Thailand government commits act of piracy in international waters

An American bitcoin trader who built a floating home off the coast of Thailand in an attempt to develop an autonomous seaborne community could face a death sentence, authorities said.

The floating home of Chad Elwartowski and his girlfriend, Supranee Thepdet, was towed ashore by Thai authorities on Monday to be taken apart, and the couple have been accused of violating Thailand's sovereignty, an offense that can carry the death penalty or life in prison, Sky News reported.
Elwartowski's visa has also been revoked, Sky News said.

"The couple announced on social media declaring their autonomy beyond the jurisdiction of any courts or law of any countries, including Thailand," Rear Adm. Vithanarat Kochaseni told reporters, according to Reuters.

He added that authorities "see such action as deteriorating Thailand's independence."

The couple built the floating home — which was about 14 miles off the coast of the island of Phuket — to test the viability of creating a floating community in international waters that would not be subject to the laws of any nation.

www.businessinsider.com... social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi&fbclid=IwAR0JeELUPLv2C802VxrKqRpILiIjrMI0Uv8Nc__Kz6UDYENGQBF8MSU5Tc0

so what in effect has happened is that the Tai authorities have far overstepped their bounds and have committed what is technically an act of PIRACY.

the floating home (why they don't say "houseboat", which is what it is, is beyond me). was outside of the country's 12 mile limit. at 14 miles away from shore, it was in international waters. and therefore outside of the authority of the Thailand government, and therefore not subject to Thailand's laws or jurisdiction. and thus the Tai government has committed an act of piracy in boarding, taking and destroying said houseboat, which thy had no legal authority over.

now it would seem that the owner is on the run (quite likely in Thailand, being that is the closest land he could escape to), from the illegal act of piracy and threatened with a lifetime, or possibly even death sentence for breaking no laws. it seems that the owner even had a proper Visa for being in Thailand, which at some point (likely after or as a part of their act of piracy, but no information of "when" is given), they have decided to revoke. so it would seem that the owner of the pirated home, was even within the law, if at some points he was actually within the country, until such a time as they canceled his visa, and i would think that would have to include formally notifying the owner that said visa had been terminated.

how can the world stand by and let a country freely commit acts of piracy? and what makes no sense is that one would think that a country that is currently having a dispute with China over China's trying to claim far more waters than their legal 12 mile limit, would not be committing crimes outside of their 12 mile limit and trying to claim that said act of piracy in international waters was for the protection of their independence.

The crucial point is: where was that floating island exactly? Is it true that they were building it 14 sm in open waters?

And then, why should Thailand care?

I heard that they built it rather close to the shore and tried to declare independency, which would fit the actions of official forces much better - why would they care about some boat-device out in the open sea, which declares itself independent? That does not make sense to me.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

what is "close"? that is a value judgement. the article states it was 14 miles out. which technically could be considered close. yet territorial water stops at 12 miles out.

you are right, why should Thailand care. but apparently they do care and feel that even in international waters it infringes on their independence. or more likely might give their people ideas. but then again why all the fuss when things like Russian jets, ships and subs are in international waters/airspace, close to other countries the last few years? likewise why should those countries care?

this type of thing isn't even new. going back to the 1960's Britain had pirate radio stations broadcasting good music (and not the crap BBC insisted upon) into the country. they used ships hanging out just beyond the territorial waters of the country. they even took over an old military installation that happened to be in international waters to do the same. and since they were in international waters, and thus being under no country's durastiction, they were breaking no laws.

a reply to: generik

Sealand, amiright? I think that it's status of independency is uncontested, still.

a reply to: generik

I wonder if the couple had tourist visas or work visas.

Either way, Thai officials apparently don't tolerate smug foreigners abusing the privilege of entry into their country for the sake of a foolish houseboat nation.

as the article is clearly one sided - and sparse on actuall information - i shall waive comment on the legal issues of the tail

but - that " seastead " - its not a house boat - its modular units

i wonder what thier draft is [ how much below water line - a massive drasft weould aid stability

and i would not like to be on that in seastate 10

also - possition keeping - without looking at the correct chart - i dobut that something that size has the capacity for a physical anchor

yup - drogues can help - but hey ony slow drift -

ts all very well saying you is 14mn off shore - but tides and winds can quickly put you inside the limit - esp if you already ran away to avoid interaction with authorities

the thia navy was possibly tracking it - and just waited for it to stray

ran away ? - ooops thats abandoned - salvage rights ???????????

the pics are almost useless - but what about power - and waste management ?????

will see how this tail developes

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
a reply to: generik
I wonder if the couple had tourist visas or work visas.
Either way, Thai officials apparently don't tolerate smug foreigners abusing the privilege of entry into their country for the sake of a foolish houseboat nation.

there is likely far more than tourist and work visas. there can be all sorts of different visas available. a visa, since they apparently had a valid one (until the government decided to cancel it), is actually quite irrelevant. all a vis does is allow you to be IN their country. it has nothing at all to do with being outside the country at all. so as long as they did not go into the country a visa is completely irrelevant to the case, since they had no real need to go into the country unless they wanted to. and in that case all that had to happen is that they be arrested for being illegally in the country, while they were actually inside of it. committing an act of piracy and sending them possibly fleeing into the country from that illegal act should actually completely nullify any charges from being in the country at this point in time (if they are even there).

as for allowing them in the country. that is indeed up to the country in question. yet just because they were camped out (legally) just outside of their country is not at all "abusing the privilege of entry into that country". since of course there is no need for them to actually go into the country unless they wanted to do so.

As presented, I would say it was illegal, but it's pretty short on actual facts.

My guess for an actual scenario that took place that makes sense is:
The "independent sea-dwellers" were violating their Visas, perhaps violating border entry/customs procedures by simply tying up at dock when they "go into town", perhaps avoiding the tax system by claiming they were "independent" . They cancel the Visas (which they may do for any reason) and the behaviour still did not stop. They then tow the floating contraption to shore because it was unattended and a navigation hazard.


Anyone have relevant actual facts beyond those presented?

a reply to: generik

That sounds petty in comparison. They are doing it in international waters while we do the same stuff on sovereign waters/lands. Ha...

a reply to: generik

The american Guy and his Thai girl frend's action are NOT without precedent but does this tax loophole he was seeking to exploit cover a permanently moored vessel outside of the international limits of the Thai's territorial waters, I am not sure though there is also precedent for that.

Here is a rather famous example were some guy's from England boarded and took over an abandoned British naval facility which was technically in international waters, the British did try to evict them through the court's but our law's are not as inhumane as the rather barbaric laws of Thailand and several other nation's in the world.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

However what this American guy and Thai lady were trying to do was set up a banking or financial haven which would of course have attracted heavy investment from Thailand and elsewhere and in time when the Thai's have been dealing with corruption in there own economic system which reached even up to the highest level's of there government in very recent history (no big shocker there all politician's are basically crook's these day's the world over) and I suppose it was a case fo the Thai's not willing to allow this to happen as it did indeed potentially threaten there security, not in a military fashion however but in an economic fashion as many heavy hitters would have been made almost tax exempt by using this as a tax haven.

Also However Thailand is aware of the presence of the Chinese in waters not too distant from them and Chinese expansion and perhaps they are not going to allow anyone to set a precedent in the region when the Chinese have already very destructively and ecologically damaging built artificial islands on top of reef's killing those reef's and there many ecologically vital species by there action's in order to seize control of international water way's as well as actually encroaching on territory internationally recognized as belonging to other nations.

I don't think the Thai's have had any problem with the Chinese yet but give it time with the Chinese will to seize territory and resources and you can understand there likely concern.

But going after this guy in this manner is not really fair, Oh I agree they had the right to destroy the structure and the twelve mile limit can be increased to up to 250 nautical miles by any nation if they so choose to do so - which causes problems with neighbors etc but we did something similar following the Falkland's invasion though only around those island's and not the British mainland isles.

I believe the US has good reason to step in to protect it's citizen and rightly speaking Thailand should be held responsible for the well being of it's own citizen by the international community though human right's abuses in that nation would not be anything new - they are though far from the worst nation in the region on that account and most Thai's are actually nice people whom have a beautiful homeland and unique cultural tradition's.

Over all I am 60/40 in favor of the Thai's response though it is far too heavy handed and they should simply have dealt with it without the threat of death or imprisonment, a threat of a fine for tax evasion pointing out that despite being outside the basic internationally recognized territorial waters they were still closest to Thailand would have given the Thai's a very strong case on there side, if anything the threat of death or life imprisonment for these basically harmless people has turned most of the international community's stomach's and made them look at the Thai authority's with suspicion though like I say you can understand there motives especially from an economic perspective AND see this as a test case since had this plan by the couple succeeded then many other's could have copied there idea not only in Thailand but around the world leading to a new age of tax evasion which has already plagued all of our nations for many decades.

So I should not expect any other nations' to take too much of an offence against the Thai's action's unless it does end up with life sentences or execution' and then the US would be forced to intervene at least for it's own citizen or be seen internationally as very weak in the protection of said leading to many more US citizen's being put at jeopardy by there weak action.

originally posted by: generik
there is likely far more than tourist and work visas. there can be all sorts of different visas available

Not really. Tourist, visa, and retirement visas are issued to Americans who wish to enter Thailand. U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Thailand

a visa, since they apparently had a valid one (until the government decided to cancel it), is actually quite irrelevant. all a vis does is allow you to be IN their country. it has nothing at all to do with being outside the country at all. so as long as they did not go into the country a visa is completely irrelevant to the case, since they had no real need to go into the country unless they wanted to.

So the big picture is that you think it's ok for an American (or anyone, really) to enter Thailand, then "leave the country" on a houseboat, thumbing their nose and claiming independence by virtue of floating just barely outside Thai waters for the purpose, almost certainly, of becoming a tax haven? Is that right?

And...no real need to go into the country? Don't you think at some point these people would need supplies or services? Get real.

and in that case all that had to happen is that they be arrested for being illegally in the country, while they were actually inside of it. committing an act of piracy and sending them possibly fleeing into the country from that illegal act should actually completely nullify any charges from being in the country at this point in time (if they are even there).

as for allowing them in the country. that is indeed up to the country in question. yet just because they were camped out (legally) just outside of their country is not at all "abusing the privilege of entry into that country". since of course there is no need for them to actually go into the country unless they wanted to do so.

Again, big picture. Were they indeed legally "camped out" when they also claim that they are not beholden to the laws of any nation? This guy wanted to be a "nation unto himself" and guess what? His country was invaded. The guy is scared because he knows he screwed the pooch. That's evident in how his tone changes from a social media post declaring independence to his quote in the article saying they simply and harmlessly "lived in a houseboat for a few weeks". Experiment failed. The guy will be lucky to be protected if the US intervenes on his behalf. But since he wanted his independence, I wonder if he will refuse foreign aid?

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Its past the time allotted for editing but at the beginning of my above post i mean "tourist, WORK, and retirement visas. Visa visa visa.

Thailand is a NATO puppet that promotes pedophilia and mutilation against Children to enforce backwardness, as a mean of control and to prevent the emergence of a middle class.