Attorney General Dekkers Ignores Eight Requests from Family for Contact with Loved One

Home | Page Title

If you know Chanyut Chokjanphen, call tel. # 66 - 08 - 9 - 501 - 4780 (24 hours)!



This website is posted in the hope that it will lead to the recovery of a victim of traffickers in women and children.


All police services and private individuals with any knowledge of Oliver Albert Chanyut Chokjanphen (AKA Chanyut Vermeulen, Channy Vermeulen, DJ Channy and DJ Chavvy), age 24, born in Thailand on February 28, 1989, and last seen in Belgium, are urged to contact this website and/or his family at once as indicated: Tel.: 66 - 08 4 726 4836; 66 - 08 - 6024 - 7032. Or


Belgian and Thai police services were complicit in kidnapping and trafficking the victim, obstructed search and recovery efforts and have been in all ways wholly uncooperative and unreliable since then. The Thai police intimidated complainants and witnesses and threatened their physcial safety. There is overwhelming documentary evidence persistent criminal conduct.


The last trace of the victim was the listing of an address and telephone number in the name of Chanyut Vermeulen in Zondhoven, Belgium on two Belgian telephone company Internet websites in mid-October 2013. He is unknown at the telephone number, which is in another town, and there has been no response to the letters sent to the address. 


It is believed that the victim is surrounded by bad company and unaware of the Internet posting. 

Attorney General Not Acting to Break Up Kidnapping, Child Trafficking and Pedophile Ring and Fraudsters

Attorney General of Antwerp
Christine Dekkers

Eight Urgent Letters from a Family in Thailand Requesting Contact with a Loved One, Trafficked to Belgium by a Pedophile Ring, Ignored by the Attorney General of Antwerp 

Eighth Letter to Christine Dekkers, Attorney General of Antwerp, August 15, 2006 



75/9 Non Pa Sang

Pha Khao District

Loei Province 42240


Tel.: 66 – 1 – 965 – 1493; 66 – 1 – 220 - 6598 (for Lao and Thai);

  66  -  4 – 726 – 4836 (for Dutch, English, French)




Tuesday, August 15, 2006




Mrs. Christine Dekkers (Mevrouw Christine Dekkers)

Attorney General (Procureur-Generaal)

Attorney General’s Office (Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen)

Waalse Kaai

2000 Antwerp (Antwerpen)

Belgium (BelgiŽ)


Subject: assistance required to search for loved one




I refer to seven letters, sent to you on May 3, 2005; July 6, 2005; September 16, 2005; November 15, 2005; January 12, 2006; April 12, 2006; and June 20, 2006.


The correspondence urgently requested your assistance in a Thai family's search for a loved one, Oliver Albert Chanyut Chokjanphen, separated from his mother in Antwerp between 1996 and 1999. The family fears for Oliver Chanyut’s physical safety. If alive, he is a minor, 17 years old.  


There has been no reply from you or any indication that any of the requests received due and proper consideration.


The family seeks your assistance because school, city administration, police, judicial, postal and so-called “non-governmental organization” employees in Antwerp are uncooperative.


Kindly order the police to put Oliver Chanyut in direct telephone contact with his family.


On behalf of the Chokjanphen family, I am,


Sincerely yours,




William Champa 





View published sites:


Request to Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, for Contact with Loved One, May 3, 2005:


A Second Open Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, July 6, 2005:


A Third Open Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, September 16, 2005:


 A Fourth Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, November 15, 2005:


 Fifth Unanswered Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, January 12, 2006:


 Attorney General Dekkers Ignores Sixth Urgent Letter, April 12, 2006:


Seventh letter to Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, Unanswered, June 20, 2006:






Websites with relevant up-to-date information: ; ; ;



No Response by the Attorney General of Antwerp to Seven Urgent Requests! 
The attorney general of Antwerp can act directly in many matters. The attorney general has done so before. That would be by far the most effective way of handling this particular matter which involves the international traffic in children, pedophile rings and complicit officials, especially in Antwerp.
Following routine procedure, the attorney general could refer the requests to an assistant attorney general. However, an assistant attorney general, Marc Tack, who was an assistant prosecuting attorney in Antwerp's juvenile court before his current position, ignored many similar requests addressed to him in 2004. Other assistant attorney generals mishandled the requests when they were assistant prosecuting attorneys in Antwerp's main courthouse.
The attorney general's office could contact the city police directly and request that it put a child in immediate telephone contact with his family. Indeed, that would be the most effective way to respond to a family's request for contact with a loved one that has been repeatedly refused by city officials.
In fact, referral of this matter by the attorney general to anyone else would be "passing the buck" and a clear signal to dispose of it through routine procedures, in effect, to ignore the family's requests and to invent excuses for not cooperating with the family, to write false reports about the child, and to stir up complaints against the child’s family and possibly murder the child to destroy incriminating evidence. 
It is likely that the attorney general referred the family's requests to the prosecuting attorney for Antwerp. That can be considered standard routine procedure, but it would be inappropriate in this particularly urgent and long-neglected matter.
The prosecuting attorney, or his secretary, would refer the family's letters to an assistant prosecuting attorney in his office.
The assistant prosecuting attorney would have three options:
(1) Order the police to put the child in immediate telephone contact with his family;
(2) Refer the requests to a judge of instruction who, in turn, would
    (a) Order the city police to find the child and put him in direct contact with his family or
    (b) Refer the matter back to the prosecutor;
(3) Refer the requests to assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court.
Referral of the urgent requests to assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court would be a further signal to ignore the requests and, also, to cover up the matter.
The assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court could follow one of three routines:
(1) Refer the requests to the juvenile division of the city police.
The chief of the juvenile division, Sonja DeBrynt, would refer the requests to social workers with the juvenile division of the city police who would contact local city school employees and ask for information about the child and then report back to the chief of the juvenile division who would report back to the assistant prosecuting attorney at the juvenile court.
(2) Refer the letters to the Provincial Department of Social Services where social workers would contact school employees and request information about the child and report back to the assistant prosecutor.
Social workers and directors of the Provincial Department of Social Services have long been notorious for erratic and immature behavior, violent public displays of anger, utter lack of common decent manners, general dishonesty and unreliability. Some have been reported to have close links to pedophile, prostitution and child trafficking rings.
(3) Refer the family's requests to social workers in the juvenile court. The social workers would go to the school and visit the child’s living quarters and then report directly to a judge in the juvenile court with a recommendation to put the child in telephone contact with his family.
The attorney general, Dekkers, might have requested written reports from policemen and/or social workers that would excuse her intransigence. 
It is possible also that Dekkers has conflicts of interests in this matter and that she herself could be complicit in the kidnapping and trafficking of Oliver Chanyut and in fraud committed by the kidnappers, traffickers and corrupt officials.

It is possible also that Dekkers, to cover cronies, is ignoring the matter in the hope of taking advantage of statutes of limitation. Earlier, many court officials seemed to believe that by blocking any court decision in this case they would prevent the family from complaining to the European Court of Human Rights which will not accept complaints without a court decision in the state concerned within the previous six months.  
The Belgian Federal Minister of Justice, Marc Verwilghen, and the Federal Minister of Interior, Antoine Duquesne, ignored related correspondence for several years. In 2003, they wrote false reports about Oliver Chanyut to persons inquiring at the family's behest. Their reports might have been prepared, in part, with the current attorney general of Antwerp.
In 2004, Verwilghen's successor, Laurette Onkelinx, as Minister of Justice, and Duquesne's successor, Patrick Dewael, as Minister of Interior, ignored repeated requests to order Antwerp officials to cooperate with the family. The attorney general of Antwerp, by peddling false reports, might have offered them an excuse for their intransigence.

Click here for a sampling of correspondence with the Belgian Federal Ministry of Interior:
For a sampling of correspondence with the Belgian Federal Ministry of Justice, click here: ____________________
For a sampling of correspondence with the Belgian Federal Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, click here: ____________________

For a sampling of correspondence regarding the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, click here _____



Enter supporting content here