, a McDonnell Douglas MD-82, crashed into an embankment beside runway 27 at Phuket International Airport bursting into flames upon impact on 16 September 2007, about 15:41 ICT during an attempted go-around after an aborted landing, killing 89 of the 130 persons on board. Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Two-GO_Airlines_Flight_269)
The NTSB report makes interesting reading.

NTSB CD List Of Contents (http://investigateudom.com/files/NTSB/NTSB_mtl.htm)

For more read this.

Investigate Thailand's Udom Tantiprasongchai (http://investigateudom.com/)

[ph-sbe]

The Paris court found Udom Tantiprasongchai, the former head of the airline One-Two-Go, guilty of voluntary manslaughter and also set a fine of 75,000 euros ($82,300).

Most importantly, the article writes:


French courts are allowed to hear cases involving accidents or attacks anywhere in the world if French citizens are victims.


Which I believe is the crux of the matter. Image if North Korea would convict Doug Parker for an incident involving a North Korean citizen.

The French have no legal criminal jurisdiction with regards to an incident that happens outside of their territories.

[Mike Flynn]

Agreed but if you read the background to this story his Orient Thai Airline was flying in breach of many ICAO regulations and was banned from European airspace. I actually paxed witn Orient Thai from Phuket to Gatwick many years ago when they were operating old 747’s which are now abandoned in Bangkok,Hong Kong and other locations. There was a long running thread on Pprune some years ago on the Phuket crash.

See https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/375927-one-two-go-crash-report-released.html?highlight=Phuket+air+crash

[aixois]

The French have no legal criminal jurisdiction with regards to an incident that happens outside of their territories.

Good evening,

French court can rules trial as there were French citizens on board. This is true for ONE TWO GO crash and also on the MALAYSIAN MH 370 affair. In the last one for example BOEING sent files (last July 2019) requested by French inquiries of the court. You can check this point on the Web.

Have a nice week.

[ph-sbe]

French court can rules trial as there were French citizens on board. This is true for ONE TWO GO crash and also on the MALAYSIAN MH 370 affair. In the last one for example BOEING sent files (last July 2019) requested by French inquiries of the court. You can check this point on the Web.


That's not how criminal law works. Penal jurisdiction is determined by the geographic location of the alleged offense, not by the citizenship of the alleged victims.

In case of the files which were sent, Boeing may have decided to cooperate with the French authorities for other reasons.

Think about what would happen if the verdict of this French court would be internationally accepted. Now all of a sudden Thailand could ask the U.S. for my extradition if I were to accidentally say that their king has a small penis.

It simply doesn't work like that.

[WingNut60]

That's not how criminal law works. Penal jurisdiction is determined by the geographic location of the alleged offense, not by the citizenship of the alleged victims.
...........
It simply doesn't work like that.

You may be correct in this case but your argument is not strictly correct.
For example, under Australian law, it is an offence to engage in a hostile activity in a foreign country, unless serving in or with the armed forces of the government of a foreign country.
Australia also has laws concerning engagement in sex-related crimes in foreign countries, subject to prosecution in Australia.

[Admiral346]

That's not how criminal law works. Penal jurisdiction is determined by the geographic location of the alleged offense, not by the citizenship of the alleged victims.

In case of the files which were sent, Boeing may have decided to cooperate with the French authorities for other reasons.

Think about what would happen if the verdict of this French court would be internationally accepted. Now all of a sudden Thailand could ask the U.S. for my extradition if I were to accidentally say that their king has a small penis.

It simply doesn't work like that.


Wow.

Just look, where on this planet the US has arrested "terrorists" and put them in torture camps....

[plainmaker]

From my reading of the matter, the Suit was brought in a commercial jurisdiction, not a criminal one. While the finding may have found gross negligence on the part of the aforesaid Thai responsible, the enforcement of any sanction could only be completed if the individual responsible landed in a French Territory. As has been stated before, you can 'prosecute' a claim in any court that offers jurisdiction, but your ability to enforce any finding is considerably constrained.

[FrequentSLF]

That's not how criminal law works. Penal jurisdiction is determined by the geographic location of the alleged offense, not by the citizenship of the alleged victims.

In case of the files which were sent, Boeing may have decided to cooperate with the French authorities for other reasons.

Think about what would happen if the verdict of this French court would be internationally accepted. Now all of a sudden Thailand could ask the U.S. for my extradition if I were to accidentally say that their king has a small penis.

It simply doesn't work like that.
Thailand could and will ask, under their law, however USA will not comply becuase is not a crime in USA, however if you endup in a country where lese majesty is a crime you might be extradite and arrested

[ph-sbe]

You may be correct in this case but your argument is not strictly correct.
For example, under Australian law, it is an offence to engage in a hostile activity in a foreign country, unless serving in or with the armed forces of the government of a foreign country.
Australia also has laws concerning engagement in sex-related crimes in foreign countries, subject to prosecution in Australia.

You are partially right, and let me explain. Many countries have laws prohibiting their citizens from committing certain acts. A lot of countries have laws on the books to prohibit sexual predator tourism, making it possible to prosecute child abuse in their own countries if committed by a citizen or permanent resident. In those cases, there is an existing relationship between the country and the individual.

In this particular case there is no relationship between the individual and the country, France, other than that the victims were French citizens. What's next? The French prosecuting American citizens who exercise their 1st amendment rights and insult a French citizen?

Each country has their own soevereign laws, and France has no business going outside of that.

Just look, where on this planet the US has arrested "terrorists" and put them in torture camps....

And kept them out of the U.S. to avoid them being subject to the rights afforded to them by the U.S. constitution.

Can't say that I always agree with that either.

[ironbutt57]

Wow.

Just look, where on this planet the US has arrested "terrorists" and put them in torture camps....

yes, unacceptable, let us know where and when, and we will be happy to release them into your neighborhood.....

[WingNut60]

You are partially right, and let me explain. Many countries have laws prohibiting their citizens from committing certain acts. A lot of countries have laws on the books to prohibit sexual predator tourism, making it possible to prosecute child abuse in their own countries if committed by a citizen or permanent resident. In those cases, there is an existing relationship between the country and the individual (NB. being the perpetrator)


So, under these conditions, Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands et al must rely on Ukrainian prosecution of the perpetrators of the MH17 shoot down, whoever they might be.
Only the Ukraine or Russia could issue an arrest warrant or request extradition to face trial, in that case.

[Global Aviator]

This was the thread I meant to ask. Does anyone have the original thread link?