Skip Navigation LinksHome > Clinical Programs > Human Trafficking Cases > Case Display

Case View

 

 Case Documents

 
There are no documents to display for this case.

 

 Case Links - links to external documents

 
Link to Document

 
Case Details

  
CASE NAME:United States v. Supawan Veerapol
ALL PLAINTIFFS:United States
ALL DEFENDANTS:Supawan Veerapol
CITATION:
DOCKET NUMBER:98-CR-00334
SOURCE:Lexis Search, News Article
TYPE OF CASE:Criminal
RELATED CASE CITATION:
TYPE OF TRIAL:Jury
TRIAL JUDGE(S):Hon. Carlos R. Moreno
YEAR OF ARREST:1998
YEAR OF VERDICT:1999
TYPE OF COURT:Federal Court
STATE:California
FEDERAL DISTRICT:Central District Court
STATE COUNTY:
AGE OF VICTIM(S):Adult
NUMBER OF VICTIMS:3
GENDER OF VICTIM(S):Female
VICTIM'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:Thailand
METHOD OF ENTRY INTO THE U.S.:B-1/B-2 visa
WAS VICTIM CHARGED WITH A CRIME:No
NUMBER OF DEFENDANT(S):1
GENDER OF DEFENDANT(S):Female
TYPE OF INDUSTRY:Labor
CASE CATEGORIZATION:Domestic Servant, Restaurant/Bar Industry
FIRST CHARGE:Involuntary servitude
FIRST CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1584
FIRST CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:Guilty Verdict
FIRST CHARGE SENTENCE:
SECOND CHARGE:Mail fraud
SECOND CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1341
SECOND CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:Guilty Verdict
SECOND CHARGE SENTENCE:
THIRD CHARGE:Harboring illegal aliens
THIRD CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:8 U.S.C. § 1324
THIRD CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
THIRD CHARGE SENTENCE:
FOURTH CHARGE:
FOURTH CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FOURTH CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
FOURTH CHARGE SENTENCE:
FIFTH CHARGE:
FIFTH CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
FIFTH CHARGE SENTENCE:
CORE TERMS:18 U.S.C. § 1584; 18 U.S.C. § 1341; 8 U.S.C. § 1324
SENTENCING OPINION CITATION:
LENGTH OF GREATEST SENTENCE:97 months, followed by 36 months supervised release
RESTITUTION REQUIRED:$71,333.56
FINE IMPOSED:$1,100 (special assessment)
FORFEITURE IMPOSED:
FIRST CLAIM:
FIRST CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIRST CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIRST CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SECOND CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SECOND CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
THIRD CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THIRD CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FOURTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FOURTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIFTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SIXTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SIXTH CLAIM:
TOTAL AWARD:
APPEAL:Yes
EXPLANATION OF APPEAL:Appealed Judgment, Appealed Sentence
APPELLATE OPINION CITATION:312 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2002)
HOLDING OF APPEALS COURT:Affirm
APPEAL STILL PENDING?:
SUMMARY:

Defendant Veerapol, a Thai citizen and the common-law wife of a Thai ambassador to the United States, forced three Thai nationals to work as domestic servants and as workers at defendant’s Thai restaurant in Los Angeles. Beginning sometime prior to 1989, Veerpol recruited the victims from Thailand. Veerpol was able to obtain a visitor’s visa for at least one of the victims through her husband’s contacts at the Thai embassy.

Once in the United States, the defendant forced the victims to work long hours performing housework and childcare. Defendant opened bank and credit card accounts in the victims’ names, which she used for her own benefit. Veerpol used threats of legal action, verbal abuse, and physical violence to maintain control over the workers. At one point, the defendant threatened to kill one of the workers if she returned to Thailand.

In addition to confiscating the victim’s passports, the defendant further isolated the women by prohibiting them from using the mail or telephone, and by denying them access to Thai-language newspapers. The victims were not permitted to speak to defendant’s house guests.

The defendant permitted one victim to return to Thailand, after a Thai consular official intervened at the request of the victim’s siblings. The two other workers eventually escaped from defendant.

Approval Status:Approved
Approver Comments:
            
EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Michigan Law Wordmark Print View