VZCZCXRO5725
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHBK #0818/01 0902355
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 312355Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6591
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUEHCHI/AMCONSUL CHIANG MAI 6375
RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BANGKOK 000818 
 
Department for DRL/IL MJunk, G/TIP CChan-Downer, and EAP/MLS 
DRichelsoph 
DOL/ILAB for Brandie Sasser 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ELAB PHUM KTIP TH
SUBJECT: Updates on Cases of Labor Abuse in Thailand 
 
BANGKOK 00000818  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
Sensitive But Unclassified.  For Official Use Only. 
 
REF A: 08 BANGKOK 2836  REF B: BANGKOK 499 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: To follow-up on the Anoma, Prapha Navee, and 
Ranya Paew human trafficking-related labor abuse cases in Thailand 
(refs a and b), Embassy officials contacted a number of government 
and non-government officials over the past few weeks.  Criminal 
prosecutions against suspects arrested in the Anoma and Ranya Paew 
case are proceeding.  The investigation appears to have stalled in 
the Prapha Navee case, with arrest warrants issued only in the 
nicknames of the fishing boat captains involved and potential 
witnesses uninterested in testifying.  Human rights lawyers have 
different views on whether the Prapha Navee case involved human 
trafficking or simply criminal negligence.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Comment: While the length of judicial processes in 
Thailand remains long, RTG officials appear to be seriously seeking 
criminal convictions in the Anoma and Ranya Paew cases.  The 
investigation into the Prapha Navee case, on the other hand, seems 
to have stalled, with even RTG officials questioning the quality of 
the original investigation.  Although Thai authorities are seeking 
criminal prosecution in this case as well, the lack of quality 
arrest warrants for less-than-satisfying charges is frustrating and 
does not give much promise that a successful prosecution is possible 
in the foreseeable future.  We will continue to probe into the 
status of the Prapha Navee investigation in an effort to continue to 
push it forward.  We note however that, given Thai evidentiary 
standards, and the difficulty of gathering needed evidence, a 
homicide conviction will be difficult.  End Comment. 
 
Anoma - Shrimp Peeling Factory 
------------------------------ 
¶3.  (SBU) The Public Prosecutor in Samut Sakhon province responsible 
for the Anoma case informed us on March 26 that pre-trial statements 
continue in the case, and were provided to the Court on February 5-6 
and 24, and on March 11-12 and 24-26.  The prosecutor plans to call 
for additional plaintiff and defendant statements in June and 
August, respectively.  He estimated that, in total, approximately 14 
witnesses for the plaintiff and 10 witnesses for the defense will 
give pre-trial statements to the Court.  The Director of Baan 
Kredtakarn Shelter (where the Anoma case victims are being cared 
for) told on us March 26 that despite the Ministry of Labor (MOL)'s 
September 18, 2008, order that the employers provide victims with 
compensation, the employers have not yet done so.  The Director, an 
official with the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security 
(MSDHS), noted that an attorney for the MOL interviewed victims in 
mid-March as part of the MOL's efforts to press criminal charges 
against the employers for disobeying the order.  An official in the 
MOL's Department of Labor Protection confirmed March 31 that the 
Ministry will pursue criminal charges and is attempting to locate 
the employer's assets in order to ask the Court to freeze them.  In 
addition, the shelter Director stated that her staff would meet with 
Burmese government officials in early April to discuss the 
repatriation of the victims.  (Note: the Prosecutor in Samut Sakhon 
responsible for the Anoma case reportedly will be transferred to 
Nontaburi province in the coming weeks and the case transferred to 
his replacement.  End Note). 
 
Ranya Paew - Shrimp Processing Factory 
-------------------------------------- 
¶4.  (SBU) On March 26 the Public Prosecutor responsible for the 
Ranya Paew case informed us that he is currently reviewing the case 
in preparation of its presentation to the Court.  He stated that, 
based on information obtained from pretrial victim statements, he is 
considering filing another criminal charge for forced child labor 
with the goal of increasing jail time of the defendants should they 
be convicted.  He noted that, if he files the additional charge, 
police investigators will need to gather additional evidence to 
present to the Court.  As such, no trial date has yet been set. 
 
 
Prapha Navee - Fleet of Fishing Vessels 
--------------------------------------- 
¶5.  (SBU) A human rights attorney working for a group of surviving 
crew members in the case informed us March 25 that the group is 
planning to appeal the 2007 decision by a Samut Sakhon Labor Court 
that seven of the plaintiffs seeking financial compensation from the 
fleet owner could not be included in a settlement because they could 
not prove their status as employees.  (Note: the attorney stated he 
is the coordinator of a total of five human rights attorneys working 
with the survivors.  Also, as reported in ref b, the court ordered 
on September 17, 2008, that 38 surviving crew members receive 3.8 
million baht in back wages, with interest accrued; the decision 
remains under appeal.  End Note). 
 
 
BANGKOK 00000818  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶6.  (SBU) A police investigator involved in the case explained March 
27 that all witnesses he interviewed stated that the deceased from 
the fishing vessels died from malnutrition and disease.  According 
to information provided by the attorneys assisting the surviving 
crew, the fishing vessels remained at sea for several months while 
negotiations over the renewal of a fishing concession was on-going 
(the journey was originally scheduled to last thirty months).  It 
was during this time that the crew had to live on left-over food 
stock without any food supplements.  Gradually, crew members aboard 
all six vessels began to fall ill and die over the course of the 
journey back to Thailand (undertaken fifteen days after the first 
two deaths).  By the time the vessels arrived back in Samut Sakhon 
on July 1, 2006, 39 of 128 crew members died at sea due to 
inadequate food and medicine. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Regarding criminal charges, the police investigator 
provided an explanation why the investigation has been so difficult 
and why no one has been charged with murder.  He stated that while 
he and other Thai police and prosecutors believe that crimes were 
committed by the boat captains, the evidence is thus far 
insufficient to support murder charges.  He explained some of the 
reasons for the lack of evidence, such as the location of the 
commission of the crime, the length of time between the commission 
of the crime and the vessels' return to Thailand, and the lack of 
cooperating witnesses to explain the circumstances on the boat.  He 
further explained that the disposal of the corpses at sea is a 
significant problem for the investigation, since Thai law requires 
presentation of a corpse or a part of a corpse to sustain a homicide 
charge. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Other officials have echoed the requirement of a corpse 
for a homicide charge.  At a March 25 conference on human 
trafficking in the fishing industry (septel), a RTG police officer 
from the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) informed that 
without a corpse or a piece of one, Thai police cannot charge 
murder.  A prosecutor familiar with the case confirmed this on March 
30, explaining that without a corpse, the court would reject murder 
charges for lack of evidence.  A Thai lawyer who works with the 
Embassy further confirmed the corpse requirement on March 31.  The 
human rights attorney for the surviving crew members with whom we 
spoke also stated that police and prosecutors have told him that 
they cannot prosecute homicide (including death resulting from 
criminal negligence) without physical proof of death (i.e., a 
corpse).  Given the limited evidence, the police investigator 
explained his frustration that the RTG can only pursue alternative 
criminal charges, namely, illegal disposal of a corpse to conceal 
cause of death.  Because there is insufficient evidence that the 
boat owners, who were not present on the vessels, knew about the 
corpse disposal on the vessels, prosecutors have not charged the 
boat owners and have instead charged only the boat captains. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) In another complication, arrest warrants were issued on 
August 16, 2007, but only include the nicknames of four suspects, 
boat captains, since the police are not aware of the full, legal 
names of the captains.  No arrests have yet been made.  (Note: The 
use of nicknames in lieu of legal names is commonplace in Thailand. 
End Note).  Police investigators have stated the boat owners claim 
to not know the real names of the captains.  According to the 
prosecutor with whom we spoke March 30, surviving crew members also 
only knew the captains by their nicknames.  The human rights lawyer 
with whom we spoke stated he provided the Office of the Attorney 
General in Samut Sakhon the names of the boat captains.  We have not 
yet been able to confirm whether the Samut Sakhon prosecutors 
received the names in question and, if so, acted on them.  We asked 
another prosecutor about evidentiary standards in this matter.  He 
stated that while the provision of a name by a non-governmental 
official could constitute a potential lead for investigators, it may 
not be sufficient grounds in and of itself to seek an arrest 
warrant. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The human rights attorney also told us March 26 that some 
survivors who received compensation from the September 2008 Labor 
Court ruling declined to cooperate on the pursuit of criminal 
charges.  When asked why, he explained they appeared content with 
the financial settlement.  He lamented that their apparent lack of 
interest has made it more difficult to pursue criminal charges.  He 
noted the pursuit of criminal charges has also been made more 
difficult by the fact that many Burmese workers involved in the case 
were not legally registered.  Fearing deportation, they generally 
were unwilling to present themselves to the Court. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) We queried the human rights attorney for the surviving 
crew whether, according to his knowledge, the Prapha Navee case 
constitutes one of human trafficking.  He responded that, to the 
best of his knowledge, it probably is not, since the workers with 
whom he has spoken went to work willingly on the fishing vessels and 
 
BANGKOK 00000818  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
did not report to him (or Thai authorities) instances of physical 
abuse or forced labor while on board.  He suggested, instead, that 
this is a case of grave labor exploitation and that he would like to 
see the boat captains prosecuted for criminal negligence for the 
deaths of members of the crew.  When asked the same question March 
30, the prosecutor with whom we spoke also stated that he was not 
aware of allegations of forced labor on the vessels, although he had 
not yet read transcripts of the witness testimony.  He also stated 
that in his opinion, the original police investigation appeared to 
have not been conducted well, either out of poor (if well 
intentioned) handling or out of an effort to inappropriately shield 
individuals from prosecution.  We consulted a second human rights 
lawyer familiar with the Prapha Navee case on March 31.  He stated 
that, according to his knowledge of victim testimony, some of the 
crew joined the fishing fleet under the belief that the voyage would 
last only a few months and unaware that they would travel to fish in 
Indonesian waters.  Due to this fact, he considers Prapha Navee a 
case of human trafficking.