A judgment in the Pattaya Criminal Court last week names fake lawyer Brian Goudie, also as Brian Goldie, and records the fact that judges were of the opinion that the case against him was a ‘compoundable offence’
In a case brought by Briton John Jepson against Goudie, who under the name Goldie was jailed for six years for stealing from his employers, the Pattaya Provincial Court ruled that Goudie should hand over possession of a condominium in Bangkok’s Sukhumvit Soi 15 to the plaintiff and remove his belongings.
They further gave little credence to Goudie’s claims that he had paid Jepson one million baht by depositing it in the Siam Commercial Bank as a cashier’s cheque. John Jepson had stated. ‘If I ever see this money I shall refund it’.
Goudie was also named in the judgment as Goldie. This may be because he gives his name in English as Goudie, but writes it in Thai as Goldie on most documents I have seen.
The judges ruled: “If thereafter the Defendant discovers that his 1 million baht sum made payable as a cashier cheque to the Plaintiff has been transferred into any bank account of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agrees to refund such amount to the Defendant without condition”.
But although the case was in the judges’ view a ‘compoundable offence’ Goldie/Goudie got off lightly. While he lost the condominium and the court ruled Jepson did not have to pay any of his deposit back – Goudie escaped without a criminal record in Thailand. Jepson said he would have had to waste more money on Goudie.
Goudie cannot appeal.
Jepson had told the court that Goudie had scammed him by pretending to by a British barrister and former officer in the Royal Marines. He took on cases for him but did little of what he claimed, while claiming the condo against his services.
Goudie was described by the Deputy President A Forgie of the Australian Appeals Tribunal in Australia after taking evidence from his ex-wife and girlfriends as ‘not a person of good character’. He also took into the fact that Goudie, then Goldie, had refused to answer a warrant of arrest for fraud on the Royal Bank of Scotland issued by Lothian and Borders Police in 1994.
He was later jailed for six years at Perth District Court in Western Australia on three charges of stealing as a servant.
But some interesting stuff came out at the Australiand Appeals Tribunal:
“During my relationship with Brian Goldie I became aware that he had been involved in fraud in the UK. Brian Goldie told me that he had a grudge against the Bank of Scotland from a time when he worked for the bank. He also told me he had played a trick on them with Jim Cochrane and Billy Harrison. Details of the fraud emerged over time. Brian Goldie stated that he had set up a system called “cross-firing” where he was able to trick the bank out of a lot of money. He said that the scheme was very clever. He also said that he made sure that Jim Cochrane and Billy Harrison would be incriminated if they were caught. He also said that he could not go home to Scotland because of the fraud. Brian Goldie liked to refer to the fraud because he considered that it proved his cleverness. He stated to me at one point that he considered that honest people were stupid”. – Gill Weiss,ex.
“We discussed this letter firstly regarding the Department’s suggestion that Brian Goldie return to Scotland to answer the authorities on questions relating to the fraud accusations. I suggested at that time that this was in my opinion the only way he could clear his name of such an extraordinary accusation and then be in a position to return to Australia. He stated quite simply that as he was in fact guilty of these crimes he was not at all prepared to return to Scotland to face questioning. He stated that instead of having the effect of clearing his name, this action would almost certainly cause him to be charged with the crimes and he would then have to stand trial and probably end up serving a jail sentence. I was at this point extremely shocked to the point of disbelief. I gathered my thoughts and suggested that even though he was guilty I felt he should still return to Scotland, face his trial, serve his sentence, and be a free man from then onwards. He said that there was no way he would subject himself to that. He was adamant that he would fight this decision and continue to run from the problem. He said that he intended to appeal the Department of Immigration decision at the AAT. He said that when the AAT handed down their decision, which would almost certainly go against him, he would then appeal to the Federal Court. He said that when that failed he would either `disappear’ within Australia or go to New Zealand. When I asked him why he didn’t just leave for New Zealand immediately he stated that he had to use the appeal system to buy himself time to liquidate his assets and get some more money together before he went anywhere.”
Christine Spence – ex
Allegations of fraud in Scotland
142. A warrant for the arrest of Messrs Harrison, Cochrane and Goldie was issued in Scotland on 25 November, 1994. In summary, they are accused of obtaining approximately [sterling]93,000 from banks by means of a fraudulent scheme. (Exhibit 4) The Scottish police were anxious to obtain Mr Goldie ‘s extradition from Australia but were not supported by Crown Counsel in the United Kingdom. Consequently, no extradition proceedings have been instituted. (Exhibit C)
“Having found that Mr Goldie is not of good character, I must consider whether the discretion should be exercised in his favour provided he met all other criteria. I have decided that the discretion should not be exercised. Mr Goldie has formed ties with an Australian citizen, Ms Finnis, but has no other particular personal ties with Australia.”
S,A. Forgie, Deputy President of the Australian Appeals Tribunal refusing Goldie the right to stay in Australia. in 1998. He subsequently appealed again. Ms Finnis another girlfriend also went by the wayside.
The parties jointly make a statement that they were able to reach an agreement. The Plaintiff has no desire to further his prosecution against the Defendant. The parties also have no desire to demand property or money from each other, nor litigate as a new lawsuit. The Defendant will, by today, deliver the Condo Unit No. 9116, Sukhumvit 15 Alley, Khlong Toei, Bangkok Metropolis, and will remove his personal effects on 5th March 2014, at 05:00 p.m.
The Plaintiff will open the unit for the Defendant on that day for removal of his personal effects from the unit. If on the appointment date the Defendant fails to show up for any reason, the Defendant agrees that the Plaintiff be able to personally remove his personal effects. If .there should be removal costs, the Defendant agrees to subsequently pay them to the Plaintiff provided the costs are actual and reasonable.
The parties additionally declare that the dispute in this case arose from the fact that the Defendant was retained by the Plaintiff to render legal services, which were provided by the Defendant under the name of Alba Law Limited Partnership with Ms. Sukanlaya Worakham as a Managing Partner. In order to prevent a subsequent dispute that Alba Law Limited Partnership would sue the Plaintiff for legal service fees, the parties have Ms. Sukanlaya put her signature in the Record of Proceeding that she, acting on behalf of the Managing Partner to Alba Law Limited Partnership, would have no desire to continue demanding legal service fees from the Plaintiff.
Ms. Sukanlaya declares that she accepts such condition and agrees to put her signature in the Record of Proceeding. As for the sum of one million baht purported by the Defendant to have been made payable as a cashier cheque of Bank of Ayutthaya PCL to the Plaintiff but purported by the Plaintiff to have not been received by him, there is not this 1 million baht sum shown in the transaction movement of the Plaintiffs account in Siam Commercial Bank PCL, Asoke Branch. Nevertheless, if thereafter the Defendant discovers that his 1 million baht sum made payable as a cashier cheque to the Plaintiff has been transferred into any bank account of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agrees to refund such amount to the Defendant without condition.
Having considered, it is of the opinion that this case is a compoundable offense. When the parties reach an agreement in which the Plaintiff has no desire to continue his prosecution against the Defendant, the right to rely upon the criminal case shall be extinguished in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code section 39 (2), and the case shall be disposed out of the case list. The parties, including Ms. Sukanlaya as a Managing Partner to Alba Law Limited Partnership, shall comply with the declaration they have made in this Record of Proceeding.
It is permitted for the parties to make a copy of this Record of Proceeding from computers.
And this is Brian Goldie’s take on what happened in court:
Brian Goudie and John Jepson
Pattaya, 19th February 2014
I was in Court this week with John Jepson in Pattaya Provincial Court.
John and I agreed by mutual agreement that the case be withdrawn, and the Court has now ordered the case be dismissed.
In the case I agreed to move out of condo, and he agreed to order his bank to return a sum of money.
It is amazing a significant issue in the case is that Siam Commercial Bank have ‘lost’ a significant amount of money and that must now be resolved – Siam Commercial Bank may well be in hot water now!
i had a few things there, and cost of the expensive items have already been moved.
A further issue for me in this case now from my side is that there are dozens of posts on the internet about this case, especially on the web site of Andrew Drummond.
Drummond of course is a convicted criminal, sentenced to four months in jail (suspended for one year) on 3rd Fenbruary 2014 in case number 9819/2555 and has been ordered to surrender and pay bail in another case in Pattaya Court on 21st April 2014. Drummond has three other cases in Koh Samui, case numbers 1246/2556 brought by David Hanks and case numbers 1269/2556 and 1826/2556, which are set down for further hearing on 10th March 2014 in Koh Samui.
In Thailand it is considered to be criminal defamation and contempt of court to publish details of an ongoing case, especially reports of witness statements, prior to the Court making a final decision. All that is allowed to be printed is a ‘fair and accurate report’ of the proceeding.
I would guess a certain journalist should be expecting an awful lot of paperwork from the Court in Koh Samui in the very near future!
I wish John well in the future, and it is unfortunate we have both spent a lot of money in this case – and could have had exactly the same outcome, but without all the grief and misery, and especially without me now having to file more cases against Drummond!
UPDATE WILL BE POSTED HERE TOMORROW WITH PHOTOS OF CONDO WHEN I TOOK IT OVER!
Footnote: That post never came. Goudie will only be able to take pictures of the condo – how he left it – on March 5th when he has to go along and pick up his belongings – which consist of a coffee maker, a ‘Scales of Justice’ – and soiled bed linen etc. The expensive items were never there as security will testify to.
The cases he refers to above by the way relate to the publishing of a photo-shopped picture of him in a gay parade and one brought by Hanks relates in the main to an article about in the Scottish Sun in which his sister admits she knew he ran a brothel in Melbourne – but ‘I did not approve’. In the conviction he refers to above which is being confidently appealed the judge clearly states that Andrew Drummond did not write any libel. This judgment relates to two posts on this site. Under UK law, where this site is registered, all reports of trials have to be contemporaneous and published in the first edition possible after the witness has given evidence. Goudie has lost four cases brought against this site, Noyes and Wanrapa have lost another six. I would be very surprised if Goudie turned up in court in Koh Samui to pursue any case against me. He has not faced any cross examination yet or indeed given any evidence. He will get his boy Hanks to do so.