Cambodian Journalists Alliance Association

Court Grants Government’s Request to Confiscate Teav Vannol’s Properties After Defamation Lawsuit

Candlelight Party president Teav Vannol arrives at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court for his trial on July 8, 2024. (CamboJA/​ Pring Samrang)
Candlelight Party president Teav Vannol arrives at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court for his trial on July 8, 2024. (CamboJA/​ Pring Samrang)

The Phnom Penh Municipal Court granted an injunction order to stop Candlelight Party president Teav Vannol from transferring his properties to a third party after he lost the defamation suit brought by the government.

A decision came one week after the court found Vannol guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay $1.5 million in compensation to the government.

The injunction warrant was issued on Tuesday as a “right to a debt intended for repayment” upon the request of government lawyers for confiscation of three of his properties.

The three assets, measuring 13,770 square meters in total, involve two land plots in Chamkar Leu district in Kampong Cham province and another piece of land in Chbar Ampov district in Phnom Penh.

The warrant mentioned that to obtain a cancellation of the temporary confiscation, Vannol should pay a deposit of $1.5 million to the Phnom Penh Municipal Court. This confiscation was temporary until the court released a verdict. 

The court warrant also offered an opportunity for the defendant to file a complaint. 

On July 25, Vannol was found guilty of defamation and fined 10 million riel (about $2,500), and ordered to pay compensation of six billion riel (around $1.5 million) to the government.

He was sued by the government for defamation after an interview with Japan’s Nikkei Asia where he was allegedly quoted as saying that democracy has been “regressing” since Prime Minister Hun Manet came into power.

On the day of the verdict, Candlelight Party released a statement expressing regret over the court decision and urged the government to consider dropping his charges.

“The party is deeply concerned that freedom of expression in Cambodia appears to be restricted, while the political space appears to be narrowing for non-governmental politicians,” it stated. 

Ly Sothearayuth, secretary-general of the Candlelight Party, viewed the $1.5 million of Teav Vannol unacceptable, particularly in relation to the confiscation of property.

“We think that the compensation claim is very severe and that the confiscation order properties (land) is even more serious and unfair to Vannol, who is a senior politician and president of the second largest non-ruling political party,” he said. 

He believed that Vannol’s lawyer would appeal the decision.

Vannol’s lawyer, Em Chantha, told CamboJA News that an appeal against the verdict will be submitted to the Court of Appeal. 

“We’ll continue with an appeal because we are not satisfied with the verdict where he was ordered to pay $1.5 [million] compensation,” he said. 

Chantha mentioned that he also received the injunction warrant from the court, and he and his colleague would discuss with their client on what to do with that. 

“We are discussing with the defense lawyer and the client whether we should sue to cancel the injunction warrant or what to do,” he added. 

Regarding the court warrant, government lawyer Mam Channet said it was a general procedure, where either party exercised their rights as stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. 

Political analyst Meas Nee made two observations. If it was a legal factor, the case would run for months or years, but sometimes if it was related to politics, it could take only two or three days to resolve, he told CamboJA News.

He was more worried about the defamation charge as the demand for compensation was not clearly (legally) classified.

“I do not know what the law is based on?” he said. “I am not talking about fines, but it is important [to note] that the law in our district is no longer real, because the demand [for compensation] depends on the person seeking [damages] and the court and [I] do not know what clause they rely on to demand up to a million dollars.” 

“This is a concern. It is possible that some decisions are made from a political point of view, as it does not have a clear classification.” 

While he does not want to interfere in the legal decision, the quantum of the compensation is getting heavier because it was determined by the claimant. Thus, to make a legal decision on that could be unfair sometimes.

403 views