Written evidence submitted by Gregg Fryett (SLH0007)
a) I was held hostage by the Cambodian Court and legal system for 7.5 years.
b) I am a businessman who through my investment company in the UK raised capital and had this capital invested into Cambodia. I was a visiting Professor at London Metropolitan University, we had investments and business in 7 countries and we were developing Climate Change Financing and Agriculture. I have returned to my work recently and already I am working with three Governments at Ministerial Level specifically with my finance, conservation, forestry, agriculture, carbon and soils technologies and solutions. My work is validated by Governments now again.
c) I remain professionally held hostage to some extent following my Cambodian Ordeal although the work that I am doing is superseding the stigma of my hostage taking abuses in Cambodia. I understand even Nazanin will have a criminal record now even though she was patently held hostage and illegally convicted of farcical criminal charges. How can that be reasonable, proportional or pertinent? Are these not the core elements of any law or legislation?
d) The land and agriculture into which we invested are verified by the Cambodian Government. The land was not transferred to us according to the contract terms and we encountered considerable problems from this. Those contracts remain enforceable and valuable to this day. They would make every UK Stakeholder whole again. Why would the FCDO abandon this?
e) We further suffered a corrupt and illegal prosecution and jailing by the Cambodian Court. The Ministries of Justice, Interior, Land and Agriculture all confirm the illegality of the prosecution and the investments we made.
f) We have, as a result of our experiences, extensive first hand knowledge and experience of the Cambodian Legal System and the Prison System and, to some extent, the political system, or more specifically the benefits of authority system which uses corruption to generate value.
g) The Court and ACU particularly simply operate without regard to the law or any reasonable level of accountability. They systematically hold people hostage for commercial and political benefit. The government is fully aware of this with public statements by the Prime Minister in this regard.
h) The FCDO was fully appraised on my situation and is very aware of many other such situations in Cambodia.
i) Unfortunately, the FCDO has systematically failed to take any reasonable steps to stop the Hostage taking or the corruption of the Cambodian courts in my experience. I supply 20 other cases to show how extensive and organized the criminal enterprise process is. You can almost imagine the consequences for the Cambodians with no embassy behind them.
j) I can provide evidence for myself, Gregg Thomas Fryett, illegally detained illegally for 7 and a half years in Cambodia with my three co-accused who also spent 17 years collectively in jail due to this corruption. My investors, British Investors, lost millions of dollars of investment, an investment confirmed by the Cambodian Government Ministries. The FCDO refuses to take any actions to protect this investment or its citizens in this case and every other case I have seen.
k) I am happy to provide all of the Cambodian Government Ministerial Directive Records for inspections should the inquiry wish.
a) In my case, the Cambodian Authorities, the Cambodian Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Justice with the National Police and a plethora of other Ministries and Government Officials conclude, evidence and document in Ministerial Records that we were falsely imprisoned and held hostage in Cambodia by the Cambodian Courts and a number of corrupt officials for 7 and a half years.
a) Some 2000 British Investors through a British Company invested millions of dollars into land and agriculture in Cambodia confirmed by the Government Ministries and National Police AND the land seller who all confirm to exist and to be legally contracted in written documents.
b) The Judge and his clearly accomplices acted to steal the land, the company equipment and extort ransoms from the investors, this is evidenced in a letter from the Provincial Governor to the Prime Minister no less in 2012. The FCO have this document which details the corruption and illegal prosecution. They did not act.
c) The ACU (Anti Corruption Unit) who had a long standing relationship with the Judge, supported the extortion and hostage situation forced upon the company and its staff. The ACU demanded a Ransom in writing for $1m ‘Service Fee’ for the release of everyone. The FCO know about this and did not act.
d) The land investment had not been transferred until this date but remains available under confirmed and enforceable contracts. The FCO and later the FCDO has been notified of this in copious detail but still refuse to act.
e) We fought the Cambodian Court for 3 years and 9 months before they concluded the trial during which none of the Cambodian co-defendants were placed in pretrial detention or brought to court as we were. This is a patent and obvious abuse of process.
f) Every single foreign nation knows that the Cambodian Courts benefit from “state enabled”, if not “state authorized” hostage taking and the systematic demands for bribes or ransoms for release. This is detailed in the US Human Rights Report Annually. Multiple NGO’s confirm this through reporting of cases. Prime Minister Hun Sen even appeared on TV in 2021 and stated as much following the Rock KTV Drug Arrests and Revelations. (BTV) https://fb.watch/cEy2MkHpAP/
g) The Appeal Court refused to allow the evidence of their own government from two Ministries as “…to do so would literally allow me to sue the whole Cambodian Legal System”. The words of the Appeal Court President.
h) The Minister of Justice Koeut Rith provided the evidence of the false prosecution to the Appeal Court following an internal investigation AND a legal opinion from the Secretary of State Bun Hun which confirms the corruption and illegal imprisonment / hostage or kidnap situation.
i) In essence we have been able to evidence in Cambodia what Bill Browder proved in Russia that resulted in the Magnitsky Act. This Cambodian evidence is from the National Police, the District and Provincial Governors and the Ministries of Land, Agriculture, Interior and Justice, collectively the Government Authorities themselves.
j) The Relevant Point and legal point here is that the FCO knew that there was no legal due process being followed in Cambodia and that we were literally hostages of these corrupt officials who themselves were state enabled.
a) What were the merits and mistakes made in the approach of the FCDO to the handling of the Iranian hostage situation and any other similar situations in recent years?
b) Does the Government approach provide an effective deterrent to state-based hostage situations?
c) What efforts is the Government taking or should take to secure International Agreement on deterring and handling state -based hostage taking?
a) Lets consider Cambodia for a moment. It has a horrific reputation for Corruption, its courts are out of control in this regard. It is very clear that many of the prosecutions in Cambodia are not compliant with any legal standards and that the agenda in many cases is to exploit the victims of prosecution for commercial gain - so read ransoms or bribes - by the court regardless of the facts of the case. This is not news, this is widely known. Even the Cambodian Prime Minister states as much on TV.
b) The UK Embassy and Consul state that:
c) This means that, contrary to all the public facing statements of the FCDO, they have no intention of implementing any reasonable actions or resources to ensure that a UK citizen is not held hostage or will have a fair trial in Cambodia.
a) the FCDO are neither motivated or organized to provide any effective remedies to hostage or legal abuse anywhere in the world, least of all in Iran with the complications of long term debts being the basis of the hostage taking there. There are no merits from my personal experience and that of others attributable to the FCDO current policy. At best, the interactions with the FCDO have been stressful and confrontational and ultimately pointless. In reality, when the FCDO act, the Cambodian Authorities become far more cautious. Understanding how corruption works and the fears of the corrupt officials is at the core of an effective remedy. THE FCDO are patently not familiar with how this works.
a) The FCDO are neither effective or a deterrent. Indeed the ineffectiveness of the FCDO to act in such a blatant case as mine emboldens the corruption and criminality.
a) In my view, you have all the international agreements and law you need. You need practical and literal enforcement of these agreements which means action.
b) For British Interests to be safe overseas, then the FCDO must routinely examine all prosecutions of British Citizens for compliance with domestic and international law (with the approval and liability waiver of the Citizen). This simple step alone would escalate the risk for corrupt officials and the state to a point they would only act with real evidence and grounds. When there is reason for action by the FCDO, then they should act boldly but professionally.
c) The message should be clear - British Passport Holders are protected by the FCDO and out of bounds to any illegal hostage, corruption or political agenda.
a) As explained in Nicola’s email to you of 28 January, the UK authorities will not investigate a crime in another jurisdiction unless invited to do so by the relevant authorities.
b) As explained in our Support for British Nationals Abroad guide, there is no legal right to consular assistance, and all assistance provided is at our discretion.
c) Involvement of the Ambassador and the Foreign Secretary. The Ambassador is aware of your case and is being kept updated. Staff who met you during the January consular visit have confirmed to me that they did not discuss with you the Foreign Secretary’s involvement. ……… The Foreign Secretary relies on officials to provide the appropriate level of assistance in each consular case and I am satisfied that we have done so in your case.
a) the FCDO is the ONLY party with the authority to stop this hostage taking ransom racket. The court and the officials will not act against their own to stop it as we have evidenced. In reality, the FCO recognizes the crime being perpetrated against us but refuse to act unless upon the request of the very hostage sanctioning state that allows the court to do this to us? How on earth was this illogical conclusion arrived at? If you wish to improve how the UK Government handles State level hostage taking, it starts with having the political will. Is it not strange that the net outcome of all of this is that no British Interest is actually benefiting from any protection, actual or implied.
b) We have no legal right to Consular or Embassy Assistance? Is this the response of the very office paid specifically by tax payers to provide these services? These are the very items identified by the Foreign Secretary in the annual report. This is a patent and broad systematic fraud being perpetrated by the FCDO. It needs to be reversed without any delay.
c) the very people who systematically throw up barriers and excuses are briefing the Ambassador and Minister? This is a serious chain of command issue.
a) If this were only happening to me, then perhaps this would be the end of it. But no, it has happened to almost every British and Foreign Prisoner I have met.
b) And many Cambodians.
c) The criminals pay and get out, the innocents remain and die slowly with no money, no hope and abandoned. They serve as a good lesson to others as to what happens if you do not pay the court!
a) In reality, the FCO has a central policy to systematically abandon all British Citizens in Cambodia. I am very sure this is exactly the case all over the world. It needs to be reversed without delay.
a) “Global Britain is a force for good in the world. Our guiding lights, have always been— and will always be— the values of democracy, human rights and the international rule of law”.
a) “In order to hold human rights abusers and violators to account, we have recently introduced the UK’s first autonomous human rights sanctions regime, giving us the power to impose sanctions on individuals involved in the most serious abuses of human rights. These sanctions offer us a forensic tool, allowing us to target perpetrators through travel bans and asset freezes, without punishing the wider people of a country” Dominic Raab.FCDO Annual Report 2019-2020
a) The Cambodian courts ply a systematic organized criminal enterprise that abuses its own citizens and targets overseas visitors exploiting them as hostages of a legal system historically renowned for its corrupt practices sounds like a serious abuser of human rights to me.
a) From [name], for the FCDO and the Consular Casework Team on the 22nd of April 2022, sent with no date stamp and to a no-reply email.
b) “I recognise the seriousness that you attach to seeking justice and reparations from those you believe have caused you and your investors loss and distress.
c) However, as previously advised in earlier correspondence of 22 June 2021, the British Government is not responsible for recovering, or helping to recover, lost investments overseas, which are made independently by individuals at their own risk. Nor is it able to give you legal advice, investigate crimes, pursue cases or support legal action on your behalf. If a British national is a victim of crime overseas it is the responsibility of the local authorities to investigate and prosecute the perpetrator if deemed appropriate”.
d) [name] admits for the FCDO that they will not act against the abuses we suffered as he considers this nothing more than a failed investment. He is actively failing to address the issue by sidestepping responsibility.
a) A crime is a deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm, damage to or loss of property, and is against the law
b) Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.The elements of the offence are summarised in Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868.
c) The offence is committed when:
a) I appreciate the opportunity to place these facts in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I welcome your support and that of the FCO to resolve matters in Cambodia accordingly. I welcome discussing this further as required.
Sincerely Yours
Gregg Fryett
May 2022