Cambodia’s Family Trees
Illegal logging and the stripping of public assets
by Cambodia’s elite

A Report by Global Witness, June 2007

Contents

CONTENTSABBREVIATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSSUMMARY
Table 1: Issues that Cambodia’s Judicial
Authorities Must Now Investigate

CHAPTER I: FORESTS AND CAMBODIA’SSHADOW STATE
1. Asset-stripping Cambodia
Figure 1: Cambodia’s Tycoon-Senators/
Cronyometer
2. Cambodia’s Forest Sector
Box 1: Furnishing the National AssemblyBox 2: Measuring Forest Cover andDeforestation in Cambodia
3. Cambodia’s International Donors – Aiding
Cambodians or Abetting the Government?

CHAPTER II: KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY

3
4-5
6-8
9

10-18
10-12
11
12-16
15

CHAPTER III: INSTITUTIONALISED CORRUPTIONIN PREY LONG
60-67

17

61
63

18

19-59

1. Introducing Cambodia’s Premier
Logging Syndicate
19-21
1.1 Dy Chouch, also known as Hun Chouch
19
1.2 Seng Keang
20
Chart 1: Cambodia’s Premier Logging
Syndicate and Friends
21
1.3 Khun Thong21
2. Kingwood – Rise and Demise of a Logging
Concessionaire
22-28
2.1 Illegal Logging
22-23
2.2 Bad Debts
23-24
Box 3: Ky Tech
24
2.3 A Very Hostile Takeover
24-28
2.4 Competing Claims28
Box 4: Kingwood’s Assets – Property of theCambodian People?
28
3. Tumring Rubber Plantation – the New Faceof Industrial-Scale Logging in Cambodia
29-38
3.1 A Family-Scale Enterprise29-30
Box 5: Resin Tapping31
Box 6: Prey Long Forest at the Crossroads 32-33
3.2 The “Benefit of Conversion”
34
3.3 Log Laundering
35
3.4 Firewood Collection
36
3.5 Further Benefits37
3.6 Old logs and Donor Amnesia
38
4. Anatomy of an Illegal Logging Operation
39-47
4.1 Processing Capacity
39-40
4.2 Feeding the Factories40
Box 7: Colexim – Cambodia’s Model
Concession Company
41
4.3 The Suppliers
42
4.4 Transportation
43
4.5 The Markets
43
Box 8: Cambodia’s Invisible Timber Exports 44-45
4.6 Outputs and Financial Returns
46-47
Chart 2: Forest Destruction and Institutional
Corruption in Cambodia
48-49

2

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

5. A Rural Gangland
50-54
5.1 Resin Tree Theft50
5.2 Dealing with Dissent
51-53
Box 9: Account of the Shootings of 10 July 2005 52
Box 10: In Search of Mr. 95
54
6. Crackdown or Pause?
55-57
Box 11: The Logging Syndicate’s Next Big Score 56
A Short History of Forest Managementin Cambodia
58-59

1. Forest Administration
Box 12: Chan Sarun and Ty Sokhun’s
Forest Administration Job Auction
2. Military Police
3. RCAF Kompong Thom Provincial Military
Sub-Operation
4. RCAF Military Region II
5. Military Intelligence
Box 13: Bearing the Burden of Corruption
6. Police
7. Local Government

CHAPTER IV: THE BRIGADE 70
CONNECTION

60-62

64
64
64
65
66
67

68-88

1. Brigade 70 and the Bodyguard Unit –a Private Army for the Prime Minister68-69
Box 14: General Kun Kim andLieutenant General Hing Bun Heang
69
Box 15: Illegal Logging and RCAF Forces
Loyal to Hun Sen
70
2. Hak Mao
71
3. Timber Trafficking
72-81
Box 16: The Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
Get a Helping Hand from the US Government 73
3.1 Exports
75
3.2 The Clients
75-81
4. Transportation of Smuggled Goods
by Brigade 70
82-86
Box 17: Attwood Import Export Co. Ltd
82
4.1 Smuggling Through Sre Ambel Port83
4.2 Smuggling through Oknha Mong Port84
Box 18: Mong Reththy
84-85
Box 19: Special Deliveries
86
Chart 3: Brigade 70, the InterContinental Hoteland Attwood86
5. The Bottom Line – Hak Mao’s Income
and Expenditure87
Box 20: Long Meng Group88

CONCLUSION89

APPENDIX 1: CAMBODIA’S TYCOONSENATORS/CRONYOMETER REFERENCES

90

REFERENCES

91-94

Abbreviations

Abbreviations
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
MRII
Military Region II
MRIII
Military Region III
MRIV
Military Region IVNGO
non-governmental organisation
RCAF
Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
RGC
Royal Government of Cambodia
SEZ
special economic zone
SFMP
sustainable forest management plan
SGS
Société générale de surveillanceUN
United Nations
UNOHCHR United Nations Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights
UNTAC
United Nations Transitional Authority
in Cambodia
WGNRM Working Group on Natural Resource
Management
MAFF

CDC
CG
CPP
DFW
ELC
ESIA
FA
FAO
FLEG
ha
IFM
IFSR
km
m3

Council for the Development of
Cambodia
Consultative Group
Cambodian People’s Party
Department of Forestry and Wildlife(renamed Forest Administration in 2003)
economic land concession
environmental and social impact assessment
Forest Administration
Food and Agriculture Organisation
Forest Law Enforcement andGovernance process
hectareindependent forest monitoring
Independent Forest Sector Review
kilometrecubic metre

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

3

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONSCAMBODIA’S JUDICIAL AUTHORITIESSHOULD:
1. Hold accountable those responsible forillegal logging and associated crimes• Investigate and prosecute all those responsible
for the cases of illegal logging, corruption,
smuggling, attempted murder and kidnapping
detailed in this report.
• Prioritise investigation of the following people:
Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(MAFF) Chan Sarun,1 Director General of theForest Administration (FA) Ty Sokhun,2 Hun
Sen Bodyguard Unit commander Lieutenant
General Hing Bun Heang,3 Brigade 70
Brigadier General Hak Mao,4 logging syndicate
leaders Dy Chouch,5 Seng Keang,6 KhunThong7 and Seng Kok Heang.8

THE ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMBODIASHOULD:
1. Hold accountable those responsible forillegal logging and associated crimes• Support the efforts of the judicial authorities toinvestigate and prosecute those responsible forthe illegal activities detailed in this report.
• Dismiss any government ministers, officials andmilitary officers responsible for these illegal
activities.
2. Protect the Prey Long Forest• Take Prey Long, mainland Southeast Asia’s
largest lowland evergreen forest, out of
production. Develop an alternative management
regime for Prey Long, based on consultation
with local populations, which prioritises
conservation and safeguards the usage rights ofpeople living in and around the forest.
3. Reform forest management• Reinstate independent forest monitoring (IFM)
based on a robust institutional frameworkand terms of reference, following a periodof public consultation. Appoint a qualified
organisation on the basis of an open tendering
process conducted in line with international
best practice.
• Terminate the logging concession system,
in line with recommendations of the 2004
Independent Forest Sector Review (IFSR).9• Cancel plans to introduce a new system ofannual bidding (logging) coupes.

4

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES• Terminate all economic land concessions(ELCs) and mining concessions that aresituated in forest or are otherwise contrary to
existing law.
• Develop a new forest management regime
based on the recommendations of the IFSR.
This should centre on expanded community
forestry, partnership forestry and landscapebased conservation programmes.i• Recognise the prior claims of indigenous
minorities, as required by the Land Law, in
determining the status and usage of forested areas.
• Ensure that any future logging and tree
plantation ventures meet Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC) or equivalent standards andfollow consultation with affected communities.
• Complete and pass the new Protected Areas
Law and all outstanding sub-decrees andprakas (ministerial declarations) required underthe 2002 Forestry Law. Ensure that drafts
are made publicly available prior to passage,
allowing sufficient time for public comment.
• Impose a moratorium on the construction ofroads through forested areas, in line with therecommendations of the 2004 IFSR.
4. Take immediate steps to increasetransparency in the management of public
assets• Ensure full and continued disclosure of
information concerning the management ofpublic assets such as forests, land, oil and gas,mineral deposits, fisheries, heritage sites andstate-owned buildings.
• Ensure that this information includes thefollowing: investment agreements, contractual
conditions and compliance status (completionof satisfactory environmental and social impact
assessments (ESIAs), payment of royalties etc);
exploration, exploitation, transportation andexport permits awarded; names and details of thebeneficial owners of the companies concerned.
5. Strengthen the legal framework governing
the management of public assets• Include in the draft Anti-Corruption Law thefollowing provisions:– A guarantee that all Cambodian citizens
have rights of access listed above.
– Prohibition on individuals or companies
that have a record of illegal activities
managing public assets of any kind.

i Partnership forestry is a new model proposed by the 2004 Independent Forest Sector

Review. It would give a greater say in forest management decision-making to elected
commune councils, with the Forest Administration playing a regulatory role.

Recommendations– Requirement that all contracts between thegovernment and companies concerning themanagement, exploration or exploitationof natural resources and other public assets
proceed from an open tendering process
conducted in line with international bestpractice.
– Requirement that all private sector
operators holding concessions on public
assets annually disclose the payments they
make to the government in the form oftaxes, royalties, signature bonuses etc.
– Requirement that the government annually
discloses details of all taxes, royalties,
signature bonuses etc. received fromconcessions on public assets.
– Requirement that the government maintains
a regularly updated and publicly accessible
register of senior officials’ business interestsand personal assets, as well as those of theirfamily members.
• Pass and implement the Anti-Corruption Law
without further delay.
6. Ensure transparent management of oil andgas revenues• Implement the revenue management measures
set out in the IMF’s Guide on Resource
Revenue Transparency.10• Join the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative.11
7. Reform the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces(RCAF)• Withdraw all military units stationed inside oron the boundaries of protected areas.
• Disclose the location and legal status of all the
military development zones. Terminate all thosethat are situated on forests, in protected areas,or are otherwise contrary to existing law.
• Overturn the recently introduced conscription
law and embark on a comprehensive restructuringof RCAF to create a professional military force
that meets Cambodia’s defence needs.

CAMBODIA’S INTERNATIONAL DONORSSHOULD:
1. Use their influence proactively to ensurethat aid benefits ordinary Cambodians• Donors should link disbursement of
non-humanitarian aid to demonstrable
progress in implementing the measures
outlined above, in accordance with set
time-lines.
2. Withhold support from state institutions
engaged in serious criminal activities• In particular, donors should not provide
funding or other forms of support to RCAF
until such time as it ceases its involvement inlarge-scale organised crime.
3. Support Cambodian civil society’s efforts
to increase government accountability• Provide more support to Cambodianorganisations working to build
government accountability withrespect to the management of public
assets. Specifically, build the capacityof local civil society to document,
monitor and scrutinise the managementof natural resources and other public
assets and ensure transparent public
sector spending.
4. Help to protect Cambodia’s forests as partof international efforts to combat climatechange• Act on the conclusion of the recent UK
government-commissioned Stern Review
on the Economics of Climate Change, thatinternational efforts to combat climate changemust prioritise the preservation of existing
natural forests.12• With respect to Cambodia, dedicate funds andexpertise to developing new incentives andinstitutional frameworks for preserving key
areas such as Prey Long Forest.

Cambodia’s Prey Long Forest

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

5

Summary

SUMMARYii
This report makes the case for greater efforts by
the Cambodian government and the international
community to strengthen the governance of forestsand other public assets on which Cambodia’s people
depend. It is based on in-depth investigations into
illegal logging and associated criminality carried out
by Global Witness between the end of 2004 and the
beginning of 2007.
The report’s main findings are as follows:
1. A kleptocratic elite is stripping Cambodia’s forests• Cambodia is run by a kleptocratic elite thatgenerates much of its wealth via the seizure of
public assets, particularly natural resources.
The forest sector provides a particularly vivid
illustration of this asset-stripping process at work.
• Illegal logging is causing severe damage to
Cambodia’s remaining forests. The last global
forest cover survey by the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) found that Cambodia had
lost 29% of its primary tropical forest over a five
year period.
• Cambodia’s army, military police, police andForest Administration (FA) are all heavily
involved in illegal logging.
• In many cases illegal logging is taking place
under the guise of legally dubious plantation
developments and harvesting permits. Many ofthese plantations and permits are being allocatedto a small group of individuals who have close
relations with senior politicians.
• A particular concern is the damage illegal loggers
are causing to Prey Long, which is the largest
lowland evergreen forest in mainland Southeast
Asia. The Cambodian government is currently
developing plans to clear tens of thousandsof hectares of Prey Long to make way forplantations.

2. Cambodia’s most powerful logging syndicate is led
by relatives of Prime Minister Hun Sen13 and othersenior officials• The most powerful logging syndicate in Cambodia
is led by Dy Chouch, also known as Hun Chouch,his ex-wife Seng Keang and Khun Thong, theirbusiness partner. This group operates under thename Seng Keang Company.
• Dy Chouch is the first cousin of Prime Minister
Hun Sen.
• Seng Keang is a friend of Bun Rany, the wife of
Hun Sen.
• Khun Thong is the brother-in-law of Minister for
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) Chan
Sarun and father-in-law of Director General of theForest Administration Ty Sokhun.
• Seng Keang’s brother, Seng Kok Heang, who
supervises operations for Seng Keang Company, is
an officer in the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces(RCAF) Brigade 70 elite military unit.
3. Activities in which members of thislogging syndicate are implicated include
the following:• The apparent abduction and detention of Lia
Chun Hua,14 the managing director of the
Kingwood Industry logging company.
• Large-scale illegal logging in the Prey Long Forest
carried out under the guise of the Tumring Rubber
Plantation development.
• Felling of thousands of resin-producing trees
tapped by local people who depended on them as asource of income. Resin trees are protected under
Cambodian law.
• A reported attempt by Seng Kok Heang to kill
two community forest activists in Tumring who
protested against the Seng Keang Company’s
felling of resin trees.
• Use of fraudulent transportation permits
describing logs as lesser-value firewood. This may
have cost the Cambodian treasury over a million
dollars in lost tax revenues.
• The export to China of millions of dollars-worth of
plywood on which no taxes appear to have been paid.
• Establishment in Tumring of a factory for sawing
wood and making veneer. Cambodia’s Forest
Law prohibits construction of wood-processing
facilities in forest areas.
• This factory’s processing of over 100,000 cubic
metres (m3) of logs a year into timber products
worth more than US$13 million annually. Most of
the logs used were cut illegally in Prey Long.
• The above activities are covered by existing
Cambodian law and are punishable by prison
sentences and fines. Dy Chouch, Seng Keang,
Khun Thong and Seng Kok Heang have not beenprosecuted, however.
ii References for the points covered in this section can be found in the main bodyHun Sen greeting senior officials

6

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESof the report.

Summary

Prime Minister Hun Sen

Hun Sen’s wife, Bun Rany

Hun Sen’s first cousin Dy Chouch, also
known as Hun Chouch

Dy Chouch’s ex-wife, Seng Keang

Seng Keang’s brother Seng Kok
Heang, also known as Mr. 95

Khun Thong’s brother-in-law,
Minister of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries, Chan Sarun

Khun Thong’s son-in-law,Director General of the Forest
Administration, Ty Sokhun

Hun Sen Bodyguard Unit
commander, Lieutenant General
Hing Bun Heang

Head of Cambodia’s Military Police,
General Sao Sokha

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

7

Summary

4. Senior officials are complicit in these activities• Prime Minister Hun Sen personally inaugurated
the Tumring Rubber Plantation that provided thebasis for massive illegal logging of Prey Long by
the Seng Keang Company.
• Establishment of this plantation followed a surveyof the Tumring site by MAFF, which is run by
Chan Sarun. His brother-in-law, Khun Thong,is a leading figure in the Seng Keang Company.
This MAFF survey misleadingly categorised thearea as land containing only small amounts ofvaluable forest.
• Despite claiming a lack of valuable timber in thearea, Chan Sarun awarded exclusive rights to Seng
Keang Company to collect and process all wood
cut in Tumring Rubber Plantation.
• Chan Sarun subsequently gave the company thepermit to establish its wood-processing factory in
Tumring, despite the fact that this was illegal.
• The FA, which is run by Khun Thong’s sonin-law Ty Sokhun, has played a key role infacilitating Seng Keang Company’s illegal logging
and other criminal activities.
5. Evidence suggests that some of these senior
officials are directly responsible for corruption within
the institutions that they head
• There is substantial evidence that Chan Sarun and
Ty Sokhun have illegally sold 500 or more jobs in
the Forest Administration.
• Officials have calculated that selling jobs netted
Chan Sarun more than US$2.5 million in bribes.
• The desire to recoup the costs of purchasing these
positions appears to account for the increasingly
corrupt behaviour of many FA officials.
• Corruption and collusion in forest crime areboth covered by existing Cambodian law andpunishable by prison sentences and fines. No
senior official has yet been either charged or
disciplined in connection with the sale of jobs or
the illegal logging in Prey Long, however.
6. Hun Sen’s private army is financed through illegal
logging and smuggling• In transporting illegally-logged timber out ofPrey Long, the Seng Keang Company has worked
closely with Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
Brigade 70. Brigade 70 acts as a reserve force for
Hun Sen’s 4,000 strong Bodyguard Unit. The twounits comprise what is essentially a private army
controlled by the prime minister.
• Aside from its activities in Prey Long, Brigade
70 acts as a nationwide timber trafficking service.
It transports illegally-logged timber all overCambodia and exports significant quantities toVietnam.
• The officer organising these operations is

8

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESBrigadier General Hak Mao. His main protectors
and patrons include Hun Sen Bodyguard Unit
commander Lieutenant General Hing Bun Heangand national head of the military police General
Sao Sokha.15• Brigade 70’s clients are a ‘who’s who’ of majortimber barons in Cambodia, including theinfamous Pheapimex company run by Hun Sen
crony Yeay Phu, as well as government officials
and generals.
• In the second half of 2006, Brigade 70 wastransporting an average of 1,260 m3 illegallylogged timber per week. Through thesetimber trafficking operations, Hak Mao makes
approximately US$1.2 million per year.
• Brigade 70 operates a parallel service transporting
smuggled goods through ports on Cambodia’s
south coast, notably Oknha Mong Port, which
belongs to Mong Reththy,16 a tycoon who is also asenator for Hun Sen’s Cambodian People’s Party(CPP).
• The Brigade 70 illegal timber and contrabandtrafficking operations combined are worth between
US$2 million and US$2.75 million annually.
• The profits are used to pay for the operations ofBrigade 70 itself. In addition, a large cut is handed
over to Hun Sen Bodyguard Unit commander
Lieutenant General Hing Bun Heang.
• These activities are covered by existing
Cambodian law and are punishable by prison
sentences and fines. To date none of those
responsible have been prosecuted.
• Despite the evidence of entrenched criminality
within the Royal Cambodian Armed Forcesinternational donors such as China and the USA
are now providing direct military assistance toCambodia.
7. Cambodia’s international donors are not using
their influence effectively• International donors annually provide
approximately US$600 million per year in aid to
Cambodia. This is equivalent to half the national
budget.
• Donors have not used the leverage that thisaid gives them effectively. Specifically, they
have refused to acknowledge the fact that the
government is thoroughly corrupt and does not
act in the best interests of the population.
• As a result, billions of dollars-worth of aid funded
by western taxpayers have done relatively little toimprove the lives of ordinary Cambodians.
• Moreover, donor support has failed to produce
reforms that would make the government
more accountable to its citizens. Instead, thegovernment is successfully exploiting international
aid as a source of political legitimacy.

Table 1iii

TABLE 1: ISSUES THAT CAMBODIA’S JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES MUST NOW INVESTIGATE
Individuals

Activity

Dy ChouchSeng Keang
Khun Thong

Apparent detention of Lia Chun Hua and forced
takeover of Kingwood Industry Company

Relevant Laws & Penalties for Violations

Law on the Aggravating Circumstances of Crimes
Article 7: Detention and illegal confinement
Penalty: 5-10 years in prison
Article 6: Robbery
Penalty: 5-10 years in prison
Seng Kok Heang
Reported attempt to kill two community forestry
Law on the Aggravating Circumstances of Crimes
activists
Article 3: Murder
Penalty: 15-20 years in prison
Dy ChouchIndustrial-scale logging outside the boundaries
Forest Law Article 98: Misuse of a permit to harvest forest products; harvesting
Seng Keangof the Tumring Rubber Plantation and cutting offorest products without a permit; felling rare tree species and trees that local
Khun Thong
thousands of resin trees belonging to local people people tap for resin
Seng Kok Heang
Penalty: 1-5 years in prison and fines of 10-100 million riel (US$2,500-US$25,000)
Land Law Article 259: Infringement against public property
Penalty: 1-5 years in prison and/or a fine of 5-50 million riel (US$1,250-US$12,500)
Law on the Aggravating Circumstances of Crimes
Article 6: Robbery
Penalty: 5-10 years in prison
UNTAC Penal Code Article 52: Wrongful damage to property
Penalty: 1-3 years in prison
Transporting millions of dollars-worth of logs cut
Forest Law Article 96: Transporting forest products obtained via illegal harvesting
during these operations
Penalty: Fine 2-3 times the value of the forest products
Use of ‘firewood’ collection permits to facilitate log Law on Taxation Article 127 & Article 135: Tax evasiontransportation
Penalty: 1-5 years in prison and/or a fine of 10-20 million riel (US$2,500-US$5,000)
Forest Law Article 96: Transporting forest products contrary to those describedin a transport permit
Penalty: Fine 2-3 times the value of the forest products
Processing these logs
Forest Law Article 96: Processing forest products obtained via illegal harvesting
Penalty: Fine 2-3 times the value of the forest products
Transporting the finished products
Forest Law Article 96: Transporting forest products obtained via illegal harvesting
Penalty: Fine 2-3 times the value of the forest products
Selling these items
Forest Law Article 96: Trading forest products obtained via illegal harvesting
Penalty: Fine 2-3 times the value of the forest products
Payments to officials to protect or turn a blind eye UNTAC Penal Code Article 54: Intentional corruption
to the above activities
Penalty: 1-3 years in prison
Establishing an informal association dedicated to UNTAC Penal Code Article 36: Organised crime
undertaking the above activities
Penalty: 3-15 years in prison
Chan Sarun
Issuing a permit that provided a cover for
Forest Law Article 100: Officials directly or indirectly allowing activities contrary
industrial-scale logging outside the boundaries
to the Forest Lawof the Tumring Rubber Plantation and cutting of
Penalty: 1-5 years in prison and fines of 10-100 million riel (US$2,500-US$25,000)
villagers’ resin trees
UNTAC Penal Code Article 69: Complicity
Penalty: the same punishment applicable to the principal offender
Authorising construction of a veneer factory andForest Law Article 30: Prohibition on constructing sawmills within 5 kilometres
sawmill by Seng Keang Company within Prey Long of the Permanent Forest Reserve
forestArticle 100: Officials directly or indirectly allowing activities contrary to the Forest Law
Penalty: 1-5 years in prison and fines of 10-100 million riel (US$2,500-US$25,000)
Chan Sarun
Selling hundreds of jobs in the Forest
UNTAC Penal Code Article 38: Extortion
Ty Sokhun
Administration
Penalty: 3-7 years in prison and a fine of double the sum of money extorted;prohibition on standing for election or holding public office for 2 years after
sentence served
Hing Bun Heang
Demanding and receiving payments from
UNTAC Penal Code Article 38: Extortion
Dy Phensubordinates
Penalty: 3-7 years in prison and a fine of double the sum of money extorted;prohibition on standing for election or holding public office for 2 years after
sentence served
Hak MaoTransporting millions of dollars-worth of logs and Forest Law Article 96: Transporting forest products obtained via illegal
timber products sourced from areas where there
harvesting
are no legal harvesting operations
Penalty: Fine 2-3 times the value of the forest productsManaging and protecting the transportation of
Law on Taxation Article 127 & Article 135: Tax evasion
goods on which the requisite import duties have
Penalty: 1-5 years in prison and/or a fine of 10-20 million riel (US$2,500-US$5,000)
not been paid
Article 128 & 136: Obstruction of implementation of tax
Penalty: 1 month to 1 year in prison and/or a fine of 5-10 million riel (US$1,250US$2,500)
Collecting, storing and delivering these items
UNTAC Penal Code Article 51: Receiving and concealing stolen goods
Penalty: 1-5 years in prison
iii References for the points covered in this table can be found in the main body of the report.
CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

9

Chapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow StateCHAPTER I: FORESTS AND CAMBODIA’SSHADOW STATEiv“One does not need expertise in human rights torecognise that many policies of the government have
subverted the essential principles of democracy and due
process, deprived people of their economic resources andmeans of livelihood, and denied them their dignity.
I have come to believe that these policies are integral tothe political and economic systems through which thegovernment rules, which has manipulated democratic
processes, undermined legitimate political opposition,and used the state for the accumulation of private
wealth. In short I believe that the deliberate rejectionof the concept of a state governed by the rule of law has
been central to the ruling party’s hold on power.”
Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the United Nations (UN) Secretary
General on Human Rights in Cambodia, statement to the UN Human
Rights Council, 26 September 2006

In 1991 the international community undertook
to bring democracy and development to post-conflict
Cambodia. More than fifteen years later, what a UN
Special Representative has described as Cambodia’s“shaky façade of democracy” overlays a shadow
state built on patronage, corruption and coercion.17
Cambodia’s shadow state misappropriates public assets,
extorts from businesses and manages an extensive
illicit economy. It is administered by senior ministers
who are fluent in the jargon of good governance andsustainable development.
Prime Minister Hun Sen and his inner circle havesuccessfully pursued this two-faced approach to
government since the late 1980s. After maintaininga veneer of socialism to placate Vietnamese mentors,
they now project a semblance of liberal democracy

tailored to western donors. Along the way they haveprogressively tightened their grip on power by both
political and economic means.

1. Asset-stripping Cambodia
Cambodia’s shadow state generates much of its
illicit wealth via the expropriation of public assets,
particularly natural resources, as well as throughinstitutionalised corruption.18 With particular reference
to the forest sector, this report looks at three of themain ways in which this works:

The allocation of public assets to cronies and relativesof the Cambodian leadershipThis involves the allocation of concessions on forests, land,mineral deposits, fisheries and heritage sites, together with‘land swap’ deals on state-owned buildings. Many of thesetransactions are unlawful. The beneficiaries are a relatively
small group of tycoons with political, business or familial
ties to senior officials. The effect is to place valuable public
assets under the private control of individuals who arethemselves part of the shadow state structure.
In an illustration of this overlap between politics
and business, six of the most prominent tycoons
have recently been appointed senators for Hun Sen’s
political party, the CPP. The six are Kok An, Kong
Triv, Ly Yong Phat, Lao Meng Khin (who along withhis wife Yeay Phu runs the Pheapimex company), Men
Sarun20 and Mong Reththy16. Figure 1 summarises
their main interests.
Information about deals involving public assets is
not made available to the Cambodian people to whomthey collectively belong. For ordinary citizens whose
livelihoods depend on the resources being signed away,
the first they hear of new concessions is often the soundof chainsaws cutting down their forests or bulldozers
flattening their crops.
The immediate human impactof this asset-stripping is to denyCambodians access to natural resources
and in some cases to evict them fromtheir homes. More broadly, it deprives
the entire population of the revenue
that could be derived from sustainable
management of these public goods.
The corruption that facilitates assetstripping concessions undermines
the rule of law, while elite families’
accumulation of wealth gives themincreased power and impunity. The end
result is that already poor Cambodians
get poorer and find it more difficult tohold the country’s rulers to account.

Lao Meng Khin and Choeung Sopheap (also known as Yeay Phu) together run Pheapimex,
arguably Cambodia’s most powerful company. Through its logging and economic land
concessions, Pheapimex controls 7.4% of Cambodia’s total land area19
iv ‘Shadow State’ is a term coined by academic William Reno to describe the style of government adopted by certain African heads of state. Characteristic features of these ‘shadow states’
include the use of informal networks to accumulate personal wealth and exercise power, deliberate undermining of formal institutions of government and a highly personalised style of rulethat makes no reference to the law. (William Reno, ‘Clandestine Economies, Violence and States in Africa’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 53, 2000.)

10

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow State

concessions on public assets, government contracts & permits, access to the Hun Sen family

C
R
O
N
Y
O
M
E
T
E
R

Figure 1: Cambodia’s Tycoon-Senators

KeyAwarded alogging
concession
Awarded an
economic
land concession
Awarded aconcession toquarry limestoneAwarded aconcession to
explore for iron ore
Awarded a permit to
cut trees in staterubber plantations
Awarded ownershipor lease of a publicbuilding/piece of public
land in Phnom PenhAwarded a concession
to set up a tax-free
special economic zoneAwarded a permit
to build andoperate a port
Awarded a permit
to build and operatea casinoAwarded a contract
to upgrade andoperate an airport
Awarded a contract
to construct a
railway line
Awarded a contract
to construct/renovate a roadAwarded a contract
to constructa bridgeAwarded a contract
to generate/distributeelectrical power
SALTAwarded amonopoly onsalt iodisation
Awarded a contract toimport medical supplies
for the government
Awarded a contract
to supply riceto the army

SALT

Financed theconstruction ofbases for the army

China

China

Kok An

China

China

Sy Kong Triv

Lao Meng Khin
(husband of
Yeay Phu)

Accompanied
Hun Sen on atrip overseas

China

Ly Yong Phat

Men Sarun

Sits on board of
Cambodian Red Cross(run by Hun Sen’s wife)

Mong Reththy

Financed‘Hun Sen Schools’
programme

References for the data displayed in this figure are set out in Appendix 1.

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 11

11

11/5/07 16:24:27

Chapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow State

Hun Sen flanked by Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces General Ke Kimyan (left) and Minister of Defence General Tea
Banh (right)

Corruption within government institutions thatenriches senior officials
Corruption in Cambodia is sometimes portrayed solely
as a survival mechanism by badly-paid civil servants.
In those institutions with the greatest scope for rentseeking, however, staff generally pay for their jobs,
make regular payments to keep them and expect torecoup these expenses through corruption.21 Money
generated through corrupt practices flows upwards
through a pyramidal structure, with the largest shareaccumulating in the pockets of those at the top of thehierarchy.22 The burden of everyday corruption in
Cambodia falls proportionately most heavily on those
without the power and connections to resist.

Military management of the illicit economy
The Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) havelittle strategic purpose and questionable operational
capacity. They are heavily involved in high-level deals
involving public assets, notably via an undisclosed
portfolio of ‘military development zones’ covering
700,000 hectares (ha) or almost four percent of
Cambodia’s land area.23 RCAF’s senior officers aremajor players in illegal business activities such as
logging and trafficking drugs.24 They also generate large
sums of money through extortion.25

Pass issued by the Khmer Rouge to loggers operating in the areas
they controlled

12

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

2. Cambodia’s Forest Sector
Cambodia’s forest sector provides a particularly vivid
illustration of how the country’s elite has looted apublic asset.
In the last years of Cambodia’s civil war, which
ended in 1998, both the Khmer Rouge and the Phnom
Penh government used logging to fund military
campaigns and then used military campaigns as apretext for more logging. Cambodia’s leaders have since
found it hard to kick the habit of treating the country’s
forests as a slush fund for political campaigns, personalenrichment and rewarding key clients.
In the mid-1990s, senior government ministers
secretly awarded between 30 and 40 logging concessions
to Cambodian and foreign-owned companies. The
contracts signed away over seven million hectares offorest, i.e. 39% of Cambodia’s land area, on terms that
greatly favoured the interests of the concessionaires
over those of Cambodia.26 All the concessionaires
proceeded to break the law or the terms of theircontracts or both. By the end of the decade, they were
responsible for most of the illegal logging in Cambodia.

ReformGlobal Witness first began exposing illegal logging in
Cambodia and its links with conflict, corruption andhuman rights abuses in 1995. International pressure on
the government to curb forest destruction mounted
and at the end of 1998 Hun Sen declared that he would
tackle forest crime and institute reforms. The prime
minister’s apparent epiphany coincided with a decline
in the capacity of his rivals to compete for logging
revenues. This related to the CPP’s coup against its
Funcinpec coalition partners in July 1997, its victoryin national elections the following year and the final
disintegration of the Khmer Rouge.
The government duly suppressed the activities ofless well-connected illegal loggers, passed new laws
and in 1999 agreed to appoint Global Witness as
independent monitor of its efforts to combat forest

Chapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow State

crime. In September 2001 Cambodia signed up to theEast Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance(FLEG) initiative under which the government
committed to “take immediate action to intensify
national efforts, and to strengthen bilateral, regionaland multilateral collaboration to address violations offorest law and forest crime, in particular illegal logging,associated illegal trade and corruption; and their
negative effects on the rule of law”.27
For their part, the logging concessionaires failed
to abide by the terms of a restructuring process that
required them to produce sustainable forest management
plans (SFMPs) and environmental and social impact
assessments (ESIAs). Some carried on logging illegally.
Under pressure to act, the government finally suspended
the concessionaires’ operations from January 2002.
In 2003 international donors and the Cambodian
government commissioned a team of international
consultants to carry out an Independent Forest Sector
Review (IFSR) and draw up a ‘road map’ for forest sector
reform. In 2004 these consultants recommended that the
government terminate the logging concession system anddevolve forest management responsibilities to elected
commune councils, with the Forest Administration(FA) playing a regulatory role. The rationale for this‘partnership forestry’ model was the empowerment of
populations living in and around the forest and greater
institutional checks and balances aimed at reducing
corruption. However, the government has demonstrated
limited enthusiasm for the Independent Forest Sector
Review’s proposals and the international donor
community has not backed them strongly enough.

The shadow state strikes back
However, even as senior ministers publicly committed
to reform processes, Cambodia’s shadow statecontinued to generate money from the timber sector.
The same officials charged with implementing reforms
actively subverted them, with the result that illegal
logging has continued in a variety of forms:
Permits
In the aftermath of the crackdowns and the suspensionof logging concession operations, the issuing of permits
and licences which werethemselves illegal, or
designed to provide
a cover for illegal
activities, increased
and diversified. These
included permits
to collect ‘old logs’– a practice bannedby Hun Sen in1999 because of its
widespread use asa cover for illegal
logging operations.
Innovative variations on
Permit authorising the parachuteregiment to cut logs
the ‘old log’ collection
theme also emerged,
notably licences to collect tree stumps, branches andpoles, authorisations to cut timber for racing boats
and permits to build wooden towers for the parachuteregiment to jump off.28

A logging concessionaire’s loaded trucks

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 13

13

11/5/07 16:24:31

Chapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow State

Plantations
The opportunistic issuing of permits has accompanied
more ambitious schemes to facilitate logging. The mostlucrative of these is cutting in the name of plantation
development, courtesy of government-led development
projects or economic land concessions (ELCs).
Through these schemes, officials have allocated topro-CPP tycoons land which contains valuable forest.
The forest is then cut down, nominally to make way
for plantations, and the timber is extracted and sold.
Allocating ELCs on land that is forested contravenes
Cambodia’s 2001 Land Law, which classifies forests
as state public property and only allows ELCs on state
private property. Many ELCs exceed the law’s 10,000
ha limit for this type of concession. Most, if not all, the
ELC holders have failed to meet legal requirements to
conduct environmental impact assessments.
The clear-cutting operations that characterise‘plantation development’ result in the complete
eradication of the forest. The damage is terminal.
Chapter II describes a case of plantation development
being used as a pretext for renewed industrial-scalelogging in Prey Long, the largest lowland evergreen
forest in mainland Southeast Asia.
Military logging
While permits and plantation developments provide
logging with a bureaucratic gloss, the Royal Cambodian
Armed Forces have kept up an assault on the country’s
forests that does not even pretend to be legitimate.
Many RCAF units are stationed in or around forestsand carry out illegal logging operations geared towards
enriching their commanders.
In November 2004, in the midst of a ‘War on
Corruption’ announced by Hun Sen, Global Witness
published Taking a Cut, an in-depth exposé of military
logging and extortion in Mount Aural Wildlife
Sanctuary that named some of the senior RCAF officers
profiting. A government spokesman criticised Global
Witness for making the information public without
giving it to the government first, but did not rebut
the specific allegations made.29 The authorities took

no serious action to halt forest crime in Aural and,as Chapter IV shows, the military remains heavily
involved in illegal logging of protected areas andproduction forest across the country.
Annual bidding coupes
Since the suspension of logging concessions, the Forest
Administration has been developing so-called annual
bidding coupes as an alternative. The concession systemgives companies control over large forests but typicallysubdivides these into 25 units, of which the concessionaire
may harvest one per year. By contrast, annual bidding
coupes are smaller parcels of forest that companies log
for just 12 months. In theory the FA could now split a
concession-sized forest into 25 annual bidding coupes andallocate them all for logging simultaneously, thus greatly
increasing the rate of destruction.
There is little transparency in FA decision-making
and the fact that annual bidding coupe boundaries
will be redrawn each year could make an already badsituation much worse. Members of the public will findit harder to track which companies have harvesting
permits at any one time and therefore harder to holdthem to account. Standards of management planning,
environmental and social impact assessments, public
consultation and law enforcement, already abysmal
under the concession regime, are likely to deteriorate.
The new system will also involve the constructionof road networks through forested areas in order
for logging companies to access their annual bidding
coupes. Road building in Cambodia, as elsewhere in
Southeast Asia, has provided a cover for uncontrolled
cutting and has opened up previously inaccessible
forests to poaching, land encroachment and secondary
illegal logging operations. In recognition of thesethreats, the 2004 Independent Forest Sector Review
recommended a moratorium on the construction ofroads in forest areas.
As Box 1 shows, the first annual bidding coupe
permit to be given out since the suspension of thelogging concessions has provided the basis for an illegal
logging operation.

Economic land concession being used as a pretext to clear 5000 ha of Prey Long forest by HMH company, September 2006
(Inset) Processing the timber

14

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow StateBox 1: Furnishing the National Assembly
The first annual bidding coupe to have become
operational in Cambodia is officially described
as a “special coupe to supply timber to the new
National Assembly Construction Committee”.30 The
chairman of this committee, CPP parliamentarian
Cheam Yeap,31 wrote to the Minister for Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries, Chan Sarun, in May 2004 to
inform him that the new National Assembly building
would require luxury timber for furniture and grade
I and II wood for other unspecified purposes.32
Luxury grade timber comes from rare tree species
that are protected by law.30 In March 2005 Chan
Sarun directed the Forest Administration to establish
a coupe on the cancelled Hero Taiwan logging
concession in Ratanakiri Province.30 This decisioncontravenes the Sub-decree on Forest Concession
Management, which states that forest in cancelled
logging concessions cannot be reallocated toanother company.
Chan Sarun’s instructions to the FA called for the
harvesting of 10,577 m3 of logs in order to generate
6,509 m3 of sawn wood. The inventory that the FA
subsequently drew up went much further, however,and proposed felling 16,747 m3 of logs.33 These planssuggested that Cambodia’s new National Assemblybuilding might be among the most comprehensively
furnished in the world. Global Witness does not havethe specifications for the proposed items of furniture.
However, it is worth considering that processing
16,747 m3 of logs into rather thick 25 mm wood panelat the conversion rate specified by Chan Sarun would
generate 41 ha of panelling or enough to cover 1,580
tennis courts.

In 2005 the government
awarded a permit to
cut timber in the coupe
to a company named
Heng Brothers.34 To thebest of Global Witness’knowledge, this permit
allocation did not follow
any kind of open bidding
process.35 Heng Brothers
was previously involved
Head of the new National
in illegally logging Botum
Assembly Construction
Sakor National Park in
Committee, Cheam Yeap
Koh Kong Province in
2004, in cahoots with an offshoot of controversial
Indonesian firm Asia Pulp and Paper.36 For the special
coupe Heng Brothers teamed up with Ly Chhuong
Construction Company 37 which is building the new
National Assembly and is reportedly owned by theson-in-law of Cheam Yeap.38
Heng Brothers commenced operations in
April 2005 and was still logging the coupe midway
through the following year.39 In September 2006
Global Witness received reports from a source
close to the company that timber cut in the special
coupe was not going to the National Assembly as
required but was instead being transported acrossthe border for sale in Vietnam.40 This account iscorroborated by separate investigations in Ratanakiri
by NGO workers.33
In August 2006 Cheam Yeap announced that the
coupe had so far yielded only 257 m3 timber for the
National Assembly construction.41 Global Witness
wrote to him in February 2007 to ask for an updateon this figure, but has not yet received a reply.

Cambodia’s new National Assembly under construction, December 2006

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

15

Chapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow State

Suppression of critical voices
Since the formation of a new CPP-led government inJune 2004 there have been a numberof violent attacks on villagers, juniorofficials and NGO workers involvedin combating forest crime. These
include at least three murders and two
attempted murders.
At the same time, the authorities
have also tried to suppress reportsof illegal logging and associatedcorruption. A development strategy
prepared by officials for thedonor-government Consultative
Group (CG) meeting of December
2004 declared that “The Royal
Government welcomes the workin Cambodia of Global Witness,other NGOs and civil society
organisations concerned with forest
law enforcement”.42 In February 2005,
however, customs officials confiscated 2,000 copies of

Global Witness’ Taking a Cut report at Phnom Penh
International Airport and the following month theCouncil of Ministers announced it wasinvestigating Global Witness’ activities
in Cambodia. In July, soldiers andpolice delivered threats to several of theorganisation’s Cambodian staff and thegovernment banned five international
employees from entering the country.
These developments coincided with
Global Witness investigating illegal
logging by relatives of Hun Sen andthe elite Brigade 70 military unit.
In view of the deteriorating security
situation, Global Witness closed its
Phnom Penh office in September 2005.
That same month, Hun Sen declaredthat the organisation was “finished”.43
In 2006 Global Witness’ London-based
staff completed the investigations
begun by the Phnom Penh office theprevious year. The findings form the basis of this report.

Riot police confiscate kites at a peaceful demonstration calling for greater freedom of expression, November 2006. Officials justified theconfiscation with the argument that the kites might interfere with the flight paths of aeroplanes

16

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow StateBox 2: Measuring Forest Cover andDeforestation in Cambodia
Estimating Cambodia’s forest cover anddeforestation is a contentious issue. Successive
surveys of Cambodia’s forest cover have rarely, if
ever, used the same methodology twice, thereby
restricting the scope for cross-comparison andaccurate measurement of forest loss. Moreover,recent forest cover surveys have relied on satellite
image interpretation, with little or no groundlevel verification. These recent surveys offer only
limited insights into forest quality, in terms of either
biodiversity or standing timber volume.44
Cambodia’s last national forest cover survey was
conducted in 2003 by the Forest Administration andfunded by a loan from the World Bank. The survey’s
main finding – that forest cover had increased – ran
counter to evidence gathered by NGOs and others
over several years that illegal logging was causing adecline in forest cover and forest quality in Cambodia.
Global Witness interviewed a consultant who
worked on the 2003 study and asked him to explain

how the survey came to mark as fully forested areasthat the previous (1997) survey had marked as forestfree. In response, the consultant said that this reflected
the inability of the 2003 forest cover survey todistinguish adequately between forest and bamboo.45
Despite widespread doubts about the reliabilityof the 2003 forest cover survey, officials seized on
its findings as evidence of their wise stewardship ofthe forest estate. Speaking on the eve of a national
election, Prime Minister Hun Sen said that:“It is a significant achievement that Cambodia’s
forest cover has increased from 58.6% (10,638,209
hectares) in 1997 to 61.14% (11,104,285 hectares) in2002. This is an important achievement of the second
term of the Royal Government.”46
The most recent Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) assessment of global forest
cover paints a different picture, however. Its findings
indicate that Cambodia lost 29% of its primarytropical forest between 2000 and 2005.47 While
this figure may possibly be too high, there can belittle doubt that forest destruction in Cambodia iscontinuing at an alarming rate.

Tumring Rubber Plantation. Forest was cleared in Kompong Thom Province to make way for this rubber plantation

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

17

Chapter I: Forests and Cambodia’s Shadow State

3. Cambodia’s International Donors – Aiding
Cambodians or Abetting the Government?
“There is a frenzy now across the country by the richand powerful in Cambodia to acquire land. I think
the donor communities and the UN agencies need to
be much more outspoken. What I find missing here
is a sense of outrage that should be there.” UN Special
Rapporteur on Housing Rights Milan Kothari, 200548

For over a decade, international donors haveconsistently provided Cambodia with aid equivalent
to half its national budget. Total international aid to
Cambodia currently stands at around US$600 million
per year. Despite the leverage that this gives them, thedonors’ track record in ensuring that their aid produces
results for Cambodia’s citizens has been unimpressive.
In the late 1990s donors did, to their credit, place
illegal logging and reform of forest management
at the top of the agenda in their dialogue with theCambodian government. In 1996 the IMF froze
funding to Cambodia because of massive irregularities
in the government’s management of logging revenues.
This catalysed concerted donor action which saw theWorld Bank make disbursement of its US$15 million
Structural Adjustment Credit contingent upon theimplementation of forest management reforms.
The momentum generated by this donor pressure
and initial government crackdowns against politicallydispensable loggers gradually dissipated, however. With
its refusal in January 2003 to allow Global Witness
to continue working as independent monitor andthreats to prosecute its in-country representative, thegovernment signalled that it had moved as far as it
intended to go. Many donors retreated from a sector
increasingly perceived as being too difficult.
Donors’ shortcomings are not confined to theforest sector however, and the donor track record withregards to rural poverty, infant mortality and literacy
is equivocal at best. In terms of establishing a genuine
democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights andgood governance it is even less convincing. In private,
ministers describe the donors as ‘dunces’ who willcontinue to bankroll the government no matter how
much of their taxpayers’ money is misappropriated.49 In
public they present the aid the government receives as asign of the international community’s approval of theiractions.50
Donors frequently justify their failure to work
harder for the interests of ordinary Cambodians byarguing that a more robust stance will push Hun Sen
further into the arms, or rather pockets, of China.
China’s growing influence in Cambodia is undeniable.
However this argument overlooks the fact that China,
despite its generosity, cannot offer the Cambodian
government the international respectability it seeks.
The government’s continued pursuit of internationalrecognition can be seen in its efforts to secure a seat
18

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

on the UN Security Council, gain entry to the WTO,
contribute to UN peacekeeping forces and join the USled ‘War on Terror’. It is similarly eager to sign up to allmanner of international conventions which it generally
then fails to implement. The 2001 East Asia Forest Law
Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Declaration isjust one example.
A more banal but more plausible explanation fordonors’ supine behaviour is simple indifference. As aninternational event Cambodia has lost its novelty value
and policymakers’ priorities have long since moved on.
Donor representatives and diplomats on the groundknow they will not be rewarded by their head offices
for rocking the boat and putting Cambodia back ona crowded foreign policy agenda. It is easier to keep
heads down and the money flowing.
It is not just NGOs that are disturbed by thedonors’ reluctance to exert themselves. In 2006, UN
Secretary General’s Special Representative on Human
Rights in Cambodia Yash Ghai noted that:“If it is indeed true that donor agencies are notmindful of human rights or democracy, but just wish
to build a cosy relationship with the government, thenit seems to me that they are not only failing the peopleof Cambodia, but also their own domestic taxpayers as
well, who approve these grants in the expectation thatthese countries will be the beneficiaries.”51

Hun Sen meeting a Chinese delegation. Many donors cite China’s
increasing influence as justification for turning a blind eye tokleptocratic behaviour by Cambodia’s governmentChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

CHAPTER II: KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY
1. Introducing Cambodia’s Premier Logging
SyndicateThis chapter examines the careers of a group oftimber barons who together constitute Cambodia’s
most powerful logging syndicate. Boasting familial
links to Prime Minister Hun Sen, the Minister ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Chan Sarun andForest Administration Director General Ty Sokhun,
their careers illustrate how the country’s political elite
has successfully subverted forest management reforms
and continued looting a valuable public asset. There issubstantial evidence that this group’s activities extend
beyond illegal logging to encompass kidnapping
and attempted murder. Moreover, there are strong
indications that corruption and nepotism at the highest
levels explain the impunity with which its members
have operated for almost a decade.
While this syndicate has operated under various
labels, most recently ‘Seng Keang Import Export
Company Ltd’, its public profile is relatively low
considering the immensely damaging impact it has hadon the country’s forests.

1.1 Dy Chouch, also known as Hun Chouch
Dy Chouch, better known as Hun Chouch, is a firstcousin of Prime Minister Hun Sen. In the mid 1990s
Dy Chouch operated a range of businesses with Hun
To,52 a nephew of the prime minister whom well-placedsources name as a major drugs trafficker.53 Another of
Dy Chouch’s early business associates was renegade
RCAF commander Sat Soeun.54 Over the past decade,Sat Soeun has faced charges relating to three different
murders, two attempted murders and one physicalassault.55 According to residents of Kompong Cham,
Dy Chouch, Hun To and Sat Soeun’s early ventures
centred on smuggling fish and rubber tree wood acrossthe border to Vietnam.56
Dy Chouch and his ex-wife Seng Keang have gone

Logging syndicate member Dy Chouch at Mieng Ly Heng’s Baksna
logging camp, 2001

Hummer belonging to Dy Chouch associate Hun To

on to manage logging operations for several of theforest concessionaires, including Kingwood Industry,(whose activities are described in detail later in thischapter), Cambodia Cherndar Plywood and Mieng Ly
Heng. Global Witness has documented illegal acts by all
three of these concessionaires over a number of years.57
Cherndar Plywood, despite its nominal Taiwaneseownership, is referred to within the timber businessas “Hun Chouch’s
company” or “Seng
Keang’s company”.58
The exact nature of
the couple’s links withCherndar Plywood
has proved difficult toestablish, however.
Dy Chouch and Seng
Keang’s relationshipwith Mieng Ly Heng isequally murky and Dy
Chouch has appeared
reluctant to advertise his Dy Chouch associate Sat Soeun
association with the firm.59
During a visit to the Mieng Ly Heng logging camp at
Baksna in Kompong Thom in 2001, Global Witness
staff met with a man who introduced himself as ‘Li
Seng’, the head of company security. When asked how,
as a security supervisor, he was able to afford the solid
gold, diamond-studded Rolex Oyster Perpetual watch
he was wearing, ‘Li Seng’ explained that it had been
given to him by his boss in recognition of his services
to the firm. Global Witness photographed ‘Li Seng’,
who was subsequently identified as Dy Chouch by two
people that know him.60
In social circles, however, Dy Chouch is less reticent
and introduces himself as an oknha. Oknha, which hasa meaning similar to ‘Sir’, is an honorific title conferredon businessmen and women who have made donationsof at least US$100,000 to the state.61 Dy Chouch has
been known to threaten with a gun those who havedeclined to address him by this title.62
CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

19

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

1.2 Seng Keang
While ‘Hun Chouch’ commands greater name recognition,
Seng Keang’s influence within the timber industry
appears to equal or exceed that of her ex-husband. Like
Dy Chouch, Seng Keang has worked as a subcontractor
supplying logs to Cherndar Plywood, Mieng Ly Heng and
Kingwood Industry.63 She has also played a similar role for
the Chinese state-owned Everbright CIG Wood logging
concessionaire.64 Forest Administration officials havenamed Seng Keang, moreover, as the principal shareholder
in Mieng Ly Heng.65
Seng Keang has a number of friends in high places.
She is friends with Hun Sen’s wife Bun Rany66 andperiodically appears with her at public events broadcast
on national television. She is also close to Leang Vouch
Chheng,67 the wife of the prime minister’s brother andKompong Cham Provincial Governor Hun Neng.62
Global Witness has received reports from a well-placedsource that Seng Keang and Leang Vouch Chheng run
lucrative racketeering ventures in Kompong Chamin partnership with the wives of two other provincial
officials. These activities are said to include levying
protection money from taxi operators in Kompong
Cham town.62
Dy Chouch and Seng Keang divorced in 2005.68
According to timber industry insiders, they continue to
do business together, however.69

Logging syndicate member Seng Keang (left) and her friend, Prime Minister’s wife Bun Rany

Prime Minister’s sister-in-law Leang Vouch Chheng (left), one of Seng Keang’s well-connected business associates

20

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Cambodia’s premier logging syndicate and friends

1.3 Khun Thong
Khun Thong has the dual distinction of being the brotherin-law of Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Chan Sarun and the father-in-law of Director Generalof the Forest Administration Ty Sokhun.70 Phnom Penh
telephone directories previously listed one of KhunThong’s sawmills as Ty Sokhun’s residential address.71
Like Seng Keang and Dy Chouch, Khun Thong is alogging subcontractor and has worked with Kingwood
Industry and Everbright CIG Wood.72 In 2001, in its
capacity as official independent forest monitor, Global
Witness exposed a large-scale illegal logging operation
by Everbright outside its concession. Members of thegovernment team that subsequently investigated thecase blamed Khun Thong’s relationship with Ty Sokhun

Khun Thong likes to keep a low profile

for their inability to mount a successful prosecution
against the company.73
In addition to his work with Kingwood andEverbright, Khun Thong is known to have generated
additional income by extorting money and timber fromrival wood traders along the Mekong River. According
to those he targeted, Khun Thong would accompany
his demands with threats to invoke ‘crackdowns’ byforestry officials answerable to his son-in-law,
Ty Sokhun.74
A low-profile figure, Khun Thong has nonethelessbeen described by Dy Chouch as the “backbone” tohis timber business and his name appears on a range of
documents relating to the group’s activities.75

Khun Thong’s brother-in-law; Minister ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Chan Sarun

Khun Thong’s son-in-law; Director Generalof the Forest Administration, Ty Sokhun

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 21

21

11/5/07 16:24:49

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

2. Kingwood – Rise and Demise of a Logging
Concessionairewith Kingwood’s Taiwanese managing director Lia
Chun Hua to pass control of the site to the company.
The document states that she is leasing the land to
Kingwood on a rent-free basis for 70 years; while
The Cambodian government’s allocation of between
Kingwood is providing her with an interest-free loan of
30 and 40 logging concessions in the mid 1990s set the
US$430,984. The only condition attached to the lending
stage for what an Asian Development Bank review
is that Kingwood be allowed to build adescribed as “total system failure”.76 Specifically,factory on the site:79
it placed arguably the country’s most important“In case ofnatural resource in the hands of the most unsuitable
the Cambodian
commercial operators, many of whom
Government not
operated under the patronage of theallowing (Kingwood) tocountry’s ruling families. Typifying
build a wood-processingthese new custodians of Cambodia’s
factory on the said land,
forests was Kingwood Industry, a company(Sok Keo) has to sell,incorporated in Cambodia by Taiwanese,transfer or dispose of theSingaporean and Indonesian businessmen,
said land within one year.
which obtained a 301,200 ha concession in
The mortgage loan
1995 covering parts of Kratie, Stung Trengof US$430,984 shall be
and Mondulkiri provinces.77 In common
refunded to (Kingwood)with all but two of the concessionaires,without condition.”79
Kingwood had no experience of managing
The contract does not say
a forest. Like many others, it rapidly
Sok Keo’s thumbprint signature
whetherSok
Keo intended to take andemonstrated a willingness to break the law
on a rent-free lease to Kingwood
active role in ensuring that Kingwood
in pursuit of a quick profit.
received authorisation to construct a factory; however
Another exemplary aspect of the Kingwood
it gave her a very strong incentive for doing so. The
operation was its associations with a politicallyagreement thereby set up a potential conflict between
influential family. Prior to obtaining its concession,
Chan Sarun’s responsibilities as an impartial regulator
Kingwood had already formed an alliance with Khunof the forest sector and his wife’s business interests.
Thong’s sister Sok Keo.78 Sok Keo is the wife of Chan
In February 2007 Global Witness wrote to Chan
Sarun, then Director General of the Department
Sarun to ask him whether he was aware of his wife’sof Forestry and Wildlife (DFW) and currently thedealings with Kingwood and whether he helped theMinister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
company obtain its factory construction permit. As(MAFF). In September 1994, she helped Kingwood
this report went to print, Chan Sarun had not replied
acquire a 25 ha plot on the Mekong River in Kandal
to this letter.
Province’s Muk Kampoul District, 21 km from Phnom
After receiving permission to build on the land
Penh. Within four days of acquiring title deeds forleased from Sok Keo, Kingwood’s directors took out
the land in her name, Sok Keo signed an agreement
initial loans of at least US$9.4 million tofinance the construction of a plywood
factory.80 A 2001 loan agreement between
the company and the Cambodian Public
Bank describes Sok Keo as the ownerof both the factory premises and themachinery within it.81 In February 2007
Global Witness wrote to Sok Keo to
ask her to explain her association with
Kingwood. Sok Keo has yet to reply.

2.1 Illegal Logging

Sok Keo (left) and her husband Chan Sarun meeting King Norodom Sihamoni (right)
at a Cambodian Red Cross event, May 2005

22

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 22

According to industry analysts, thefactory Kingwood built was capable ofproducing 96,000 m3 of finished productper year, with practical capacity of 84,000
m3 per year.80 To operate at full practical
capacity, and therefore full efficiency,
thus required an annual supply of around
164,000 m3 of round logs – almost fivetimes the 35,000 m3 per year Kingwood

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:24:52

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

was legally permitted to cut in its large but sparsely
2.2 Bad Debts
forested concession.80 Processing over-capacity has been
Despite its factory’s intensive production activity,
a feature of Cambodia’s concession system as a whole.
Kingwood’s operations were underwritten by an
For the concessionaires, it created a strong incentive
expanding array of loans. A source close to theeither to log illegally or try to source timber from othercompany claimed that it needed to borrow because
concessions. Kingwood opted to do both.
its directors were laundering sales revenue throughIn 1997, the company cut trees illegally in the Macroaffiliated companies in Indonesia, Singapore andPanin concession adjacent to its own, using the excuse
Taiwan.86 Global Witness wrote to the Kingwoodthat it was collecting 50,000 m3 of ‘old logs’.82 Over the
directors in February 2007 to ask them to commentsame period the firm employed a military commander toon this claim but has not yet received a reply. Whether
cut logs in a 100 km2 area outside its
or not the allegation is true, there is no doubt
concession and haul them back withinthat the company’s financial situation became
Kingwood boundaries to be passed
increasingly precarious.
off as a product of the company’s
During its start-up phase in the mid 1990s,
own harvesting operations.83 During
Kingwood obtained three loans totallingthe 1997-1998 dry season Kingwood
around US$9.4 million from Maybank ofalso undertook a major harvesting
Malaysia.80 87 These loans took the form of aoperation in its own concession,
debenture because Kingwood claimed that it
despite the fact that it had no cutting
did not own any land that it could mortgage
permit.83 In addition, the 2000 Asianas collateral. The stringent terms of theDevelopment Bank review of logging
debenture agreement prohibited Kingwood
concessionaires’ performance revealed
from transferring control to or borrowing fromthat the company failed to honour
any other party.88 Despite this, the company
Old log collection permit used
its contractual commitments towent on to borrow from three other banks inand abused by Kingwood
invest US$76.5 million in Cambodia
Cambodia.86 In June 2001 for example, Chanand pay the government US$300,000
Sarun’s wife Sok Keo took out a loan fromroyalties and deposits.84
the Cambodian Public Bank on behalf of Kingwood,
In its efforts to supply its factory, Kingwood
mortgaging the factory site and machinery.81 The
contracted Sok Keo’s brother Khun Thong, together
mortgage agreement was signed not only by Sok
with Seng Keang, to supply logs.85 The advantages to
Keo and a representative of Cambodian Public Bank
Kingwood included Seng Keang and Khun Thong’s
but also by Cambodian Bar Association President
ability to source wood from other concessions in
Ky Tech.81 A source close to Kingwood claims thatwhich they operated as subcontractors; notably that ofCambodian Public Bank lent the company a total ofCherndar Plywood.
around US$3 million.86

Kingwood’s plywood factory, 21 kilometres north of Phnom Penh

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 23

23

11/5/07 16:24:54

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 3: Ky Tech
President of the Cambodian Bar Association Ky
Tech is described by well-placed sources as anadvisor to Hun Sen’s wife Bun Rany and he has
close links with powerful players in Cambodia’stimber industry.89 In early 2001 he represented thelogging concessionaire Everbright in its unsuccessful
legal action against staff from Global Witness foralleged trespass. At the time Global Witness was theofficial independent monitor of government efforts

Building used by the joint UN-Cambodian government tribunal
set up to try former leaders of the Khmer Rouge, who are held
responsible for the deaths of as many as two million Cambodians
between 1975 and 1979. Many Cambodians are hoping thetribunal will help raise standards in the country’s judiciaryto tackle forest crime and the alleged trespassing was
an official inspection, mandated by the Council of
Ministers, of the Everbright plywood factory. During
this inspection, Global Witness uncovered evidenceof large-scale royalty evasion by the company.
Like Kingwood, Everbright’s principal
subcontractors included Seng Keang and KhunThong. As described elsewhere in this chapter, Ky
Tech has represented Seng Keang in her dealings with
Kingwood’s directors and the Cambodian judiciary.
Ky Tech has attracted recent media attention
for his vocal criticism of proposals to allow foreign
lawyers to practice at the trial of former Khmer
Rouge leaders.90 He is also reported to have said
that Cambodian lawyers participating in training
organised by the International Bar Association in
support of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal are in breachof Cambodian law.91 Global Witness wrote a letter
to Ky Tech in February 2007 to ask him whether
these reported comments are an accurate reflectionof what he said and, if so, to explain their meaning.
Ky Tech has not yet replied to this letter. Humanrights workers have expressed concerns that Ky Techis acting on instructions from senior Cambodian
officials who want to see the tribunal process stall or
disintegrate altogether.92

concessions with effect from January 2002. The
By late 2001 Kingwood’s list of creditors included
moratorium followed the concessionaires’ failure to
not only banks, but also its subcontractors. On 3
meet the deadline for submission of sustainable forest
October 2001, Kingwood Managing Director Lia
management plans (SFMPs) and Environmental andChun Hua and Seng Keang signed an agreement
Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) set for the end ofgoverning past and future purchases of logs. Khun
November 2001.
Thong countersigned the document as a witness.85 The
The moratorium on cutting was followed by aagreement states that Kingwood owed Seng Keang
moratorium on the transportation of logs, which cameover US$1.9 million, which Lia Chun Hua committed
into full effect in May 2002. Some concessionaires,to repay in instalments of US$100,000 per month overnotably GAT International and Pheapimex, initially
20 months. Lia Chun Hua also promised to continue
continued logging and transporting wood in violation
buying logs from Seng Keang and ceded to herof the moratoria. Following Global Witness’ exposure
temporary control of 94 items of industrial machineryof GAT’s activities, however, Hun Sen
in the Kingwood factory as a guarantee.
cancelled the firm’s two concessions
Her possession of these items wouldin June 2002.93 Hereafter the logging
become permanent in the event of85
concession system entered a state ofany default on the repayments. The
near-total inactivity.
machinery ceded to Seng Keang is
the same equipment mortgaged to
2.3 A Very Hostile Takeover
Cambodia Public Bank by Sok Keo. It
For Dy Chouch, Seng Keang andis not clear whether either the bank or
Khun Thong, concession companies
Sok Keo knew about Lia Chun Hua’ssuch as Kingwood had provided aagreement with Seng Keang.
useful façade behind which they could
Kingwood’s prospects of keeping
up its debt repayments were notexercise control over a large slice ofenhanced when, under pressure fromthe logging industry in Cambodia.
NGOs and international donors, the Contract between Seng
The 2002 moratoria on harvesting
Keang and Lia Chun Hua regarding log supply
Cambodian government imposed aand log transportation changed thisand Kingwood’s debts
moratorium on harvesting in logging
completely, however.
24

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 24

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:24:57

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

A source close to the Kingwood operation informed
Global Witness that, in August 2002, Kingwood’s
Managing Director Lia Chun Hua attempted to cut
his mounting losses and leave Cambodia for good.
According to this source, he was prevented from doing
so by Seng Keang, whose entourage abducted Lia,
confiscated his passport and held him hostage in thefactory compound. Global Witness has investigatedthese claims and gathered information from a rangeof sources which points to the need for a credible
judicial investigation into the fate of Lia and thecurrent ownership of Kingwood. This information issummarised below:i) Documents concerning Lia Chun Hua’s surrenderof control of Kingwood
Lia Chun Hua relinquished control over Kingwood
in a series of written agreements signed with Seng
Keang and Khun Thong during the second half ofAugust 2002. On 12 August, he signed an agreement
on behalf of the company acknowledging debts of
US$1,871,871.56 to Seng Keang and US$1,605,000 to
Khun Thong. This document effectively superseded
the agreement on log purchases of October 2001. It
reiterated that Seng Keang, and now Khun Thong also,
would hold the same 94 items of factory machinery as
collateral until Lia cleared his debts. Lia also agreed
to pay interest of 1.8% per month. The document iscountersigned by the deputy district governor and thecommune chief.94

Contract in which Lia Chun Hua surrenders control of Kingwood,
19 August 2002

The next day, Seng Keang, Khun Thong and Lia
signed a memorandum listing the same 94 items ofmachinery referenced in previous agreements. This
handwritten document carries the signatures of 13
different people, including local officials and police
officers. It is accompanied by a fourth contract, also
signed on 20 August, which certifies that control of all
the Kingwood factory machinery has passed to Seng
Keang, Khun Thong and an individual named Yiem
Seng.96 The signatories to this last agreement are Lia andMalaysian businessman and Kingwood shareholder Lim
Yok Fong.77

Contract signed by Seng Keang, Khun Thong and Lia Chun Hua,
20 August 2002

Contract in which Lia Chun Hua acknowledges debts of nearly
US$3.5 million to Seng Keang and Khun Thong, 12 August 2002

One week later, on 19 August, Lia signed a second
agreement in which he effectively surrendered allcontrol over Kingwood. This second contract states that
Lia has ceded the entire Kingwood operation and assets
to Seng Keang and Khun Thong until the debts andinterest are paid. It adds that once the last repayments
are made, Seng Keang and Khun Thong will retain a
30% share in the company. The document also commits
Lia to assist in the running of the factory. Once again
it is witnessed by the deputy district governor and thecommune chief.95

Second agreement signed by Lia Chun Hua and Lim Yok Fong regarding
the handover of Kingwood assets, 20 August 2002

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 25

25

11/5/07 16:25:02

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

The outcome was the de facto transfer of ownershipof Kingwood’s assets and operations to Seng Keang andKhun Thong. While the terms of the various contracts
indicate that Lia Chun Hua could regain partial, if notcomplete, control of the company in the future, thelevel of debt he is committed to repay, not to mention
the interest payments, are extremely high.
Cambodia’s investment law requires that the
government Council for the Development of
Cambodia (CDC) gives its consent to any transfer
of company ownership a full 30 days before thetransaction takes place.97 To the best of Global Witness’knowledge, neither Kingwood’s board, nor Seng
Keang nor Khun Thong approached the CDC for its
authorisation, however. CDC officials did subsequently
learn of the takeover and contacted Seng Keang. She
informed them that she took control of Kingwood theway she did to avoid assuming responsibility for thecompany’s existing debts.86
The transfer of control leaves many questions
unanswered. The document that Lia Chun Hua signed
on 12 August gave Seng Keang and Khun Thong
possession of items of factory machinery until hecleared his debts. This does at least maintain a degreeof internal consistency with the agreement on debt
repayment and log supply of October 2001. Why then,
only one week later, did Lia Chun Hua agree to handover complete control of Kingwood’s operations?
Nothing in the document accounts for the rapid change
in circumstances. What, moreover, accounts for thedrafting of four overlapping and in some cases crudely
written documents? While the paper trail is not in

itself evidence of coercion, it gives the appearance of ahurried and unorthodox transfer of control.
ii) Accounts from individuals employed by or
associated with the logging syndicate
In 2004 Global Witness interviewed a close associateof Seng Keang who confirmed that the logging
syndicate was holding Lia prisoner within the factory.
This person added that, although the timber barons
were confident that Lia could not escape, they
were concerned that he might attempt suicide. Theinterviewee also reported the presence at the factory often other Taiwanese nationals whom Dy Chouch andKhun Thong were employing as technicians. These
technicians were said to be prohibited from leaving thefactory for fear that they might divulge information
about the syndicate’s activities.98
The same year Global Witness interviewed a second
individual closely associated with the Kingwood
operation who also maintained regular access to thefactory. This person had not met Lia Chun Hua since
his abduction but claimed to have heard from workers
that he was being kept in harsh conditions that were
adversely affecting his health, that his phone was nolonger connected and that he had no further contact
with the outside world. The interviewee reported that
guards accompanied Lia Chun Hua at all times within
the factory compound.99
In a separate interview in 2004, a business associateof Seng Keang informed Global Witness that Lia
Chun Hua was living inside the Kingwood compound.
This individual did not talk in terms of abduction or

Kingwood offices: a number of sources informed Global Witness that Lia Chun Hua was being held hostage in a building inside the Kingwood
factory compound

26

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

imprisonment and claimed that Lia was being “welllooked after”. They did not offer any explanation,
however, for why Lia would have left his home tolive inside an industrial processing facility or why heneeded to be looked after.100
In 2005 an employee of the logging syndicate
informed Global Witness that Lia Chun Hua continued
to live inside the factory compound and was being
guarded by military police employed by Dy Chouch.101iii) Account from an official who has investigatedthe case
A prominent government official who has conducted
his own investigations ofKingwood told Global Witness
in 2004 that Seng Keang andKhun Thong were keeping Lia
Chun Hua and other foreign
workers hostage inside thefactory compound and had
confiscated their passports. The
official added that the authorities
had been unable to free the men
because the logging syndicate
The logging syndicate
represents the business interests
is reported to represent
the business interestsof Bun Rany, Prime Ministerof Prime Minister’s wife
Hun Sen’s wife.102
Bun Ranyiv) Evidence of the logging syndicate imposing strict
security measures at the Kingwood factory
According to a security guard at the Kingwood factory,
the person responsible for security since 2002 is a military
police officer named Keo Sarim.103 In the first half of2005, Keo Sarim’s group consisted of three military police
officers each armed with an AK-47 and a pistol, together
with six additional guards each equipped with an AK-47
only.104 All were being paid by Dy Chouch. Two of theseguards were detailed to accompany Lia Chun Hua at all
times within the factory compound. The guards’ otherduties included screening and searching factory staff asthey arrived for work each day and excluding unwanted
visitors.105 The latter include members of the local
authorities, who have been prevented from conducting
mandated checks on the factory’s operations and the visa
compliance of its foreign staff.86v) Sightings of a man resembling Lia Chun HuaDuring a visit to the Kingwood factory in December
2002, Global Witness investigators observed a middleaged ethnic Chinese man, together with four ethnic
Chinese women, being escorted to a waiting vehicle by
two men wearing uniform and carrying guns. While
not possible to confirm the man’s identity, his physicalappearance and his armed escort match descriptionsof Lia Chun Hua and the conditions of his alleged
detention.106
In April 2005 Global Witness staff observed
four guards with AK-47s escorting a man into the

Lia Chun Hua is said to have been guarded by members of
Cambodia’s military police

Kingwood compound. An employee of the logging
syndicate accompanying Global Witness identified
the man as Lia Chun Hua. This employee added that
Lia was not allowed to leave Cambodia and had to be
escorted at all times by armed guards.107vi) Reports that Lia Chun Hua has failed to respondto summons from the courts in Phnom Penh
Since the time of the Kingwood takeover, Maybank of
Malaysia has pursued a legal action to reclaim unpaid
debts from the company. Lia Chun Hua has failed
to answer summons to appear before the court inPhnom Penh on at least three occasions. His place has
been taken by lawyers hired by Seng Keang who havefailed to explain his repeated non-appearance.88 Court
documents record Lia Chun Hua as having a permanent
residence in Phnom Penh but “presently living in
Kingwood sawmill, Prek Anhchanh Commune, Muk
Kampoul District, Kandal Province”.108
In October 2006 a public official informed
Global Witness that they had received letters recently
signed by Lia Chun Hua on Kingwood’s behalf.109
While this information gives little insight into Lia’s
current circumstances, it does suggest that he is stillin Cambodia and remains associated with thecompany’s operations.
In February 2007 Global Witness wrote lettersto Lia Chun Hua as well as Seng Keang, Dy Chouch
and Khun Thong and other Kingwood shareholders
to ask about Lia’s current whereabouts. At the time
CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

27

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Familyof publishing, Global Witness had not received any
responses to these letters.
In summary, there are grounds for believing thatthe reports of Lia Chun Hua’s abduction are correct
and that his personal safety may be seriously at risk.
It is evident that the authorities are aware of thesituation but are either unwilling or unable to act.
Given the close connections between the logging
syndicate and senior officials, this situation seems
unlikely to change in the absence of outside pressure
on the Cambodian government.

2.4 Competing Claims
After taking over the Kingwood factory, Dy Chouch,Seng Keang and Khun Thong serviced selected debts
owed to other Kingwood creditors. They may also haveborrowed money themselves: a source close to Hun
Sen’s family told Global Witness that Bun Rany had
been making loans to Seng Keang for the Kingwood
operation.110 Global Witness wrote to Bun Rany inFebruary 2007 to ask for her comment on this claim. As
this report went to print she had not replied.
One Kingwood creditor that the timber barons
refused to pay, however, was Maybank, which received
little or no repayment on the approximately US$9.4
million it lent Kingwood in the mid 1990s.88 The
magnitude of this potential loss spurred the bank toembark on legal proceedings in 2003.
Maybank targeted its legal action at Kingwood
directors Lia Chun Hua and Lee Kwan Siang.111 This
posed a serious challenge to the position of the logging
syndicate. In the first instance it threatened their holdover Lia, who faced summons to appear before court,
not to mention the possibility of a prison sentence if
found guilty. A win for Maybank, moreover, would

pave the way for the bank to enforce its claim on thesame Kingwood assets that Seng Keang and KhunThong seized in August 2002.
The timber barons vigorously contested the case,with Seng Keang appointing her lawyer, Chet Boravuth112
to ‘represent’ Lia Chun Hua. In pre-trial hearings Chet
Boravuth argued that Maybank’s action was invalid
because Kingwood now belonged to Seng Keang. He wasunable to supply any documentary proof to substantiate
this claim however, and the trial went ahead.86
Sources within Cambodia’s judiciary informed Global
Witness that Seng Keang’s representatives subsequently
tried to bribe the judge and, when this failed, to intimidate
him. These sources claim these threats were delivered
separately by Chet Boravuth and Ky Tech, the lawyer
who helped Sok Keo and Kingwood secure a loan from
Cambodian Public Bank in 2001. Both sources allege
that Chet Boravuth and Ky Tech told the judge that Hun
Sen’s wife Bun Rany would have him sacked if he foundin favour of Maybank.89 Global Witness wrote to Chet
Boravuth and to Ky Tech in February 2007 to ask them tocomment on this allegation. As this report went to print,
neither had replied to these letters.
In April 2004, the court found in favour ofMaybank, convicting Lia Chun Hua and Kingwood
Chairman Lee Kwan Siang for breach of trust. Lia Chun
Hua and Lee Kwan Siang received sentences in absentia
of six months imprisonment, suspended pending their
repayment of the loan, plus interest and a US$250,000
fine. Following an unsuccessful appeal by Seng Keang’s
lawyers, the courts confirmed the conviction andsentences in August 2005.108 This paved the way for
Maybank to seize control of the factory to reclaim
Kingwood’s debts. To date, however, the authorities
have taken no action to enforce the court’s verdict.

Box 4: Kingwood’s Assets – Property of the Cambodian People?
In August 2003, the Council of Ministers issued
The Asian Development Bank-funded concession
a prakas (ministerial declaration) terminating
review published in 2000 concluded that termination
Kingwood’s investment agreement, along with that ofof companies’ investment agreements implied a
Mieng Ly Heng.113 These cancellations
simultaneous cancellation of their Forest
related to the poor quality of theTimber (harvesting) Licence.114 Under
concessionaires’ sustainable forest
the terms of Kingwood’s original Forest
management plans and environmental
Timber Licence agreement with MAFF, theand social impact assessments rather
company agreed to forfeit all buildings andthan the illegal takeover of Kingwood,plant that it did not remove upon the licencehowever.
expiring. This indicates that the Cambodian
For Dy Chouch, Seng Keanggovernment is now empowered to seize
and Khun Thong, termination of
the Kingwood factory and other remaining
Kingwood’s investment agreement
assets as state property.115 Given that MAFF
Minister Chan Sarun’s wife Sok Keo
had little consequence in terms ofowns the Kingwood site and her brothertimber supply, as the forest in the
Khun Thong now controls the factory, it isKingwood concession was largely
Council of Minister’s orderperhaps
unsurprising that no such seizure
exhausted. The legal implications werecancelling Kingwood’s
investment
agreement
has taken place.
potentially far-reaching, however.

28

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 28

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:25:07

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

3. Tumring Rubber Plantation – the New Face ofIndustrial-Scale Logging in Cambodia“If the logging companies still don’t listen, take away
their licences. This morning I read the Cambodia Daily.
It said that many companies won’t obey the order ofthe Ministry of Agriculture. Just you try, if you aren’t
going to obey, just you try. If I don’t take away yourconcessions and close down your factory I will cut mythroat!” Prime Minister Hun Sen, December 2001
Following the imposition of the cutting and logtransportation moratoria, forest concessions no longer
provided a vehicle for elite logging interests. However,with the connivance of those senior officials responsible
for enforcing the timber industry’s suspension, the more
powerful timber traders continued their activities undera range of new guises. The most lucrativeand destructive of these has been the useof plantation developments – whether
government-mandated development
projects or so-called economic land
concessions (ELCs) – as a pretext forclear-cutting forest.
Few timber barons are as well placed
to take advantage of such schemes as
Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and KhunThong. By the time the government
suspended forest concession operations,the group was already positioning itself
for the next logging bonanza, courtesyof Tumring Rubber Plantation. Tumring
is a flagship development initiativeof the Cambodian government. It isalso a classic example of how corrupt
misallocation of public assets benefits
the country’s political elite at theexpense of the rural poor.

This process was expedited via a survey by the
Kompong Thom Department of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries in November 2000. This survey teamclassified the Tumring site as land containing only small
amounts of valuable timber, when in reality much of the
6,200 ha was forested.129
The government established the plantation not as
an economic land concession allocated to a privatecompany, but as a state-led development project
mandated by a sub-decree. A sub-decree is a binding
legal instrument signed by the prime minister but
not subject to the approval of Cambodia’s National
Assembly. Sub-decrees on the usage of particular areasof state land are unusual although not unprecedented.
Issuing one specifically devoted to Tumring reflected
the importance the prime minister and other senior
officials attached to the project.

3.1 A Family-Scale Enterprise
In August 2000, Prime Minister Hun
Sen issued a communiqué calling for theestablishment of “family-scale rubber
plantations”, as a component of thegovernment’s rural development policy.116
The following year officials announced
the creation of a new rubber plantation.
The designated site comprised 6,200 ha
excised from three logging concessions– Colexim Enterprise117 (3,577 ha), GATInternational (2,181 ha) and Mieng
Ly Heng (442 ha) – at their point of
convergence in Tumring Commune
in Sandan District, Kompong Thom
Province. The area is in the heart of Prey
Long – mainland Southeast Asia’s largest
lowland evergreen forest and an importantpart of Cambodia’s natural heritage.118

Dy Chouch (left) and his ex-wife Seng Keang (centre left) posing with Hun Sen’s daughter
Hun Mana and her husband Moeung Kompeak, who is the son of Royal Cambodian Armed
Forces General Moeung Samphan

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

29

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Having signed the sub-decree establishing
Tumring Rubber Plantation in August 2001, Hun Sen
personally inaugurated the project the same month.118
Addressing local residents, he expounded his visionof a new Tumring:“If you tap resin, the logging concessions aren’t
happy. And you don’t know when they’ll cut down
your trees ... The first recommendation is that we needto change people here, from slash and burn farmers
and resin tappers ... Make this a place ... Change fromcollecting resin, tapping resin ... from tapping resin totapping rubber.”
Hun Sen concluded with a personal assurance:“If Hun Sen says something, he will do it. I havenot come to cheat you, I have not come to cheat you.
And I don’t know how to cheat people. I don’t know
how to cheat people, Hun Sen doesn’t know how tocheat people. Hun Sen means honest. That’s it.”137
The government turned over control of the
6,200 ha site to Chup Rubber Company,138 aparastatal firm which runs large rubber plantations
in Tboung Khmum District, Kompong Cham
Province. According to the UN Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights, “Chup Rubber
Plantation has a poor record in human rights andlabour rights compliance”.139 In Tumring, thecompany received a mandate to implement industrialscale rubber production on 4,359 ha, with 1,841 ha
available for local families in three hectare
parcels. Officials encouraged families to cultivate
rubber, and the sub-decree signed by Hun Sen
stated that Chup would provide them with technicalassistance over the six to ten years that the trees
would take to mature.118

Hun Sen makes a point

30

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 5: Resin Tapping
Liquid resin, tapped from chhoeuteal and otherspecies of Dipterocarp tree is the most widely
harvested and traded non-timber forest productin Cambodia and a source of income for roughly
100,000 people living in or around forested areas.130
It is used for lighting, water-proofing boats and formaking paints and varnishes.131
Resin tapping involves cutting a hole in thetrunk of a mature tree and thereafter burning ahandful of grass or twigs in this cavity every few
days to stimulate a flow of resin. Over the courseof a year, tappers collect around 20,000 tonnesof resin in this way across Cambodia. Available
evidence suggests that tapping does not harm thetrees, which can continue to yield resin for several
decades.130
While agriculture is the dominant form of
economic activity for most rural Cambodians,
for many resin tapping is a vital secondary sourceof income with which to buy rice in times ofshortage.132 Research undertaken in 2004 in Preah
Vihear and Kompong Thom provinces found thathouseholds derived almost one-third of their income
from resin tapping.132
The activities of logging companies pose adirect threat to resin tappers’ livelihoods.133 The
trees that rural Cambodians tap for resin are thosesame commercial grade species that the timbercompanies target for use in production of plywood
and veneer. Records of logging concessionaires’
harvests during the last cutting season (2000-2001)
before the government suspended their operations
clearly illustrate this. The harvesting records of
one concessionaire state that 89% of the trees it
cut comprised the principal resin-producing tree
species.134 Another concession company informed
Global Witness that resin trees accounted for 80%
of its harvest.135
Article 17 (g) of the 1988 Decree-Law on Forest
Practice Rules made it illegal to cut trees that people
were tapping for resin. This law has been supersededby the 2002 Forest Law, Article 29 of which extends
this protection to “trees of species that people tap
for resin”. The logging companies have consistently
violated these laws, however. Resin tappers living
in and around logging concessions in one province
have reported losing as many as 20-30% of theirtrees to company harvesting operations.136 The
impact of the Tumring Rubber Plantation project
on households in the centre of Prey Long forest has
been even more severe.

Resin tapper in Prey Long Forest (courtesy of Andrew McDonald)

Chhoeuteal – resin tree

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

31

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 6: Prey Long Forest at the Crossroads
Industrial-scale logging in tropical regions typicallytargets lowland rainforests over upland areas because
they are easier to access and yield higher volumes oftimber. The consequence in Southeast Asia has been
the disappearance or severe degradation of mostrainforests of this type.119
The Prey Long forest landscape in northern
Cambodia is the largest contiguous area of lowland
dry evergreen and semi-evergreen forest left standingin mainland Southeast Asia. Situated to the west of
the Mekong River, it covers an area of approximately
5,250 km2.120
Surveys carried out in the Prey Long region reveal
a diverse and unique natural heritage at risk andin need of preservation. A 2004 study found sevendistinct types of forest, including the rare first-growthevergreen forests and evergreen marsh forests.121 Prey
Long is also home to rare wildlife species such as
elephant, gaur, banteng, tiger and Asiatic black bear.122
Prey Long is critically important to the lives ofsome 256,000 people living in 340 villages in andaround the forest. For these communities, the forest
provides a livelihood not only through resin tapping(described in Box 6), but also via its provision ofbuilding materials, medicine and food.120 It also plays
an important role in cultural terms, as it contains
large numbers of burial groves and spirit trees that

Looking east across Prey Long Forest towards the Mekong River

32

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

have particular significance for indigenous minority
groups such as the Kuy.123 In addition, forests such as
Prey Long provide important watershed management
services to Cambodia’s rural population as a wholethrough their regulation of water flows to agriculturalareas.124
Prey Long’s importance is highlighted ina number of studies of forest management in
Cambodia, not least the 2006 World Bank Inspection
Panel report and the 2004 Independent Forest Sector
Review. It has been included in a tentative list of sites
proposed for UNESCO World Heritage status.125
However, Prey Long is not currently under any kindof protective management regime and it has been at
the epicentre of logging concession activity over the
past decade.120 Despite the failure of all Cambodia’s
concessionaires to meet requirements to produce
adequate sustainable forest management plans andenvironmental and social impact assessments, four
logging concessions covering much of Prey Long
remain in place.123
Although these concessions have been largely
inactive since the 2002 moratoria on their operations,industrial-scale logging in Prey Long has continued
via the Tumring Rubber Plantation profiled in thischapter. In 2006 the government granted at least one
new ELC in Prey Long and officials are currently
drawing up plans to convert tens of thousands ofhectares to more rubber plantations.126

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

While the short-term economic gains
of more logging in Prey Long are doubtless
tempting for Cambodian officials, the costsin terms of biodiversity, livelihoods andwatershed management would be severe.127
Furthermore, the conclusion of the recent Stern
Review on the Economics of Climate Change– that any serious attempt to address climatechange must include preventing destruction ofexisting natural forests – underscores an alreadycompelling case for concerted international
action to preserve Prey Long and Cambodia’sother remaining forest landscapes.128

Location of Prey Long Forest, Cambodia

Prey Long Forest

Rare evergreen swamp forest in Prey LongCAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

33

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

3.2 The “Benefit of Conversion”“If this area [Tumring], can contribute to the national
economy, and the forest is going to be lost anyway, whyshould we keep it? We should immediately convert it tothis use [rubber] that has high economic effectiveness.
This is the benefit of conversion.” Minister of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries Chan Sarun addressing the National Assembly,
2002

To date Tumring has not yet produced any rubber;
however it has yielded a huge timber haul throughthe clear-cutting of thousands of hectares of forest.
The initial wave of logging in the months following
the plantation’s inauguration was carried out by the
GAT, Colexim and Mieng Ly Heng concessionaires. As
already noted, Seng Keang and Dy Chouch have close
links with Mieng Ly Heng which may extend to actual
ownership. Operating in a regulatory vacuum, thethree companies illegally felled thousands of resin trees
belonging to local families.140
In May 2002 the government re-instated a logtransportation moratorium. The following month itcancelled the two timber concessions held by GATInternational. From this point Dy Chouch, Seng Keangand Khun Thong took sole charge of the logging in
Tumring. At around the same time they began working
under the name Seng Keang Import Export Company.141
In October 2002 Chan Sarun’s Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries issued a letter
conferring “permission, in principle, to collect woodof all classes within the rubber plantation at Tumring,
Kompong Thom Province” to Seng Keang Import
Export Co. Ltd.142 To the best of Global Witness’knowledge, the Ministry’s decision did not follow
an open tendering process and was never publicly
announced. This lack of transparency offers little

reassurance to a Cambodian public that alreadyperceives MAFF as being very corrupt.143 In a letter to
Deputy Prime Minister Sok An in March 2006, Chan
Sarun explained his decision in the following terms:“Cambodia’s tropical forest always contains
different types of trees: luxury trees, first-grade trees,
second grade trees, third grade trees, and other kinds oftree. Whenever there is clearing of the forest, it is vitalto collect these trees for measurement, taxation anduse of the timber resources other than burning, whichcauses a loss to the national budget and affects thenatural environment.”
Chan Sarun’s concern to avoid wasting Tumring’s
timber is commendable but appears at odds with theargument he makes elsewhere in the same letter that
“before issuing the sub-decree to create Tumring
Rubber Plantation, we had already set up a committee
to conduct prior research, the results of which showed
only small amounts of valuable timber in this area.”144
The Minister’s statements on Tumring are at best
contradictory and at worst deliberately misleading.
By October 2002, Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and KhunThong had a track record of violations going backseveral years. Chan Sarun’s decision to give the trio
a permit offering a cover for continuing their illegal
logging appears to place him in breach of Article 100of Cambodia’s Forest Law, which states that “Anyactivities carried out by local authority officials, thepolice officers, Royal Armed Forces or other authorities
that directly or indirectly allow forest exploitation orother activities contrary to the provisions of this law ...
shall be subject to one to five years in prison and finesof ten million to one hundred million riel [US$2,500
to US$25,000].” The Minister’s actions also amountto complicity, as defined by the UNTAC (United
Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia) Penal
Code. To date, Cambodia’s judicial authorities havenot investigated the minister’s
actions with respect to Tumring;
however Global Witness
believes there are compelling
grounds for doing so.
In summary, as Cambodia’s
logging concessionaires faced
up to a period of enforced
hibernation that has now
lasted more than five years,
Dy Chouch, Seng Keang andKhun Thong secured, in rapid
succession, one of the country’s
largest timber processing
facilities and a new resourcewith which to supply it.

Loggers from GAT International carried out the initial wave of forest clearance in Tumring

34

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Seng Keang company representative in Tumring Seng Kok Heang(bottom right) and company guards

3.3 Log Laundering
Seng Keang, Dy Chouch and Khun Thong appointed
as their representative in Tumring Seng Keang’s
brother Seng Kok Heang, an officer in the elite
Royal Cambodian Armed Forces Brigade 70.145 Seng
Kok Heang is known as ‘Ta Kao Pram’ or Mr. 95– 95 being his number in the numerical sequenceof radio call signs used by his entourage. Seng Kok
Heang had previously worked for Mieng Ly Hengand made a seamless transition from logging as forest
concession management to logging as plantation
development.146
Tasked with supplying the Kingwood factory,
Seng Kok Heang quickly showed himself uninhibitedby the perimeters of the poorly demarcated Tumringsite.147 During field investigations in September andOctober 2003, Global Witness found his loggers
cutting over half a kilometre outside the plantation
boundaries. Commenting on this illegal expansion of
the plantation operation, Chup Rubber Company’s
on-site representative stated “I don’t know ...
On the other hand I’m not supposed to know too
many things.”148
Seng Kok Heang’s cutting within the plantation
boundaries involved the removal of all tree cover.
Logging beyond the perimeter however, focused on
the most suitable throughputs for the Kingwood
plywood mill: chhoeuteal (resin tree), phdiek and othercommercial grade species. Having felled the trees, Seng
Kok Heang’s crews then moved the logs inside theplantation boundaries where they could be presented
as a by-product of the authorised land conversion
process.147 The Tumring formula – officially-sanctioned
clear-felling within a valuable forest – provides almost
unlimited scope for laundering illegally-logged timber.
Logs classified as ‘firewood’ in Tumring, 2002

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

35

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

3.4 Firewood Collection
With the rubber plantation project enjoying politicalsupport from the highest level, the logging syndicate
was able to poach villagers’ resin trees and log outside
the plantation boundaries with impunity. In the context
of a national log transportation moratorium, however,
the group adopted a more circumspect approach
to moving the timber to the Kingwood factory.
Surveillance by Global Witness staff in January 2003
revealed that the factory’s log supplies arrived from
Tumring only after dark, at an average of 6-7 trucks pernight.147 Thanks to fraudulent permits supplied by the
Forest Administration meanwhile, the trucks’ 60 m3
loads of two metre log sections assumed the guise of‘firewood’. In the words of the UN Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights:“The Special Representative [UN Secretary General’sSpecial Representative on Human Rights in Cambodia
Peter Leuprecht] visited Tumring Commune in July
2003 ... When meeting with local forestry officials, hepersonally witnessed the transport of five truckloads oflarge tree trunks, including those of resin trees. When hequeried this, he was shown permits for firewood.”139
The firewood permits offered not only adocumentary pretext for the log transports, but also
scope for tax evasion. While the royalty rate for thegrade II chhoeuteal and phdiek logs transported from
Tumring is US$54 per cubic metre, the corresponding
rate for firewood is only US$1. Based on accounts
from FA staff in Kompong Thom and Global Witness
surveillance of trucks arriving at the Kingwood

Converting tree trunks into ‘firewood’36

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

factory in 2003, it appears that Seng Keang Company
transported a minimum of 20,000 m3 grade II woodout of Tumring in that year alone.149 This suggests thatin 2003 the company should have returned at least
US$1,000,000 in royalties to the Cambodian treasury.
In 2006, however, Chan Sarun stated that in over three
years Seng Keang Company had paid the government
total timber royalties of less than US$600,000. The
question of how much tax the logging syndicate shouldhave paid is examined in more detail in section 4.6.144
Commenting on the logging around Tumring in
September 2003, an official in the Kompong Thom
provincial forestry department stated that “TheMinistry of Agriculture has licensed Mrs Seng Keangto collect cut trees for firewood since late 2002”.150
Meanwhile, Khun Thong’s son-in-law, FA Director
General Ty Sokhun declared that “There is no logtransportation. Some people use wood as firewood. If
there are trees cut outside the plantation, we will crack
down on it. There is no log exploitation business. There
could be some clearing for farms.” He denied everhaving heard of Seng Keang or Dy Chouch.150
Writing in a letter to the international donor
Working Group on Natural Resource Management in
the same month, Khun Thong’s brother-in-law Chan
Sarun asserted that “Up to date, as per the timbertransport, MAFF continues implementing moratoriumof the exploitation ban and effective logs transport.”151
Seng Keang’s staff informed associates in 2004 that thegroup was continuing to receive firewood permits fromthe Forest Administration.98‘Firewood’ on the move

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

3.5 Further Benefits

Chan Sarun again appears to havebreached Article 100 of the Forest
In September 2004, a few weeks after the
Law. Yet, while almost certainly
formation of a new CPP-led government andillegal, the Minister’s actions
his reappointment as Minister of MAFF, Chanare entirely in keeping with aSarun issued a prakas authorising Seng Keangpolitical culture in which publicCompany to establish a factory in Khaos village
office is perceived as a licence toin Tumring for milling wood and processing
circumvent the law rather than aveneer.152 This prakas contravenes the 1999
responsibility to enforce it.
Sub-decree on Measures Restricting Certain
In the final quarter of 2004, Seng
Investment Sectors, which prohibits further
Keang Company proceeded withinvestment in the processing of round logs.153
the construction of a milling and
It also violates the 2002 Forest Law, Article
veneer manufacturing plant equipped
30 of which states that no processing facility may bewith new machinery imported
established within five kilometres of the permanent
Prakas signed by Chan Sarun authorisingfrom China.156 Its opening
forest reserve. The Forest Law adds that “TheSeng Keang Company to construct aceremony was graced by highMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
timber processing plant in Khaos village
ranking officials from Phnom
may grant an exemption to (these) prohibitions if a
157
Penh. Seng Kok Heang took charge of managing thestudy by the Forest Administration can demonstrate thatfactory and by the end of 2004 it was processing large
the benefit of such an exception would not cause harm or
numbers of villagers’ resin trees cut outside the plantation
have only minor social and environmental impacts”. Chanboundaries.158
Sarun’s prakas makes no reference to any such study and
FA officials based in Tumring informed Global Witness in2005 that none had been conducted.154
A credible Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment would certainly have highlighted
destructive and illegal logging by the Seng Keang
Company. In any case, by mid 2004 Tumring had
already attracted considerable attention for theenvironmental damage, loss of household income,destruction of spirit forests and intimidation being
visited upon its population. Global Witness, otherNGOs and journalists, not to mention local inhabitants
themselves, had presented the authorities with ample
evidence of what was occurring.155 Assuming that Chan
Sarun was exercising his ministerial duties competently,
he would have been fully aware of this information. In
all likelihood, he simply chose to ignore it.
In 2006, the Minister defended his decision to issue
the prakas in the following terms:“Our authorisation of the Seng Keang Company tocreate a sawmill in Tumring is in accordance with theForest Law as it [the sawmill] is not within the forest
boundaries but in the middle of the development zoneof Tumring Rubber Plantation.”144
This argument is unconvincing, as the plantationsite is bounded on all sides by Prey Long and the Seng
Keang Company sawmill site is less than a kilometrefrom the forest that forms the plantation’s eastern
perimeter.
Chan Sarun’s authorisation raises further questions
as to how he reconciles his conflicting arguments
on Tumring and who is receiving the “benefit ofconversion”. The Minister has claimed that there
was little valuable timber in Tumring, yet he choseto authorise construction of a sawn wood and veneer
factory operating no less than four production lines.
Where did he expect that the Seng Keang Company
Seng Keang Company sawmill and veneer-processing plant in Khaos
village, November 2005
would source its timber from?
CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 37

37

11/5/07 16:25:50

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

3.6 Old logs and Donor Amnesia
In late 2004 Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and KhunThong’s operations received an additional boost
when the temporary lifting of the log transportation
moratorium allowed them to use logs left in Tumring
Rubber Plantation by the logging concessionaire
Colexim Enterprise. Colexim Enterprise had taken
a leading role in the early months of the clearing
operation in Tumring and, according to its own records,“collected” 3,355 logs.159 Following the introduction of
the moratorium, 2,812 of these logs remained stranded
beside the road running through the plantation. Global
Witness inspections of these logs revealed that at least
50% had resin-tapping holes, suggesting that thecompany had cut them illegally.160
Collection of old logs is well-established as a coverfor illegal logging operations in Cambodia and Hun
Sen banned the practice in 1999. Unperturbed, Colexim
lobbied persistently for permission to transport the logs
from Tumring to its factory on National Route 5.161 In
2003 the company submitted a formal proposal to thegovernment with the tacit encouragement of the World
Bank.162 Meanwhile, Chan Sarun solicited support fromthe international donor Working Group on Natural
Resource Management (WGNRM) for lifting the logtransportation moratorium. The WGNRM respondedwith two letters to the minister which noted that:“The proposed log transport cannot be separated
from the origin of the logs. Our understanding of thedevelopment of the Tumring Rubber Plantation is very
troubling ... communities have been displaced and losttheir established livelihoods ... Our critical concern isthat any authorised log movement should not create an
opportunity for transport of new illegal logging [sic] ortransport of illegally felled timber. It was for this reason
that the Working Group urged in 2002 ... the present
suspension of log transport.”163“We also see the environmental aspects (erosion)as well as the social issues of the Tumring project as

Old logs were taken from Tumring and stored in the Kingwood
factory compound, February 2005

38

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

closely linked with the wisdom of advancing on thecontrolled transport and sale of logs from the projectsite. Even with the clarifications you provide, we still
can not endorse the movement of these logs.”164
However, when Chan Sarun pushed for a
resumption of log transportation at the December 2004
Consultative Group meeting, the donors decided togive the proposal their support. In the interim nothing
had changed, beyond a deterioration of the situationin Tumring as Seng Keang Company’s operations
expanded and more resin-tappers lost their trees. In
January 2005 concessionaires began moving stockpilesof logs; many of them illegally-felled resin trees. Donor
endorsement became Chan Sarun’s main justificationfor ending the log transportation moratorium.144
Along with Colexim, one of the main beneficiaries
was Seng Keang Company which, by the time timbertransports resumed in January 2005, had bought
more than a thousand of the logs in Tumring for
US$216,397.165 The syndicate proceeded to take theselogs to the Kingwood factory by truck before reloading them onto barges and selling them to sawmills
further down the Mekong River.166
Donor representatives who had previously
expressed concern about the proposed logtransportation from Tumring raised no further
questions about the origin of the logs or the wisdomof allowing dubious companies to profit from illegal
activities. Neither did Swiss firm SGS, which had takenover as the official monitor of government efforts totackle forest crime following the removal of Global
Witness. SGS informed Global Witness in February
2007 that it “was not asked to investigate or provide any
opinion regarding the origin of these logs which were
harvested well before the start of the SGS contract. SGS
was advised by the donor group that they had approved
the transportation exercise on condition that it wassupervised to try and ensure that no fresh or additionallogs could enter the supply chain.”167

The same logs were loaded onto barges at the Kingwood factoryand sold to sawmills further down the Mekong River, including
Khun Thong’s sawmill on Route 2 (featured above). (Inset) Seng
Keang Company branding on the logs

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

4. Anatomy of an Illegal Logging Operation
Thanks to the rubber plantation project and thepermits that Chan Sarun provided, Dy Chouch,Seng Keang and Khun Thong managed to establish
themselves in the heart of Prey Long, Cambodia’s
most valuable forest resource. It is unlikely that they
could have selected a more suitable location for theiractivities and Tumring duly became the centre of thelargest illegal logging operation in Cambodia. Thissection summarises the findings of Global Witness
investigations into this operation’s main components.

4.1 Processing Capacity
From the time of the new factory’s establishment in
Khaos village in Tumring in late 2004, the logging
syndicate reduced its transportation of logs to the
Kingwood factory in Kandal Province. Instead, it began
processing logs into veneer sheets at a range of sites,
before transporting them to the factory for assembly
into plywood.156 This may have reflected a preference

for a less conspicuous alternative to the illegal log
transports repeatedly exposed by Global Witness, theUN and others. At the same time the syndicate beganplacing a greater emphasis on processing and trading
sawn timber.190
While the new factory in Khaos became the centre
for these processing activities, the syndicate also
made use of additional sites in Kompong Thom andKompong Cham provinces. In Kompong Thom theseincluded a sawmill near Kompong Thmor which local
inhabitants claim Dy Chouch bought for around
US$10,000 in early 2005.168
The logging syndicate may also have acquired
ownership of the El Dara factory nearby. Peopleinterviewed at the El Dara site in May 2005 statedthat Dy Chouch had taken it over in March thatyear. El Dara workers informed Global Witness thatthey were producing veneer for use at the Kingwood
plant.169 Aerial surveys of the site in November 2005
and September 2006 revealed that the factory wascontinuing to process logs into veneer sheet.

Sawmill near Kompong Thmor reportedly purchased by Dy Chouch, November 2005

El Dara plywood factory, March 2004

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

39

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

In Kompong Cham, the syndicate commissioned
the processing of logs into veneer at a mill in Chamkar
Andoung District known as Factory Number II.
Workers at Factory Number II informed Global
Witness in May 2004 that they were processing timberfrom natural forests into veneer sheet for plywood
manufacture at Kingwood.169
Close to the Kingwood factory itself, Global
Witness found the group using an additional two sites
for aspects of the plywood production process.170
Khun Thong’s own sawmill on Route 2, meanwhile,remained fully active. Investigators visiting the site in
April 2005 found it processing approximately 100 m3
of beng (luxury grade, protected species), chhoeuteal(resin tree wood) and phdiek. All this timber had beentransferred from the Kingwood factory via the Mekong
and Bassac rivers. The following month investigators
observed a Forest Administration official arriving at thesawmill with a large military style truck loaded with
luxury and grade I timber. The wood had been illegallylogged in Pursat Province.171

4.2 Feeding the Factories

Satellite imagery shows that by January 2005 the forest
resource within Tumring Rubber Plantation was all but
exhausted. Interviews with loggers, officials and local
inhabitants, together with surveillance of cutting sites
and truck movements, indicate that from late 2004,
if not before, logging by the Seng Keang Company
focused primarily on forests outside the plantation
boundaries.172 Throughout 2005, Global Witness
investigators found evidence of Seng Kok Heang’s
loggers operating across Sandan and Santuk districts;
in other words areas of Prey Long falling within theColexim, GAT, Mieng Ly Heng and Pheapimex-Fuchan
concessions. (Colexim, its track record and its links
with the Seng Keang Company
are profiled in Box 7.)
As with the Kingwood plant,
the Seng Keang Company factoryin Khaos processed primarily
chhoeuteal (resin trees), phdiek andother commercial grade species
suitable for veneer and construction
timber.173 It also functioned as adepot for timber that loggers had
already cut into planks or maytap (square logs) in the forest
using chainsaws. This sawn wood
included not only commercial
grade timber, but also luxury
species such as beng, neang nuon
and thnong. In early 2005 much ofthis luxury wood was coming fromthe forest around Phnom Chi in the
Pheapimex-Fuchan concession eastof Tumring.168
Global Witness also uncovered
evidence of the logging syndicate
casting its net beyond Kompong
Thom Province in its efforts tomaintain supply to its processing
facilities. In May 2004 investigators
discovered a large-scale logging
operation inside the Timas
Resources forest concession at thesouthern edge of Prey Long in
Kompong Cham Province. The
loggers said that they were working
for Military Region II officers Sath
Chantha188 and Uy Kear189 and thatthey were cutting to order for the
Kingwood factory.190 More than
two years into a moratorium on
cutting in logging concessions,Comparison of forest cover in and around Tumring as seen from satellite in 2001 and 2005. The top leftthese activities were clearly illegal.
hand side of the 2005 satellite image shows deforestation outside the rubber plantation boundaries
40

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 7: Colexim – Cambodia’s Model
Concession Company“The most valuable point is we will be able to be theModel Company ... Colexim can be a best sample
company for all concession companies in Cambodia,
and then we hope they will try their best to follow
Colexim.”161 Extract from a petition sent by Colexim to the
Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Chan Sarun in
December, 2003

Colexim controls a 147,187 ha logging concession
covering western areas of Prey Long. The company’sowners are a Japanese firm called Okada, aCambodian tycoon named Oknha So Sovann174 andthe Cambodian government.175 Colexim has a welldocumented record of illegal logging and violenceagainst local residents.176 In 1997 one of its security
guards murdered a resin tapper who tried to stop
Colexim cutting down villagers’ resin trees.177
Global Witness investigations during 2003 and2004 found that illegal felling and fires had destroyed
at least 1,000 ha of forest around Colexim’s Camp99 logging base in Meanrith Commune. Agriculturalbusinesses were buying the land and planting it withsoybean and other crops. Local inhabitants accusedColexim subcontractors Cheng Savath178 and Svay
Savath179 of orchestrating the logging and land sales
with the collusion of FA and commune officials.180
In June 2005, consultants hired by the World Bank
to conduct a review of concessionaires’ sustainable
forest management plans and environmental andsocial impact assessments conducted an aerial surveyof the same area and made the following observation:“Land grabbing, forest conversion: virtually all
forests, which have been harvested by (Colexim)from 1996 to 2000 (some 18,800 ha) are now either
irreversibly disturbed, encroached, largely converted
already or about to be cleared.”181
It is inconceivable that Colexim is not awareof this destruction. If the company is not directly
responsible, its negligence alone would be sufficientgrounds for cancelling its concession contract.
During 2005 and 2006, Global Witness
conducted renewed investigations into illegal
logging in the Colexim concession. Local people
provided detailed accounts of illegal cutting ofresin trees, which they claimed was orchestrated
by Colexim subcontractors Svay Savath, Neak Sok
Nai182 and Ngin Vanthai,183 together with Seng Kok
Heang.184 They claimed that, once cut, the logs
were being transported from the concession to theSeng Keang Company factory in Tumring.184 Staff
at the El Dara plywood mill near Kompong Thmor
informed Global Witness in September 2005 thatthey had also been sourcing logs from Colexim’sCamp 99.185
Global Witness conducted an aerial survey of
the Camp 99 area in September 2006, and found thatwhat had once been a small clearing in the forest had
sprawled to denuded plain of around 5,000-6,000 ha.186
In December 2006 Global Witness obtained aninternal MAFF memo written for Chan Sarun thatconcerns debts owed by Colexim to a Cambodianbank and other creditors. This memo refers to a planby CPP senator and tycoon Ly Yong Phat to buy
some of Colexim’s land.187 In February 2007 Global
Witness wrote to Ly Yong Phat to ask him if the land
concerned was part of Colexim’s logging concessionin Prey Long. At the time of this report’s publication,
Ly Yong Phat had not replied.

Burning the forest – Colexim concession, March 2003

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

41

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

4.3 The Suppliers“In response to the claim of large-scale illegal logging
5-10 kilometres outside the rubber plantation area: inthis case, according to the local Forest Administration,
which fights forest crime, small-scale violations (secretcutting, wood-sawing and transportation by ox cartor horse cart) may sometimes arise in the forest area.
These violations are carried out by the people living inand adjacent to the forest to support their livelihoods,
especially during drought and in order to use timber
products for necessary local public construction.
Meanwhile, competent officials from the local Forest
Administration have strengthened law enforcement toprevent and continuously combat forest crimes.”
MAFF Minister Chan Sarun, 2006

The suppliers of timber to the Seng Keang Company
operation in Tumring comprised three main groups:
1. A small group of salaried employees working
for Seng Kok Heang who supervised logging
operations. Each of these staff received basic payof up to US$220 per month.191
2. Full-time logging crews paid US$15-US$25 foreach cubic metre cut. Seng Kok Heang provided
these workers with equipment and protection andsent his own vehicles to collect the logs from thecutting sites. In 2005 he was using around fivebush trucks for this purpose.191
3. Timber traders supplying the factory on afreelance basis. These traders took responsibility

for finding their own equipment and paying
off corrupt officials. They could not necessarily
count on Seng Kok Heang’s support if theyencountered difficulties. On the other hand, Seng
Keang Company paid them more per cubic metreof processed timber delivered to the factory. In
2005 Seng Kok Heang paid such suppliers around
US$150 per cubic metre of grade I timber and
US$75-US$100 for grade II. These timber traders
typically used either small Korean trucks or hired
ox carts (each able to carry 1-1.25 m3) to transport
wood to the factory.191
Labourers working for the timber traders sat at thebottom of this pecking order. Most came as migrant
workers from other areas, sometimes living in theforest for weeks at a time during logging operations.
Loggers interviewed by Global Witness in November
2005 stated that their employer, a military policeman
supplying Seng Kok Heang, paid them US$30-US$50
each per month depending on the volume of wood they
had cut and processed.192
The exact number of people and machines involved
is hard to estimate; however in mid 2005 a resident ofTumring with close connections to the Seng Keang
Company informed Global Witness that there were
52 chainsaws in Tumring Commune alone.193 In thesame year community forestry activists recorded 131
chainsaws and 12 mobile sawmills across all communesof Sandan District.194

Cutting a resin tree into planks several kilometres south of the Tumring Rubber Plantation boundaries, October 2003. (Inset) Logger’s orderbook at cutting site outside the plantation boundaries, November 2005

42

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

4.4 Transportation

4.5 The Markets

A Seng Keang Company employee describing himself
as the firm’s transportation manager informed Global
Witness in November 2005 that the company was using
a fleet of five trucks and transporting 3-4 truckloads oftimber out of Tumring each day.195 This statement tallies
with Global Witness’ own observations of activity
around the Seng Keang sawmill in Tumring.
Many of the trucks used by Seng Keang Company
belonged to Brigade 70, the elite military unit in which
Seng Kok Heang is an officer.196 Brigade 70’s timbertransportation service is a nationwide operation which
is described in detail in Chapter IV. Its 10-wheeled
military green trucks typically bear Royal Cambodian
Armed Forces licence plates and some display a‘70’ plaque against the windscreen. Global Witness
investigators have tracked these trucks from Prey Long
to the Kingwood factory and have gathered accounts of
the unit’s collaboration with Seng Keang Company from
Brigade 70 soldiers, timber traders and local people.197

Seng Keang Company supplies some of the commercial
and luxury grade wood that it illegally logs in Prey
Long to Cambodia’s domestic market. Global Witness
has gathered information from various sourcessuggesting that a significant proportion may beconsumed outside the country however:• Supplies of logs from Prey Long have enabledcontinued industrial-scale production of plywood
at the Kingwood factory. As outlined in Box 8,
there are strong indications that much of thisproduct is being exported to China.
• As detailed in Chapter IV, Brigade 70 is heavily
implicated in the trafficking of timber to Vietnam.198
The unit may well have been transporting wood
logged by Seng Keang Company in Prey Long
across Cambodia’s eastern border.
• Well-placed sources have informed Global Witnessthat Dy Chouch is involved in the illegal exportof luxury grade timber in shipping containers
via ports on Cambodia’s south coast.199 Global
Witness wrote to Dy Chouch in February 2007 to
ask for his comment on this allegation but has notreceived a reply.

Toyota escort and truck resembling those used by Brigade 70
transporting logs from Tumring to the Kingwood factory by night, 2005

The Seng Keang Company has supplied luxury-grade timber, such as thethnong trees pictured above, to Cambodia’s domestic market and abroad

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

43

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 8: Cambodia’s Invisible Timber Exports
After the 2002 moratoria on logging inconcessions and transporting logs, the Kingwood
factory was the only one that continued to operate.
From 2001 Kingwood’s factory started making
a new type of plywood using a mix of timber fromnatural forest and wood from old rubber trees grownin plantations.200 This production line continued
following the company’s takeover in August 2002by Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and Khun Thong.201
From 2004 the Seng Keang Company also began
manufacturing veneer sheets at various sites around
Prey Long and transporting them to the Kingwood
factory for assembly into finished plywood.
Investigations by Global Witness between 2002
and 2006 found that the Seng Keang Company was
the only firm in Cambodia manufacturing plywood
or veneer on an industrial scale. The company also
became a leading producer of sawn timber over thesame period.
The government promoted exports of Kingwoodmanufactured plywood ...
In April 2004, the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries staged a trade exhibition topromote the export of Cambodian products. The
exhibits included samples of three different types of
plywood, all of which carried the label “made fromrubber wood”. In separate interviews, two MAFF
officials informed Global Witness that this plywood
came from “Hun Chouch’s factory in Muk Kampoul
District on Route 6”, i.e. the Kingwood plant. Oneof the MAFF officials stated that plywood was madefrom 100% rubber wood, while the other described
it as a rubber wood-timber mix.202 Certainly, thegrain and texture of the veneer used in the plywood

Sralao tree

44

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

samples resembled that of commercial grade timberrather than rubber tree wood.
... but no exports of plywood and sawn wood
were recorded in official government statistics.
Following the moratorium on logging inconcessions from 2002, official Cambodian
government figures suggest that timber exports
nose-dived. Statistics published by the Forest
Administration show no plywood exports in theyears 2003 and 2004.203 The trade in sawn wood
appears to have stopped earlier, with no exports
recorded between 2000 and 2004.203 The Cambodian
government has not published any timber export
statistics for the years 2005 and 2006. Global Witness
has written to the Forest Administration to request
these sets of figures but has not received a reply.
However imports of Cambodian timber products
continued to be registered by other countries ...
International trade figures paint a rather
different picture of Cambodian timber exports.204
These figures show that, between 2003 and the endof 2006, China imported from Cambodia a totalof approximately 28,000 m3 of plywood worth
US$16 million. They also show that, from 2003 to
2005, Cambodia exported plywood in muchsmaller quantities to Australia, Singapore, Taiwan
and elsewhere.
Figures for sawn wood are much higher– 150,000 m3 exported from Cambodia to China
between 2003 and 2007 at an approximate importvalue of US$34 million.204... with worrying implications for the Cambodiantreasury.
Both plywood and sawn timber exports from
Cambodia are taxed at 10% of their value and thetotal loss to the Cambodian government on untaxed
plywood shipments to China between 2003 and2006 may have amounted to US$1.5 million.205 Losses
on unregistered sawn timber appear to be double thatfigure.
Global Witness is unable to say with certainty
what percentage of these exports involved the Seng
Keang Company. However, as the only known
industrial-scale producer of plywood and veneer
active in Cambodia at the time, it is highly likelythat the firm played a significant role in the multimillion dollar trade in plywood. As perhaps thelargest sawmill operator in the country, there is astrong possibility that it accounted for a sizeable
share of the sawn wood trade as well.

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Familya) Sawn wood
Cambodian sawn
timber exports
according to
Cambodia

US$0
0 m3

Cambodian sawn
timber exports
according to
Cambodia

US$ ?
? m3

Cambodian sawn timber
imports into China
according to China

US$4.8m
24,100 m3

US$0
0 m3

Cambodian sawn timber
imports into China
according to China

Cambodian sawn
timber exports
according to
Cambodia

2003

2005

Cambodian sawn timber
imports into China
according to China

Cambodian sawn
timber exports
according to
Cambodia

US$8.3m
37,200 m3

US$ ?
? m3

Cambodian plywood
imports into China
according to China

Cambodian plywood
exports according to
Cambodia

US$8.6m
16,100 m3

US$0
0 m3

Cambodian plywood
imports into China
according to China

Cambodian plywood
exports according to
Cambodia

US$2.7m
4,600 m3

US$?
? m3

2004

US$9.5m
43,800 m3

Cambodian sawn timber
imports into China
according to China(estimated)

2006

US$11.7m
48,900 m3b) Plywood
Cambodian plywood
exports according to
Cambodia

US$0
0 m3

2003

Cambodian plywood
exports according to
Cambodia

US$?
? m3

2005

Cambodian plywood
imports into China
according to China

2004

US$4.9m
7,400 m3

Cambodian plywood
imports into China
according to China

2006

US$0m
0 m3
Dipterocarp treec) Estimated lost tax revenue for the Cambodian government: 2003 - 2006
Estimated tax revenue due to the Cambodian
government for sawnwood and plywood exports
to China, 2003-2006

Confirmed tax revenue collected by the Cambodian
government for sawnwood and plywood exports
to China, 2003-2006

US$4.5m

US$0

Note 1: the products shown in this figure account forthe overwhelming majority of China’s declared timber
imports from Cambodia
Note 2: 2006 data are estimated here by multiplying
the sum for the first eleven months of 2006 by 12/11
Note 3: Sawn wood commodity was calculated using
HS Codes for sawn wood and for sawn wood n.e.s.
(not elsewhere specified). Sawn wood n.e.s describes
non-coniferous wood and could include tropicalsawn wood
Note 4: Based on other bilateral trade flows, it isreasonable to assume that the unit value of timber in
Cambodia would be approximately 10% less than thevalue of the same timber in China. The tax revenue
due to the Cambodian government has been estimatedusing the conservative figure of 90% of the importvalues declared in China

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

45

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

4.6 Outputs and Financial Returns
Because of the illegal nature of Seng Keang Company’s
activities, there are no credible official statistics on theamount of timber the firm has cut in Prey Long. Global
Witness has, however, compiled data on the group’s
operation that permit estimates of output covering theperiod since it established its factory in Khaos village atthe end of 2004.

What volumes of timber have the Seng Keang
Company processed at its factory in Tumring?
People living beside the road leading out of Tumringwhom Global Witness interviewed in 2005 and2006, stated that over a 24 hour period they usually
saw or heard two to three loaded trucks leaving theplantation.184 Seng Keang Company’s transportation
manager informed Global Witness in November
2005 that it was transporting on average three to fourtruckloads of sawn timber each day.195 Each of theSeng Keang Company vehicles carried at least 60 m3 ofprocessed wood.156
These estimates of between two and four truckloadsof timber per day correspond with Global Witness’
observations of truck movements over the same period.
Assuming that the company was using an average ofthree trucks per day, this would suggest output of 180
m3 of sawn timber per day, 4,680 m3 per month andover 56,000 m3 per year.vi

What does this equate to in terms of volumes oflogs consumed?
A standard international conversion rate for roundwood (logs) processed into sawn timber is 1.8; in otherwords it takes 1.8 m3 of logs to produce one cubic metreof sawn timber.206 In reality, significant amounts of theSeng Keang Company’s timber were processed in theforest using chainsaws and therefore converted much lessefficiently. Using the 1.8 conversion rate, however, one
can conservatively estimate the syndicate’s consumptionof logs as approximately 324 m3 of round wood per day;
8,424 m3 per month and over 100,000 m3 per year.vi
It is worth noting that such volumes are far in excessof what logging concessionaires were permitted to cut.
Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and Khun Thong’s erstwhile
employers Kingwood, for example, were entitled toharvest a maximum of 35,000 m3 per year.80
In March 2006 Chan Sarun offered MAFF’s
assessment of Seng Keang Company’s logging activities
in the area:“Up to late 2005, Seng Keang Company collected
forest and by-products from the cleared Tumring
Rubber Plantation to a total amount of 12,204.696 m3of round and mixed types of logs and 2,023 sterevii ofsaplings and firewood.”144
While admirably precise, these figures are extremely
low, bearing in mind that Seng Keang Company
officially commenced operations in Tumring in
October 2002. Chan Sarun’s calculation of the totallog volume the company extracted in over three years
is equivalent to the amount of logs that its factory in
Tumring was processing every 38 working days.

Workers loading timber inside the Seng Keang Company factory, September 2005
vi Based on 52 six day working weeks in a year.
vii A stere is a unit used to measure volumes of stacked timber and equates to one cubic metre.

46

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

What were the financial returns to Seng Keang
Company and the state?
Global Witness has gathered a range of data about
the costs to the Seng Keang Company of logging,transporting timber, paying workers and bribing
officials, but has no figure for the syndicate’s overall
outgoings and profit margin. Nonetheless it is clearthat the returns on its logging and timber processing
operation have been considerable. Calculated at the2006 Phnom Penh price for sawn grade II wood of
US$235 per cubic metre, Seng Keang Company’s yearly
output of processed timber from Tumring would be
worth over US$13 million.207
This figure does not account for the substantial
quantities of logs the Seng Keang Company wasconverting into veneer and plywood, which is worth
more than sawn wood. It also ignores the more valuable
grade I and luxury woods the syndicate cut and sold, as
well as the higher returns it would have received on any
timber products it exported.
According to Chan Sarun, between the point at
which it officially commenced operations in Tumringand the end of 2005, “the [Seng Keang] Company also
paid US$594,987.92 and 8,496,600 riel in taxes to thestate”; in other words just short of US$600,000.144 In
a sense questions regarding the amount Seng Keang
Company paid in taxes are academic, given thatthe vast numbers of trees it cut illegally should nothave been felled in the first place. Nevertheless, it isindicative of the overall loss to Cambodia, if only infinancial terms, when one considers that taxing thesyndicate’s 100,000 m3 annual round log consumption

at the royalty levels applied to grade II wood –US$54 per cubic metre – would have netted thetreasury US$5.4 million per year.

Truck loading up next to Seng Keang Company compound, March 2006

Seng Keang Company log stockpiles in Khaos village, November 2005

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

47

Cambodia’s Family Trees

Forest Destruction and Institutional Corruption in Cambodia

48

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 48

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:26:52

Cambodia’s Family Trees

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 49

49

11/5/07 16:26:54

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

5. A Rural Gangland
The Seng Keang Company’s representative in Tumring,
Seng Kok Heang, used a combination of familial
connections, bribery, threats and acts of violence toestablish a personal fiefdom in the area. Local peopleinterviewed by Global Witness invariably knew him
as “Hun Sen’s relative” and saw this connection withthe prime minister as a source of great power.184 Policeand military police provided accounts of him buying
influence through monthly payments to officials.208 In
addition, Seng Kok Heang employed a group of twenty
to thirty armed men, several of them drawn fromthe ranks of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces.209
This private militia helped him to keep tabs on local
opponents and outsiders visiting Tumring.210

5.1 Resin Tree Theft
Interviews with loggers and visits to cutting sites inPrey Long suggest that resin-producing chhoeuteal
trees accounted for at least 50% of the wood processedin the Seng Keang Company factory in Khaos village.211
Having exhausted the supply of resin trees and othertimber within the plantation, Seng Kok Heang focusedon the surrounding forests. At the end of 2005, Global
Witness found teams of his loggers cutting up to eight
kilometres from the plantation perimeter. As a result,resin tappers continued to lose their trees and the income
these provided.212 Resin tappers in Tum Ar village on
the edge of the plantation, told Global Witness in 2006
that in the past all of the 100 families living there had
owned 200-300 resin trees each. Now only 5-6 families
had any trees left at all.213 In Rumchek village in Sokchet
Commune villagers reported losing 800 resin trees toSeng Kok Heang’s loggers in mid 2005 alone.168
According to resin tappers, Seng Keang Company
would sometimes pay them compensation for cutting
their trees. The sums involved were derisory however,– US$1.25-US$12.5 for a tree whose timber mightsell for as much as US$1,000 in Phnom Penh.214 Seng
Kok Heang and those working for him offered thesepayments on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. As one villager
put it: “Mr. 95 [Seng Kok Heang] is the most powerful
because he threatens the resin tappers, saying to them ‘Iwill cut your trees, whether you sell them to me or not’... only Mr. 95 would dare to say this.”215

Soldiers outside the Seng Keang Company compound in Khaos, November 2005

50

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

5.2 Dealing with Dissent
From the early stages of the Tumring plantation project,
local people trying to protect the forest met with threats
from the loggers. A report on plantations publishedin November 2004 by the UN Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights made a clear link
between this intimidation and the presence in Tumringof Seng Kok Heang, alias Mr. 95.
“A man who goes by the name of ‘Ta Kao Pram’[meaning 95 in Khmer; his radio call sign is 95] heads
the security guards of Mieng Ly Heng Company, andhas a particularly brutal reputation. He is the brotherof Seng Keang, the director of Seng Keang Company,
the main subcontractor of Mieng Ly Heng. In Roniem
village, people reported that they have been frequently
threatened with death for their attempts to block illegal
logging and illegal transport.”139
Persistent intimidation of this sort gave way tooutright violence on 10 July 2005, when Seng Kok
Heang is reported to have tried to kill two local men
who had played a leading role in protecting villagers’
resin trees.

Resin tapper standing in front of one of his trees which was cut
illegally by loggers supplying Seng Keang Company, March 2006

Global Witness interviewed eyewitnesses to theattacks on the two men the day after they occurredand conducted follow-up investigations in Tumring in
September and November 2005. The UN Office of theHigh Commissioner for Human Rights investigatedthe case from July to October 2005. Two other NGOs
also went to Tumring to gather information about what
happened. The description of events in Box 9 is basedon the findings of the investigations by Global Witness,
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNOHCHR) and the two NGOs.

Stump of freshly cut resin tree outside of Tumring rubber plantation
boundaries, November 2005

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

51

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 9: Account of the Shootings of 10 July 2005
On 9 July 2005, the community forestry group basedin Tum Ar village in Tumring organised a meeting tohear the complaints of families whose resin trees had
recently been cut. In all, 19 families complained oflosing trees since the beginning of May. One villager
said that they had lost 38 trees since the beginningof June. Another had lost 96 over the same period.
All had been felled outside the rubber plantation
boundary and taken to the Seng Keang Company
factory.216
On the morning of 10 July the community forestgroup sent a team of eight people to four locations in
the forest near Tum Ar to check for illegal logging.
At one site near Trapeang Boeung, they discovereda group of six loggers cutting up a resin tree. The
loggers refused to surrender their chainsaws forconfiscation so the community forest team proceeded
to the sangkat (Triage) Forest Administration officein Khaos village to report the incident. Leaving one of
their members at the FA office, the community forest
team, along with two FA staff and three soldiers, thenreturned to the forest to apprehend the loggers. As
the group approached the logging site, gunmen within
the forest fired shots in their direction and then fled
the scene leaving behind one chainsaw.216
While they were in the forest, Seng Kok Heangcame to the FA office in Khaos village. Finding
a community forester there, Seng Kok Heang
threatened the man, telling him that he wished to killhim.217 Seng Kok Heang left shortly afterwards, but
returned at around 3pm accompanied by five armed
men wearing military uniform and bearing assault
rifles. Seng Kok Heang himself carried a pistol.
Others in the FA office at this point included three
FA officials, a representative of official independent

forest monitor SGS and seven or eight individuals
associated with the timber business.218
According to eyewitnesses, Seng Kok Heang again
stated his intention to kill the community forester andtore up the reports that the community forest group
had written about their attempt to intercept loggers
earlier in the day.219 He also threatened the FA staff,
saying that if any of them helped the community
intercept his loggers again, he would kill them.217 At
around 7pm Seng Kok Heang and his companions
left the FA office saying they were going to Tum Ar
village. Before departing, Seng Kok Heang told thecommunity forester that he should not try to leave
the FA office as he had already blocked all the roads
out of the area.217

First shooting
At around 7pm a group of six men arrived on
motorbikes at the house of another member of the
Tum Ar community forest group. According toeyewitnesses, five of the men were dressed in military
fatigues, while the sixth wore camouflage trousers
and a white t-shirt – the same combination that
Seng Kok Heang had been wearing in the FA officeshortly beforehand.218 One of the men called to thecommunity forester to come out of his house. Whenhe did not reply, the man wearing the white t-shirt
fired seven shots from a pistol.218 Some of the bullets
passed through the wall and narrowly missed thevillager and his family who were sheltering inside.220
Approximately five minutes after the shooting a
military police officer named Chea Kapoul221 came andrecovered six of the seven cartridge cases left on the
ground outside the house.218 Chea Kapoul is known to
work closely with Seng Kok Heang in the coordinationof timber transportation out of Tumring.222

Second Shooting

Bullet holes in wall and bedstead inside the house of the firstshooting victim

52

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESAt around 7:30pm, Seng Kok Heang and two
bodyguards returned to the FA office in Khaos
village.223 By this stage those present consisted of
the community forest activist, two FA officers,
the three soldiers who had gone to the forest withthe community forest team that morning and therepresentative of SGS.217
According to eyewitnesses, Seng Kok Heang
took out a pistol and rammed it into the chest of
the community forester, pulling the trigger as hedid so.224 The impact of the gun muzzle caused the
man to stumble and the bullet grazed the side of
his body rather than hitting him directly.224 Oneof the bodyguards then knocked the gun from thehand of Seng Kok Heang, who proceeded to leap on
the victim, bite him and pull his hair before being
restrained by his companions.225 Seng Kok Heangthen left the FA office.218

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Following the attacks it took the two victims morethan 24 hours to escape from Tumring. Taxi drivers
refused to take them for fear of an ambush by Seng Kok
Heang’s paramilitaries on the road through the forest.168
In the aftermath, some officials privately expresseda desire to take action against Seng Kok Heang and his
entourage but said they were unable to do so becauseof his high-level connections.226 Meanwhile the Forest
Administration, in whose office one of the attacks
occurred, proved reluctant to provide information onwhat had happened and the two FA staff present on 10
July signed statements saying they had not seen
the shooting.
SGS, whose representative was in the FA office in
Khaos on the afternoon and evening of 10 July, made nocomment on the incident in any of their reports. Thisomission contrasts with SGS’ coverage of an incident
in Preah Vihear Province the previous year in which agunman fired shots at an FA office.227
In February 2007 Global Witness wrote to SGS to
ask why it did not report the shooting. SGS responded
that “to the best of our knowledge SGS had a staff
member staying in the Khaos village at that time who
verbally reported on his return to base, that a drunken
policeman or soldier apparently fired his gun. We
understand that he did not actually witness the eventand deemed it prudent to keep out of the way. This
incident was not seen to be an issue of forest crime
but probably one of drunken violence which in our
experience was not uncommon in Cambodia. Hence
there was no official SGS report on this incident.”167
The Special Representative of the Secretary Generalon Human Rights in Cambodia, Yash Ghai highlighted
the attacks in a published report however, noting that:“The strongest and most infamous security
guard group [in Tumring] is commanded by Kok
Heang, brother of the director of the Seng Keang
Company. His group is reliably reported to have been
involved in bribery, coercion, harassment, threats andactual shooting incidents, including of two forestry
community activists in July 2005. The provincial
authorities say they are concerned, but need help fromthe national authorities to disarm and investigate Kok
Heang and his group, and to improve the security
situation in Tumring. The problem has been brought
to the attention of the Ministry of the Interior and theSpecial Representative hopes that its intervention will
be effective. As previously recommended, criminal
offences committed by company security guards andmilitia on concessions and rubber plantations must
be investigated and prosecuted; and they should bedisarmed, in compliance with existing law”.228
As this report went to press, the authorities hadtaken no action to apprehend Seng Kok Heng or toprosecute him. The victims, together with their families,
remain in hiding.
From the perspective of the logging syndicate, theshootings seemed to have had the desired effect. Global

Witness and other NGOs visiting Tumring in the months
following the attacks found local inhabitants more afraidof Seng Kok Heang than ever. The community forestgroup that previously advocated for local people’s rights
appeared moribund. As one villager put it “We don’t
dare go to the forest alone so much as before. If we dogo alone, we go with fear”.229 Another family told Global
Witness that because of the threat posed by the loggers,
they actually had to spend more time away from homeliving in the forest, because it was the only way they
could hope to protect their resin trees.

Newspaper advertisement placed by SGS, the independent forest
monitor, April 2006

Logs on the move, January 2005

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

53

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 10: In Search of Mr. 95

Journalist: “What is your name?”
Man: “Kimchheng”
Journalist: “What do you do here?”
Man: “I sell things”

On field visits to Tumring in September andNovember 2005 Global Witness sought a meetingwith Seng Kok Heang to get his comment on the
The man then left the restaurant in a hurry andallegations made against him.
went into Seng Kok Heang’s house on the other side
In September, Global Witness staff visited theof the road.
Seng Keang Company factory and were informed by
Global Witness filmed the interview and later
workers that Seng Kok Heang was at his house on
played back the footage to the FA staff, asking if they
the other side of the road. A group of guards playing
could help identify Mr Kimchheng/Mr
table tennis in the yard outside the house
96. The foresters explained that thetold Global Witness that they did not
man’s full name was Huor Kimchheng,230
know where Seng Kok Heang was, did
and that he was the deputy chief of
not have his phone number and could nottheir office. They did not say, however,suggest any means of contacting him.
why Huor Kimchheng seemed to be
During a follow-up visit in November,so friendly with Seng Kok
Global Witness staff accompanied by
Heang’s entourage or why hea newspaper reporter asked Forest
might have a radio call sign ‘96’
Administration staff in Khaos village
in the same numerical sequence
where Seng Kok Heang could be foundas other members of the group.
and what he looked like. Following
While the apparently
the directions given by the FA officers,
cosy relations between Huor
Global Witness and the journalist went
Kimchheng and Seng Kok
to a restaurant in Khaos and came acrossHeang’s group are not proof ofthe same table-tennis playing guards
wrong-doing, they do fit with aencountered at Seng Kok Heang’s housewider pattern of FA complicity ina few weeks before. One member of thisthe Seng Keang Company’s illegal
group closely matched the FA staff’s
Forest Administration account oflogging activities. The extent ofdescription of Seng Kok Heang and thethe shooting in the FA office inthiscomplicity
is examined in morenewspaper reporter approached the man
Khaos, signed by Huor Kimchhengdetail in Chapter III.
to ask if he could interview him. Their
In addition to the efforts to meet Seng Kok Heang
brief conversation ran as follows:in person, Global Witness has also written him aletter to ask him for his comment on the shootings
Journalist: “We’ve been told you’re Mr. 95”
of 10 July 2005. At the time this report was
Man (agitated): “I’m not 95, you can ask anyone ...
published Seng Kok Heang had not replied to this(to companion) ... They think I’m 95!”
letter, however.
Companion: “Yes, but you are 96”

Sangkat (Triage) Forest Administration office, Khaos village

54

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 54

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:27:11

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

6. Crackdown or Pause?
In March 2006 MAFF Minister Chan Sarun issued
a prakas revoking his earlier authorisations for Seng
Keang Company operations. The prakas stated that thecompany could no longer collect timber in Tumring andcalled for the removal of the factory in Khaos village
with immediate effect.
While the factory did not close immediately, bySeptember 2006 practically all traces of the Seng Keang
Company operation were gone. Local inhabitants
informed Global Witness that the syndicate had
stopped cutting and transporting timber from the area
earlier that same month. Resin tappers reported thatillegal logging in the area had ceased almost completely.
Chan Sarun has not commented publicly on
his signing of the prakas; however one Forest
Administration official told Global Witness in
September 2006 that Seng Keang Company simply
left the area at the point that it finished cutting thetrees within the plantation perimeter. Given that thesyndicate’s logging had largely focused on forest
outside the plantation boundaries since the end of 2004
if not earlier, this explanation can be discounted; indeed
Seng Keang Company had every reason to maintain

Seng Keang Company’s legacy to the people of Tumring

its presence in Prey Long. It appears more likely thatthe shootings by Seng Kok Heang and the subsequent
investigations by the UNOHCHR and NGOs played adecisive role in persuading the government to act. In theabsence of an official explanation, however, the precise
rationale remains unclear.
Unfortunately, the removal of the Seng Keang
Company factory from Tumring has not yet beenmatched by moves to hold members of the logging
syndicate accountable before the law. In the absenceof credible legal action against the group, there areworrying signs that it may simply re-establish itself in
another area. Box 11 summarises the group’s efforts toacquire new economic land concessions within or close
to valuable forests.
In addition, information received by Global Witness
in March 2007 indicates that the syndicate has resumed
its illegal logging operations in Prey Long. According
to a well-placed source working in Kompong Thom,
Seng Kok Heang is using a fleet of Seng Keang
Company trucks to transport illegally-felled wood fromthe Tumring area on a daily basis. This source informed
Global Witness that Seng Kok Heang was processing
the timber in a factory 5 km from the Kingwood plantin Kandal Province. 231

Seng Keang’s house, Phnom Penh

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

55

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

Box 11: The Logging Syndicate’s Next Big Score
Breakthroughs such as the 2002 moratoria on
cutting in logging concessions and transporting
logs show that outside pressure can be effectivein persuading the Cambodian government to act
against illegal logging, even when the interests ofpolitically influential groups are at stake. Unlessthe pressure is maintained, however, friends andrelatives of the prime minister’s family are rarely kept
waiting long for the next lucrative deal. Seng Keang
Company’s rapid evolution from logging concession
subcontractors to plantation developers following
the moratoria is a case in point. Pheapimex’s shift
in focus from logging concessions to economic land
concessions (ELCs) is another. (Pheapimex is profiledin Chapter IV.)
A little over a month after the shootings in
Tumring, the Seng Keang Company began efforts
to acquire an ELC inside the Prey Long forest.
Seng Keang wrote a
letter to the governorof Kompong Thom
Province requesting theassistance of “officialsof concerned agencies
to conduct a survey on
9,800 ha of degraded
forest in Kleng,
Koul and Tumringcommunes, Sandan
District, Kompong
Thom Province forinvestment and planting
Seng Keang request for a new
economic land concession inof fast-growing trees
Prey Long
over a 70-year period inorder to produce raw materials”.232 The letter goes on
to describe the investment as “aimed at contributing
to the restoration of the forests and development in
Cambodia, and poverty reduction and the creationof employment for communities and people living in
the area”. Within a week of receiving her proposal,
the Kompong Thom authorities had formed acommission of Forest Administration staff and otherofficials to survey the 9,800 ha of land. In September
2005 the commission went with Seng Kok Heang
to inspect the site and found that it contained bothcommercially valuable evergreen forest and areas
claimed by local residents as community forests.233
In September 2006 Global Witness learned fromtwo well-placed sources that the Forest Administration
had received proposals from Dy Chouch and Seng
Keang to clear up to 10,000 ha of land in Preah Vihear
Province for a new rubber plantation.234 The land
under consideration is reportedly not densely forested.
However, it is said to be close to the boundariesof the Kulen Prom Tep Wildlife Sanctuary and theCherndar Plywood forest concession. If these reports
are correct, the ELC’s proposed location would create
opportunities for illegal logging in nearby valuable
forests and then laundering of the timber as a byproduct of the plantation development, just as Seng
Keang Company has done in Tumring.
In March 2007 an official informed Global
Witness that Dy Chouch and his cousin Hun
To had requested two 2,000 ha sites as economic
land concessions (ELCs) in Preah Vihear.235 These
proposed ELCs were described as being north of
the road between the villages of Sra Em and Choam
Khsan in Choam Khsan District, close to a Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces base. Another wellplaced source confirmed that Hun To had submitted
proposals for two new
ELCs but said that theyeach covered 1,000 ha
rather than 2,000 ha. Thissecond source provided
Global Witness with
documents showing thatthe proposed ELCs are
inside the Preah Vihear
Protected Forest, in the An
Ses area close to the borderwith Thailand.231
At the time thisreport was publishedit was not clear how
many of these proposals
for new ELCs had received
official approval.

New economic land concession sought by Seng Keang Company

56

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 56

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:27:20

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

At the same time, there are indications that the
government continues to view Prey Long as a timber
quarry. According to NGO workers, from 10 to 13
January 2007, local officials and representatives of theVietnam Rubber Plantation Company, some of them
dressed in Vietnamese military uniform, carried out
a survey in three communes – Sandan, Dong Kambet
and Mean Rith – all of which are heavily forested. They
did not carry out any consultations with local people;
however a witness to their discussions reported that thefirm was studying an area of 40,800 ha.236 A Vietnamese
general accompanying the party informed villagers thatthe company’s proposed plantation concession covered
200,000 ha.236
The same sources report that the Vietnamesecompany returned to Prey Long on 21 February.236
The firm is said to have requested that officials help it
overcome local opposition to its proposed activities.236
District and commune officials then convened a public
meeting about the plantations on 23 February andbrought with them a contingent of military police andsoldiers. At this meeting the officials told villagers

that the forest belonged to the government, that the
government could do what it wanted with the forest
and that local people should not cause any trouble.236
One community leader is reported to have been
threatened with arrest for encouraging people to oppose
the Vietnamese company’s plans for the area.236
Global Witness has written to Chan Sarun toask him about the plans for a new rubber plantationin Prey Long but has not yet received a reply. The
limited information available thus far does not point
to a direct connection between the Vietnam Rubber
Plantation Company and Seng Keang Company.
However, past experience suggests that a deal toclear-cut tens of thousands of hectares of Cambodia’s
most valuable forest would almost certainly involve
timber barons with close ties to senior officials in
Phnom Penh.
The report thus far has focused primarily on illegal
logging by members of elite families, with particularreference to Prey Long. The next chapter looks moreclosely at the role played by those state institutions
responsible for stopping them.

Prey Long forest canopy in flower

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

57

Chapter II: Keeping it in the Family

A Short History of Forest Management in Cambodia

1. The Logging Concession System

If I cannot
stop the logging
concession companies,
I will cut my throat!

2. The Prime-Ministerial Crackdown

58

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter II: Keeping it in the Family

On behalf ofthe government, I am
delighted to receive Mighty
Termite Company’s
proposal to makea plantation.

3. The ‘Restructuring’ Process

4. The Plantation Developments

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

59

Chapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey LongCHAPTER III: INSTITUTIONALISEDCORRUPTION IN PREY LONG
Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and Khun Thong have beenable to log Prey Long with impunity because of thehigh levels of corruption within those state agencies
responsible for combating forest crime. As set out
in Article 78 of the Forest Law, these institutions
include the Forest Administration (FA), police, Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces and local government.
In forest crime hotspots like Prey Long, impunity
for illegal loggers and corruption in the state apparatus
feed off each other in a vicious circle. Logging by agroup of ‘untouchables’, such as Dy Chouch, Seng
Keang and Khun Thong, creates opportunities forstate agencies to make money by ‘protecting’ theiroperations. These opportunities attract more officials tothe area, many of whom pay their superiors in order tomake the transfer. As well as accepting handouts fromthe principal timber barons, these corrupt officials havean incentive to tolerate other illegal logging venturesby less powerful groups, because this enables themto extort extra money. The corruption and the illegal
logging both escalate and the assault on the forest
intensifies. According to one military officer, Kompong
Thom Province is seen as a choice posting for civil
servants and members of the security forces because of
the scope for making money from the illegal timber andbush meat trades.237
The consequence in Prey Long has been aconcentration of officials who have a remit to tackle
forest crime. This is particularly pronounced in the caseof the Forest Administration and the military police.

Director General of the Forest Administration Ty Sokhun at a tree
planting ceremony, July 2005

60

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 60

After the inauguration of the rubber plantation kicked
off a frenzy of illegal logging, the FA maintained notone, but two offices (division and triage) in Tumring. At
the same time, the military police established a string of
new checkpoints around the plantation and along roads
running out of the area. Both institutions quickly proved
adept at uncovering cases of forest crime in the locality
and identifying those responsible.238 However, throughan inverted system of governance they used this capacity
as basis for extortion rather than law enforcement.
This corrupted system is not run by rogue elements,
however. Members of the FA and the military police inKompong Thom describe paying a high proportion of
their illegal earnings to their superiors at either national orprovincial level.239 The fact that a generous cut of the profits
flows up the chain of command, rather than remaining in
the pockets of the officials on the ground, suggests thatboth institutions exercise considerable control over theirstaff and the acts of extortion that they commit.
The losers in all this are those whose livelihoods
depend on the diminishing forest reserves and thoseleast able to afford payments to corrupt officials, who
extort not only from illegal loggers, but also those
exercising their legal rights as forest users. In areas like
Prey Long, the vast majority of the local population
falls into both categories.

1. Forest Administration
As the institution directly
responsible for managing the
exploitation and policing of one of
Cambodia’s most valuable natural
resources, the FA offers significant
opportunities for corruption.
As with other government agencies responsible for
enforcing the law or collecting fines or taxes, notably
the police, customs, and the Ministry of Economy and
Finance Department of Taxation, the FA tends to attract
applicants intent on enriching themselves throughabuse of public office.240 Entry into and promotion
within the FA is dictated largely by payment rather
than competence.241 This ‘market’ system of job-buying
has the effect of sidelining those staff with greater
professional integrity and rewarding those most adept
at generating money.
The pricing of jobs within the FA is determined
not only by rank, but also by geographical location.
Outside of its Phnom Penh headquarters, the more
expensive positions are those in areas where there
is a rich and accessible forest resource or along key
transport arteries for the timber trade, such as majorroads and rivers. According to one insider, positions
in Kompong Thom command the highest price of any
province, followed by those in Siem Reap, Kandal
and Koh Kong provinces.242 Box 12 describes the FA
job auction organised by the Minister for Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries Chan Sarun and FA Director
General Ty Sokhun in 2003.

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:27:33

Chapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey Long

Box 12: Chan Sarun and Ty Sokhun’s Forest
Administration Job Auction
Up until 2003 the institution responsible for exploiting
and regulating Cambodia’s production forests was
MAFF’s Department of Forestry and Wildlife (DFW).
The 2002 Forest Law called for DFW’s reconstitution
as a more autonomous body however, and in August
2003 MAFF Minister Chan Sarun issued a prakas
converting DFW into the FA. The new FA featured ahierarchical structure incompatible with that of otherstate institutions, blurring the lines of accountability
between FA staff and other government officials. The
World Bank observed that:“By having frequently deviated from forest
boundaries in favour of administrative boundaries,
the new FA structure has created a worst of bothworlds situation where local FA staff are internallyaccountable to national supervision in respect ofareas otherwise locally administered. Moreover,the FA structure has been devised in isolation fromserious examination of budgetary realities and otherconstraints. This will leave operational units of
FA chronically short of resources with inadequate
oversight, support and a lack of accountability.”243
While the restructuring of DFW may have had its
limitations as an exercise in administrative reform, it
appears to have made a lot of money for both Chan
Sarun and Ty Sokhun. Global Witness has interviewed
four individuals with close links to the FA who haveprovided credible accounts of the manner in which thetwo men took the opportunity to auction off most, if
not all the jobs in the FA. Based on the information
provided by these sources, it appears that the mainelements of this process were as follows:• Any DFW staff member wanting to become thehead or deputy head of an FA office at any of
the four new hierarchical levels – inspectorate,cantonment, division or triage – had to pay a
bribe. This applied even to officials seeking a
position equivalent to the one they already held
under the DFW structure.241• The bribes for the positions at the upper threelevels of inspectorate (4 offices), cantonment (15offices) and division (55 offices) were paid to
Chan Sarun. Bribes for positions at Triage level(170 offices) were paid to Ty Sokhun.244• Each FA office chief has at least one deputy(in practice there are sometimes several). These
deputy chief positions were also put up for sale.
This means that there may have been upwardsof 500 FA jobs for sale at the time of therestructuring.
• The prices of the jobs varied according not only
to rank, but also location. Jobs affording thegreatest opportunities for extortion cost morethan equivalent posts elsewhere.241• Thus while one insider has put the standard
cost of a head of cantonment post at less than
US$10,000, Global Witness has received reportsof cantonment chiefs paying far more than thisfor the same rank.241• In the words of another source “The peopleinterested in the positions spend around
US$5,000 to US$15,000 for the highest rank;for other positions they need to spend around
US$5,000 to US$8,000. To get these positions
they approach different people, first in theirdepartment and after that they go to chiefs at theministry level.”242• The lowest estimate Global Witness has received
for any position is US$2,000 and the highest
US$30,000. Global Witness does not have any
figures for the price of jobs in the thirteen
departments at headquarters level, however.241
Given the variations in the pricing it is hard
to know precisely how much Chan Sarun and Ty
Sokhun made from these transactions. Based on theavailable data is seems likely that each received a total
running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars oreven more. MAFF officials estimated Chan Sarun’s
share at around US$2.5 million.245
The cost of their new positions has left many
FA staff heavily in debt, creating an even greater
incentive for them to use their positions to extort
money. Indeed the job auction may be the single
biggest factor driving the corruption prevalent in FA
operations across the country.246

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

61

Chapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey LongThe FA has expanded its on-the-ground presence
across Cambodia since its restructuring in 2003. This
has increased its efficiency in detecting illegal activity.
It has not brought about a reduction in forest crime
however, as apprehension of perpetrators is generally
followed by demands for payment rather than referral
to the courts.247
After purchasing positions, FA officers muststill make regular payments to their superiors in a‘pyramidal’ system whereby revenues generated at
the lowest echelons are fed upwards and accumulate
at the top of the institution’s hierarchy. Inside sources
estimate that FA field offices typically pay around 50%of their illicit income to their patrons and superiors
within the FA. This may take the form of regularmonthly payments or periodic ‘gifts’. The remaining
50% is distributed internally, sometimes according towhat some FA officers term the 3-2-1 system. This
involves dividing the money into six parts, with thestation chief retaining 3/6, the deputy keeping 2/6 andjunior officers receiving the remaining 1/6.248

Relations with the logging syndicate
The fact that Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and KhunThong were able to undertake the largest illegal logging
operation in Cambodia under the noses of the branchof government most responsible for preventing forest
crime speaks for itself. Rather than enforcing thelaw, the Forest Administration instead protected theSeng Keang Company operation by projecting a false
impression of the situation in Prey Long – one in which
there was no illegal logging bar low-level infractions
by unruly peasants.249 Global Witness investigations in
the area, including several interviews with FA officials,
revealed that the logging syndicate engineered thisoutcome through a winning combination of coercion
and bribery.
After a group of FA staff and military police
confiscated a truck carrying luxury timber for Seng
Kok Heang in late 2004, some of them were dismissed
or transferred out of the area. Early in 2005, Seng Keangand her entourage visited the FA office in Kompong
Thmor, which is on the main route for timber traffic
going south from Tumring.250 Having thanked the FA
staff for looking after her business, she informed themthat both her logging operations and the Chup Rubber
Plantation Company belonged to the family of Prime
Minister Hun Sen. According to Seng Keang this meantthat her activities were legal and that any FA officers
interested in keeping their jobs should not interfere.250
The message appears to have sunk in. In separate
interviews with Global Witness in 2005, two Forest
Administration staff in Kompong Thom Province
stated that the FA was fully aware of Seng Kok
Heang’s illegal logging in Prey Long. According tothese officials, they could not stop him because herepresented Seng Keang, who had the support of Hun
Sen and other high-ranking people. This made the FA
62

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

officers afraid and so they turned a blind eye to his
activities.251
FA complicity in the logging syndicate’s activities
may not be solely driven by fear, however. Officials
in Tumring claim that in 2005 the FA office sangkat(triage) office in Khaos village was receiving a monthly
allowance from Seng Keang of several hundred dollars,for “food, accommodation and fuel costs”.252 Local
officials also claimed that Seng Kok Heang was paying
the FA staff additional sums according to the amountof wood that the Seng Keang Company factory wasprocessing each month.253 They told Global Witness
that, through these payments and additional money
levied from other illegal loggers, the FA office enjoyed amonthly income of several thousand dollars.253

Other sources of income
Global Witness gained a further insight into the FA’srevenue generation through interviews with logging
crews in Prey Long in November 2005. One of thesegroups described how their boss paid US$100 per
month per chainsaw to the Forest Administration
phnaik (division) office in Tumring and additional
bribes to the FA depending on the volume of timberthat they cut. The loggers added that FA staff
periodically came to the forest to forewarn them if
people from Phnom Penh were coming to visit the area.254
Global Witness has found additional evidence of
FA officials taking a direct role in illegal logging inPrey Long and extorting money not just from timbertraders, but also from local people engaged in legitimate
activities.255 As described in Box 13, the FA is regarded
as the most predatory of several institutions practicing
this kind of extortion.

Illegal logging operation outside the Tumring plantation boundaries,
November 2005. The loggers told Global Witness that they paid theForest Administration office in Khaos village US$100 per chainsaw
per month and additional fees for transporting timberChapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey Long

2. Military Police
Cambodia’s military police are also
known as the gendarmerie. They
comprise a paramilitary force ofnearly 8,000.256 National Military
Police Director General Sao Sokha
is former bodyguard of Hun Sen
who trained in Vietnam during the 1980s.257 He reports
on a day to day basis to the Royal Cambodian Armed
Forces command and the Ministry of Defence. On
politically sensitive issues he takes his orders from Hun
Sen directly, however.258
Sao Sokha is something of a high-flier. In December
2006 he was appointed head of the Cambodian Football
Federation and in January 2007 he became a four star
general. Previous Global Witness investigations haverevealed that Sao Sokha is directly involved in the illicit
timber trade and that forces under his command are
active in illegal cutting, transportation, protection andextortion.259
The head of the military police in Kompong Thom
Province is Dy Phen, who is the brother of Dy Chouch.260
Officers under Dy Phen’s command are heavily implicatedin the activities of Seng Keang Company, which has been
known to pay some military police as much as US$500 per
month for their services.261 Many military police are also
active as illegal loggers in their own right. In Prey Long,
Global Witness has found Dy Phen’s subordinates cutting
trees and selling them to the Seng Keang Company sawmill
and other timber traders, providing protection services
to timber convoys, extorting money, trading wildlife andselling off pieces of forested land.262
Like the Forest Administration, the military police
rapidly expanded its presence in Prey Long following
the establishment of Tumring Rubber Plantation.
Sources in the military police claim that Dy Phen
purposely created five new posts around Tumring andon roads leading out of the forest in order to makemoney from illegal timber transports. He placed controlof these checkpoints (numbered 601, 603, 102, 104
and B6) in the hands of relatives or close allies, someof whom paid him several thousand dollars for theirpositions.263 Local officials told Global Witness thatthrough these new posts and activities such as illegal
logging, transporting of timber and smuggling of other

Sao Sokha receiving the Moha Sereiwath medal from Hun Sen,
January 2007

goods, Dy Phen was able to earn between US$10,000
and US$30,000 per month.263 Dy Phen is sensitive toscrutiny of these activities. In June 2005 he informed
his associates that an unnamed group was spying on his
business and offered US$20,000 to anyone who could
get rid of the problem for him.264
The table below provides a breakdown of thepayments received by just one of Dy Phen’s new
checkpoints. Checkpoint 102 is located near the base ofthe ‘Hun Sen Trail’, which runs from Baksna logging
camp south of Tumring to the junction with main
roads to Phnom Penh and Kompong Cham. Most of
the timber cut in and around Tumring passes along thisroute. The information comes from interviews withmilitary police officers manning the post. These military
police stated that the monthly takings for the post’s‘black box’ varied from US$5,500 to US$10,000. The
checkpoint chief, Seong Kim Ran,265 would then pay his
brother-in-law Dy Phen a share of between US$5,000
and US$6,000.261

Earnings of military police checkpoint 102
Bribes paid by

By month

Seng Keang

US$500-US$750

Seng Kok Heang

US$500-US$750

El Dara plywood factory management

US$350-US$500

Management of Kompong Thmor sawmill

US$100-US$200

Other timber traders

By day

US$150-US$500

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 63

63

11/5/07 16:27:51

Chapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey Long

3. Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
Kompong Thom Provincial Military
Sub-Operation
Kompong Thom’s Provincial Military
Sub-Operation has had a close
association with illegal logging over several years. Manyof those soldiers Global Witness found working with
the Seng Keang syndicate or running their own logging
operations in Prey Long previously worked as guards or
subcontractors for the companies holding concessions
in the province: Colexim Enterprise, GAT International,
Mieng Ly Heng and Pheapimex-Fuchan.266
One example is the activities of a 17-strong unit
commanded by a lieutenant colonel and deputy
commander of the military sub-operation headquarters
named Seng Meas.267 Seng Meas’ role in providing
security for Mieng Ly Heng and other concessionaires
from the late 1990s enabled him to build a close
relationship with Dy Chouch and Seng Keang. Afterthe suspension of the logging concessions and thecreation of Tumring Rubber Plantation, Seng Measand his unit switched to working for the syndicate
as suppliers of timber. Their logging operations havecentred on the former GAT concession south ofTumring, as well as parts of the Colexim concession to
the north and east of the plantation.268
Local officials and residents in Tumring interviewed
by Global Witness accused the provincial sub-operation
soldiers based around the plantation of colluding withthe foresters in the extortion of money from smallscale loggers operating in the area. According to thesesources, soldiers would seize chainsaws and take themto the FA offices in Khaos where the machines would
be impounded until the owner paid a US$100 bribe.268

Lieutenant Colonel and Deputy Commander of theMilitary Sub-Operation Headquarters Seng Meas

64

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 64

4. Royal Cambodian Armed Forces Military Region II
Military Region II covers four provinces in easternand north eastern Cambodia and abuts Kompong
Thom Province, which falls within Military Region
IV. A group of Military Region II troops led by Sath
Chantha and Uy Kear has been involved in illegal
logging in Prey Long over several years.269 In 2004
and 2005, Global Witness found evidence of Sath
Chantha’s involvement in illegal logging in areas west
and south of Tumring.270 Sath Chantha and Uy Kearhave previously supplied Dy Chouch, Seng Keangand Khun Thong with logs illegally cut in the Timas
Resources concession.269

5. Military Intelligence
Another branch of the security forces involved inillegal logging in Prey Long is the RCAF military
intelligence department, also know as Bureau No.
2. Military Intelligence head Major General Mol
Roeup271 is a close ally of Hun Sen whom one politicalanalyst describes as the architect of ‘dirty tricks’
campaigns against the prime minister’s political
opponents.272
While Military Intelligence plays an important,albeit shadowy role in Cambodian political life, its
officers are also involved in various types of organised
crime, including illegal logging. Global Witness
investigations in Aural Wildlife Sanctuary in 2004
revealed how Military Intelligence operatives ran
their own timber trading and extortion rackets.
In Prey Long Global Witness found evidence ofMilitary Intelligence illegally logging and selling timber
to Seng Keang Company, as well as extorting moneyfrom other loggers.209

Head of Military Intelligence Major General Mol Roeup

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:27:53

Chapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey Long

Box 13: Bearing the Burden of Corruption“Law enforcement doesn’t discriminate between
the company and the villagers. They all have equal
rights before the law. We implement the law equally,
and there are few checkpoints along the roads in thisarea.” MAFF Minister Chan Sarun on law enforcement in Prey
Long, 2006144

In 2005 and 2006 Global Witness interviewed anumber of people in and around Tumring about theirinteractions with those branches of state responsible
for combating forest crime. There was a consensus
among the interviewees both that corruption was aserious problem and that extortion weighed mostheavily on those without the power and connections
to resist. Many singled out the Forest Administration
as being particularly predatory.273
Global Witness interviewed several groups
transporting various types of forest products along oneof the two logging roads running south from Tumring
to Kompong Thmor town. These interviewees

Cart used by wood waste collectors

O’Kampub Ambel Forest Administration and Royal Cambodian
Armed Forces checkpoint, September 2006

‘Mango tree wood’, November 2005

reported encountering between 11 and 20 checkpoints
run by FA staff, Royal Cambodian Armed Forces,
military police, police and environment officers in thecourse of a single journey.273
Timber traders transporting illegally-logged wood
were not the only ones being forced to hand overmoney. People exercising their legal rights as forest
users also reported frequent demands for payment
from officials. Carpenters gathering wood waste left
behind by illegal logging operations, for example,
reported that FA staff “depending on their mood”
demanded bribes worth half the value of the wood
waste, or alternatively confiscated the material andsold it.168
Global Witness visited O’Kampub Ambel, acombined FA and RCAF station identified by thewood waste collectors as one of those they had to pay
off. Asked to describe his work, one of the RCAF
officers stated that his team never intercepted thetrucks carrying wood from the Seng Keang Company
factory and only ever stopped pracheachon (thepeople). Asked why, he said that he did not know;
he was only following instructions from the FA staff
who were not interested in looking at the logging
syndicate’s trucks.
The soldier was keen to show off the impressive
haul of timber that his team had confiscated andstacked within their compound. However, when
Global Witness asked permission to photograph avehicle loaded with luxury grade square logs, thesoldier refused, explaining that this wood belonged
to him. In separate interviews other soldiers andFA officers working at the O’Kampub Ambel post
informed Global Witness that the major timbertraders made monthly payments directly to senior FA
officials in Phnom Penh and did not need to stop andpay each time they used the road. These interviewees
said that their checkpoint still made US$2,000US$4,000 per month through bribes extracted fromless well-connected loggers and timber traders.274
Further down the same road, Global Witness
investigators observed security personnel at acheckpoint near Baksna pull over a line of ox carts
carrying dead branches for firewood. Firewood
collection is an entirely legitimate activity. As officials
questioned the firewood collectors, a convoy of small
covered trucks escorted by a pickup and two armed
soldiers passed the checkpoint unimpeded. Global
Witness staff were later able to inspect a second
convoy of these covered trucks as they stopped near
Kompong Thmor. Each vehicle was loaded with two
metre sections of commercial grade timber, which theconvoy supervisor attempted to pass off as “mango
tree wood”. Soldiers escorting the trucks attemptedto photograph members of the Global Witness team
who carried out the inspection.

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

65

Chapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey Long

6. Police
A Center for Social Development
survey of public attitudes towards
corruption found that Cambodiansrank the police as the third mostcorrupt institution in the country
after the judiciary and customs
and taxation authorities.275 The police are frequently
implicated in forest crime and border police units
played a lead role in the massive illegal logging of the
Virachey National Park in Ratanakiri in 2003-2004.276
The National Director General of the police is Hok
Lundy, a close ally of Hun Sen.
Global Witness investigations in Prey Long haveuncovered substantial evidence of police collusion in
illegal logging, but also occasional, albeit unsuccessful,attempts to combat forest crime.
In February 2005, Kompong Thom National
Assembly member Nguon Nhel277 designated a special
police operation involving 100-200 men under thecommand of Om Pyly,278 the deputy provincial police
commissioner. This team was tasked with rooting
out lawlessness – particularly kidnapping, banditry
and illegal logging – across three communes (Baksna,
Balaing and Krava) in Baray District, Kompong Thom
Province.279
Shortly after commencing its operation, Om
Pyly’s team intercepted a convoy of large green
military trucks full of timber at Baksna. A policeman
involved in the operation later told other officials andlocal residents how, within hours of impounding thevehicles, Om Pyly was recalled by his headquarters in
Kompong Thom to take a phone call. On returning to
Baksna later the same day, Om Pyly explained to his
subordinates that the caller was Seng Keang, who hadphoned from Singapore
to tell him that she wasmarried to the prime
minister’s cousin, that
all her activities werelegal and that Om
Pyly should therefore
release the trucks. Seng
Keang added that she
could provide his teama monthly allowanceof US$375-US$500 tocover their food costs;
an offer which Om Pyly
accepted. Seng Keang’s
trucks were allowed
Head of the Cambodian Police
to continue their
General Hok Lundy
journey.279
Local officials andvillagers claim that, forthe remainder of theirfour month operation,
Om Pyly’s groupcolluded openly with
Seng Keang Company
and the provincial
military sub-operation
troops and military police
transporting timber out
of Prey Long. Somepeople accused the policeof carrying out logging
Kompong Thom deputy provincial
operations themselves and police commissioner Om Pyly. His
was tasked with rooting out
extorting payments from teamlawlessness in Kompong Thom
timber traders.279
Province

Some of Cambodia’s police have close connections with the illegal timber trade66

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 66

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:28:04

Chapter III: Institutionalised Corruption in Prey Long

7. Local Government
The local authorities in Kompong Thom are heavily
complicit in the illegal logging in Prey Long. A close
association between local government and logging goesback to the 1980s when some provincial departments
owned and operated their own sawmills. In the early
1990s these assets
were sold off to wellconnected individuals.280
It remains the case thatsome senior provincial
officials expect to benefit
from logging in theprovince, whether or not
the activity is legal.
Kompong Thom
National Assembly
member Nguon Nhelwas the driving force
behind the laudable
but unsuccessful police
operation against
illegal logging in theMember of the National Assembly
first half of 2005. The
for Kompong Thom Province
Nguon Nhelparliamentarian’s
credentials as a defenderof the forests are somewhat tarnished however, by
his family’s involvement in illegal logging and receipt
of corrupt payments. One well-placed local official
informed Global Witness that Nguon Nhel’s wife,
Nhem Sophanny,281 was receiving monthly paymentsfrom military police and Forest Administration
checkpoints extorting money from timber traffic.253
According to residents of Sokchet Commune
meanwhile, Nhem Sophanny’s brother Nhem Buntha282

Sign marking the Pren village Community Forest east of Tumring
Rubber Plantation...

is a timber trader responsible for illegal logging of
luxury timber in their area.168
Nguon Nhel is not the only Kompong Thom
National Assembly member whose family are involved
in illegal logging, however. Fellow parliamentarian
Un Noeung283 is widely perceived to be the main
protector of the Ta Aok sawmill, which is located in
Prasat Sambour District between the Mieng Ly Heng
concession and Boeung Per Wildlife Sanctuary.284
This sawmill is run by Men Pha285 and Chet Ra286
who are described by industry sources as nephews of
Un Noeung.287 Global Witness has found the Ta Aoksawmill processing illegally-logged wood on several
occasions over the past five years.288
In conclusion to this section, those arms of theCambodian state responsible for combating forest
crime are well represented in Tumring and the wider
Prey Long area. They have been ineffective, however,in thwarting forest crimes by Seng Keang Company
and other illegal loggers because so many officials
and military officers have a stake in these activities.
The following section examines in more detail theoperations of one particular Royal Cambodian Armed
Forces unit – Brigade 70 – which has been involved inillegal logging not only in Prey Long but across thecountry as a whole.

Timber trader Nhem Buntha (facing the camera) is the brother-in-law
of National Assembly member Nguon Nhel...which turns out to be the site of a logging operation run by amilitary policeman working with Seng Kok Heang, November 2005.
The freshly cut tree is a resin-yielding chhoeuteal

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

67

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

CHAPTER IV: THE BRIGADE 70
CONNECTION“On behalf of the Royal Government of Cambodia
and myself, may I extend my deep gratitude andappreciation to you all, the officers and soldiers of
the Brigade 70 as well as those of the RCAF, for yoursacrifices and efforts to overcome all the challenges anddifficulties for the cause of national reconciliation andpeace for our motherland of Cambodia.” Prime Minister
Hun Sen, 2004 289“Most commanders in Brigade 70 have very goodconnections with top government officials, [elite]
families and police groups. They also have strong
connections with all provincial governors, because
Brigade 70 provides them with bodyguards and convoy
escorts. Brigade 70 has also been involved in protecting
illegal activities and has committed serious crimes suchas killing, smuggling, illegally arresting people andviolating people’s personal property.” Former Brigade 70
officer 290

In the past few years, Hun Sen has expressedstrong support for the US-led international ‘War on
Terror’. This has helped to improve his government’s
relations with officials in Washington and the Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) are now poised toreceive renewed training and equipment supplies fromthe USA. Cambodia’s military already benefits fromvarious forms of military assistance from Australia,
China, Vietnam and other countries.291 This foreignassistance risks providing legitimacy to a military
apparatus which, as this chapter shows, is heavily

involved in the theft of public assets.
Article 78 of the 2002 Forest Law calls on the
security forces to combat forest crime and Hun Sen
has praised the army for its presumed role in stopping‘anarchic’ logging.289 At the same time, revenues
from the illegal timber trade sustain the militarycomponent of Cambodia’s shadow state. This is amply
demonstrated by the activities of the elite RCAF
Brigade 70, which runs an illegal timber and contrabandtrafficking operation worth between US$2 million
and US$2.75 million per year. The Brigade 70 casehighlights the direct linkage between Hun Sen’sbuild-up of loyalist military units and large-scaleorganised crime.

1. Brigade 70 and the Bodyguard
Unit – a Private Army for thePrime Minister
Brigade 70 is a special unit of 2,000
soldiers headquartered in Cham
Chao on the outskirts of Phnom
Brigade 70 insignia
Penh. Its commander is Major
General Mao Sophan.292 It acts
as a reserve force for Hun Sen’s
4,000 strong Bodyguard Unit and
Mao Sophan takes his orders from
Bodyguard Unit chief Lieutenant
General Hing Bun Heang.293 Hing
Bun Heang’s commanding officer Hun Sen Bodyguard
is General Kun Kim,294 one of four Unit insignia
deputy commanders-in-chief ofthe RCAF and Hun Sen’s chief of cabinet.258 In January
2007 Hun Sen promoted Kun Kim to four star General,the most senior rank in the Cambodian armed forces.

Hun Sen and Bun Rany at a military parade, January 2007

68

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 68

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:28:16

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Box 14: General Kun Kim and Lieutenant
General Hing Bun Heang
As key lieutenants to Prime Minister Hun Sen, Kun
Kim and Hing Bun Heang’s responsibilities extend
beyond security issues. Kun Kim previously took
a close interest in the operations of the Malaysian
GAT International logging company, visiting its
plywood factory near Sihanoukville and its Baksna
logging camp in Kompong Thom on a number ofoccasions in 2001.295 Hun Sen cancelled GAT’s twoconcessions in 2002 after Global Witness exposed
persistent illegal logging by the company and Kun
Kim is now head of a committee to stop illegal
clearance of forests.296
Hing Bun Heang, meanwhile, was appointed
in September 2006 to the position of Supreme
Consultant to Cambodia’s Senior Monk Assembly,
a body established as a ‘supreme court’ toadjudicate in disputes involving Buddhist monks.
The lieutenant general informed journalists that hewould be advising the Supreme Monk Assembly on
matters relating to conflict resolution.297

In the words of a former member of United
Nations Office of the High Commission for Human
Rights (UNOHCHR) staff, “The term bodyguard isa misnomer ... the Prime Minister’s bodyguard unit isa substantial military elite unit equipped with modern
weaponry and many of its members have received special
training abroad.”256 The Bodyguard Unit and Brigade
70 are central to Hun Sen’s strategy of cultivating special
units to protect his interests from potential challengers
inside and outside the CPP.293 The latent threat ofviolence is integral to the prime minister’s hold over the
population as a whole, moreover. Hun Sen responds evento muted criticism by declaring that attempts to remove
him will cause the country to fall back into conflict andinstability.298 Cambodians take these threats extremely
seriously. The fact that the prime minister has developed
what is essentially a private army is surely one of thereasons why.
Hun Sen’s military capability is rarely commented
on by the international community, despite the evident
danger that it poses to democracy in Cambodia. It
perpetuates a situation in which military units arecontrolled by individual politicians rather than the state;
the same conditions that enabled Hun Sen to unseat
his co-prime minister Norodom Ranariddh in a violent
coup d’etat in July 1997. Human rights organisations
accuse Hun Sen’s Bodyguard Unit of playing a leadingrole in mounting this coup.299

Kun Kim receiving a fourth general’s star from Hun Sen,
January 2007

Lieutenant-General Hing Bun Heang

Brigade 70 headquarters in Cham Chao, on the outskirts ofPhnom Penh

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

69

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Box 15: Illegal Logging and Royal Cambodian
Armed Forces Forces Loyal to Hun Sen
Hun Sen’s efforts to build up loyalist military units
date back to 1994 when disaffected elements within
his political party attempted a coup against him.
At this point he relocated to the heavily defended‘Tiger’s Lair’ compound in Takhmau south of Phnom
Penh and established the Bodyguard Unit.258
According to an analyst of Cambodia’s military,

the core forces loyal to Hun Sen include not only
the bodyguards and Brigade 70 but also the military
police, Military Region II and Military Region III.
This analyst describes these units as “a force of lastresort” should Hun Sen come under threat.258 All ofCambodia’s five military regions and many of the
RCAF’s special units are involved in illegal logging
to a greater or lesser extent. Those most closely
identified with Hun Sen are no exception:

Commanding Officer

Unit

Illegal logging

General Kun Kim
Lieutenant General Hing Bun Heang

Bodyguard Unit

• Members of the Bodyguard Unit have worked as subcontractors
to forest concessionaires responsible for massive illegal logging,notably Pheapimex-Fuchan and Hero Taiwan.300

Major General Mao Sophan

Brigade 70• Brigade 70 operates an illicit timber trafficking service that spans
Cambodia and encompasses exports to Vietnam. 301

General Sao Sokha

Military Police• The military police are heavily involved in forest crime, notably inillegal logging hotspots such as the Cardamom Mountains andPrey Long. 302• As well as running their own logging operations, they provide
protection and transportation services to major timber traders andextort money from less well-connected operators.302

Major General Choeun Sovantha 303

Military Region II• Senior Military Region II officers are involved in illegal logging not
only within MRII but also in MRIV.190• Battalion 204, based in Kratie, is responsible for much of theillegal logging in the Snuol Wildlife Sanctuary as well as violent
attacks on villagers who have tried to stop them.304

Major General Keo Samuon 305

Military Region III• MRIII is the driving force behind the illegal timber trade in the
Cardamom Mountains, notably Aural Wildlife Sanctuary. 306• Much of the money generated through the illegal logging,protection and extortion activities undertaken by MRIII soldiers
ends up in the pockets of senior commanders. 307

Senior generals at military parade, January 2007. The Royal Cambodian Armed Forces has no less than 613 generals, equivalent to one forevery 179 soldiers

70

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

2. Hak Mao
According to a number of Brigade 70 soldiers and otherwell-placed sources within Royal Cambodian Armed
Forces, the driving force behind the brigade’s dubious
business ventures is an officer named Hak Mao.308
Global Witness first became aware of Hak Mao in 2004,
when investigators discovered that soldiers under his
command were transporting illegally-logged timberfrom Aural Wildlife Sanctuary and other parts of the
Cardamom Mountains.309
Hak Mao’s colleagues claim he began his career
running retail outlets in Phnom Penh’s Olympic market.
In the mid 1990s he purchased the rank of major in
Brigade 70 for US$5,000 and began managing the unit’s
illicit transportation services.310 In March 2005 he waspromoted to the rank of (one star) Brigadier General.311
The businesses Hak Mao runs for Brigade 70
are transportation services that use large military
green trucks and Brigade 70 soldiers as drivers andguards. Hak Mao personally owns 16 trucks, eachcapable of carrying 60 m3 or more.312 In the second
half of 2006, twelve out of his fleet of 16 were in active
use.313 Hak Mao’s vehicles sometimes, but not always,
display a plaque with the number ‘70’ against theirwindscreens.314 Two other groups that use similarvehicles are ‘Long Meng’, which labels its trucks ‘LM’and whose activities are detailed in Box 20, and Mong
Reththy Group, whose trucks are tagged with an‘MRT’ logo.315 Mong Reththy is profiled in Box 18.
Although Hak Mao is not the overall commander ofBrigade 70, his pivotal
role in raising funds
gives him a stature thattranscends his rank.
According to one close
associate, he has directlines of communication
with senior officers close
to Hun Sen, notably
Hing Bun Heang and
Sao Sokha, the director
general of the military
General Meas Sophea, Commanderof the Royal Cambodian Armedpolice.316 This source
Forces infantry. His wife is reported
informed Global
to have close connections with
Hak Mao
Witness that Hak Mao
and Hing Bun Heang liaise with Sao Sokha ahead ofany major transportation operations so that the military
police can ensure that the road is open to the Brigade 70
convoys.316
Hak Mao also has close connections with the wifeof General Meas Sophea,317 the commander of the
RCAF infantry forces.316 Mrs Meas Sophea318 runs
her own transportation enterprise and sometimes
calls upon Hak Mao’s staff to repair her vehicles.316
She is also a key player in RCAF patronage politics,
holding a fearsome reputation among her husband’s
subordinates on account of her frequent demands formoney.319 RCAF sources have told Global Witnessthat military officers sometimes bribe Mrs Meas
Sophea in order to increase the chances of her husband
giving them a promotion.319

Brigade 70 truck, Phnom Penh, December 2006

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

71

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

3. Timber Trafficking
Under Hak Mao’s direction, Brigade 70 acts as a
specialist provider of transport and protection services
to the most powerful of Cambodia’s timber barons. The
legacy of Hun Sen’s crackdowns on ‘anarchic’ logging
is a streamlined illegal timber sector monopolised byentrepreneurs and kleptocratic networks loyal to him.
These different groupings often work closely together;
Brigade 70’s collaboration with the Seng Keang
Company in the illegal logging of Prey Long is just one
example.
In the past three years Global Witness has
uncovered evidence of Brigade 70 transporting
illegally-logged wood from Koh Kong, Kompong
Speu, Kompong Thom, Kratie, Mondulkiri, Oddar
Meanchey, Preah Vihear and Siem Reap – provinces
that span the main forested regions of the country.315
These timber trafficking activities continue all the year
round, through both wet and dry seasons. According to
one timber dealer in Phnom Penh, Hak Mao is able todeliver logs of all types according to order.320 Althoughsome of his commissions involve moving timber
directly from the forest to the client, in many cases theBrigade 70 teams first bring the wood to Phnom Penh
where they store it temporarily in depots that Hak Mao
owns or rents.321
Global Witness has identified two of Hak Mao’s
depots on Street 2002, a small road running off Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces Boulevard. Hak Mao
employs approximately 60 Brigade 70 soldiers asdrivers, guards, mechanics and administrators at thesesites and pays their wages out of his own pocket.311
He delegates aspects of day-to-day management to acolonel named Kong Horm.322 Hak Mao is also said to
own two additional properties close to the Olympic
Market; however Global Witness has not been able toconfirm this.311
The depots on Street 2002 are Brigade 70’s maintimber storage facilities. Hak Mao owns the compound

Timber stored on Royal Cambodian Armed Forces Boulevard,
Phnom Penhon the north side of the road and rents another on
the south side.323 The road has a public right of way;
however Hak Mao has set up a checkpoint mannedby Brigade 70 troops and installed a metal barrier tocontrol vehicle access.324 The depot on the south sideof the road is used primarily for larger volumes ofcommercial grade wood, with the compound on thenorth side generally holding stocks of luxury grade
timber of 100 m3 or less.156

Brigade 70 truck outside one of Hak Mao’s depots on Street 2002, Phnom Penh, March 2006

72

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Box 16: The Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
Get a Helping Hand from the US Government

Will US taxpayers be buying Brigade 70 more trucks like these?

the US – in other words a commitment not to send
US nationals to the International Criminal Court– and because it had improved its performance intackling human trafficking.325
Other factors that may have influenced thechange in policy include Hun Sen’s cooperation inthe ‘War on Terror’, US competition with China for
influence in mainland Southeast Asia, and US firm
Chevron’s imminent exploitation of a large share of
Cambodia’s offshore oil deposits.
So far, the US government has committed
around US$1 million in assistance to the
Cambodian military in fiscal year 2006 andprojects a further half million dollars for 2007.325
While these sums may not be especially large byinternational standards, they are highly significant
in political terms; conferring legitimacy on an
institution which is integral to Hun Sen’s hold on
power.
According to the US Embassy, just under athird of the funds committed in fiscal year 2006
will be used for trucks, spare parts and training.325
Whether Brigade 70, which makes particularly
heavy use of trucks in its trafficking operations, will
be receiving some of the new American vehicles
is not clear. The embassy says that it has not yet
decided which military units will be benefiting.
It insists, however, that the US government will
not be supporting units or individuals that havecommitted gross human rights violations.325

In the second half of 2006, Hak Mao was using
seven out of his 12 active vehicles for transporting
timber.313 Based on surveillance, interviews with Brigade
70 officers and accounts from people living around
Hak Mao’s compounds, Global Witness estimates thatthese seven trucks were all making an average of threeround trips each week.326 Each vehicle’s capacity isaround 60 m3, indicating that the fleet was collectivelytransporting an average of approximately 1,260 m3 per
week.315 If legally harvested and taxed at the US$54 per

cubic metre rate applied to grade II wood, this volumeof timber would net the Cambodian treasury around
US$3.5 million per year. As it is, the profits are split
between timber traders and Hak Mao.
The rates Hak Mao charges his clients fortransporting timber vary according to the length of
the journey. A source in Brigade 70 reports that forcollection of timber in more remote provinces, suchas Koh Kong, Pailin, Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri,
the standard rate is US$1,500 per truck per journey.

The US government suspended military assistanceto Cambodia in the wake of the July 1997 coup.
Since then, RCAF has continued to operate moreas an extended organised crime syndicate than as adefence force. However, a spokesman for the US
Embassy in Phnom Penh informed Global Witness
in March 2007 that the Cambodian military
was now eligible for direct US funding, because
Cambodia had signed an Article 98 agreement with

Brigade 70 truck fully laden with timber, Route 2, April 2005

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

73

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Transportation from Kompong Thom, by contrast,
may cost only US$700.327 These fees do not include
the costs of fuel or food for the one driver and two
guards assigned to each truck, for which the client has
to pay additional charges. Assuming an average returnof US$1,100 per truck per journey and seven trucks
in operation, timber-related activities could be netting
Hak Mao approximately US$23,100 per week oraround US$1.2 million annually.
An integral part of the service that Hak Mao
provides is preventing timber confiscation by law
enforcement agencies. Brigade 70 trucks bringing
timber from Kompong Thom typically have an escortof soldiers in one or two pickups.156 Within Phnom
Penh, meanwhile, Global Witness investigators haveobserved Brigade 70 trucks moving timber between
locations at night accompanied by armed motorcycle
outriders.156 The escort teams act as a deterrent and,
when required, negotiate payments to checkpoints
along the road, in order to ensure that the trucks do nothave to stop. They budget for these payments at US$10US$20 per checkpoint.311
Hak Mao often smoothes the path of his timberconvoys through the use of illegal permits signed bysenior military officers.328 Permits of this type are
one of the main tools of the trade for Cambodia’s
major timber dealers. They generally take the form ofa document that authorises illegal logging activities
and bears the signature of politicians or generals
who have no jurisdiction over the forest sector.
Their purpose is to invoke not a law but the name ofsomebody powerful. One such case involving Hak
Mao and Commander-in-Chief of the Army General
Pol Saroeun329 is outlined below. Police interviewed
by Global Witness reported that on occasions thatthey had intercepted Brigade 70 trucks transporting
timber, the drivers claimed they were following
mission orders from General Sao Sokha of the military
police, Lieutenant General Hing Bun Heang of the
Bodyguard Unit, RCAF head of procurement General
Moeung Samphan,330 or Major General Mao Sophan of
Brigade 70.328

Hak Mao’s staff claimthat they transport timber
throughout Cambodia with
impunity except for parts of
the Cardamom Mountains
where international NGOs
support law enforcement
teams of Ministry ofEnvironment rangers, Forest
Administration officials andmilitary police. These teams
have previously impounded
Brigade 70 trucks carrying
General Moeung Samphan
illegally-logged wood and
Hak Mao has experienced
difficulties securing their release.311
Overall, such cases are the exception rather than therule, however, and Brigade 70 trades on a reputation
for speediness and efficiency. Hak Mao’s drivers haveorders to turn off their phones before starting eachjourney in order to avoid distraction, and instructions
not to stop under any circumstances, even if they hit
another vehicle or people along the road.331 According
to police interviewed by Global Witness in two districts
on the outskirts of Phnom Penh through which Brigade
70 convoys regularly pass, Hak Mao’s trucks have
hit motorists or pedestrians on several occasions. The
policemen claim that Brigade 70 compensates injured
victims with payments of US$50-US$150 and pays thefamilies of those that die between US$100 and US$300.
Sometimes they just give the police US$100 and tellthem to settle the matter on the unit’s behalf.332
A source close to the Brigade 70 reported that in
October 2006 one of the convoys became involved in ashooting incident in Koh Kong Province.333 Unhappy
at the attention this drew to the brigade’s activities,
Bodyguard Unit commander Hing Bun Heang ordered
Hak Mao’s teams to cease carrying weapons during
their transportation operations.333 Global Witness wrote
to Hing Bun Heang in March to ask him to commenton this report. As this publication went to print, Hing
Bun Heang had not responded.

Pickup used by Brigade 70 to escort trucks carrying timber

Passers by stop to look, following a traffic accident involving one of
Brigade 70’s trucks, May 2005

74

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

3.1 Exports

3.2 The Clients

Global Witness investigations have found that Brigade
70 is involved not only in the distribution of illegallylogged wood within Cambodia but also in the export ofsignificant volumes to Vietnam. According to officials
in Kandal and Prey Veng provinces, timber transported
by Hak Mao often passes through Neak Loeung, aport on the Mekong River.198 Here the wood is stored
temporarily in warehouses before being loaded intolarge boats that carry it across the border at the Ka’am
Samnor checkpoint. These boats make their journeys toVietnam in groups of between two and four every week
to ten days, with each vessel carrying at least 400 m3
of timber.334 Alternatively, Hak Mao’s trucks proceed
directly through Neak Loeung along Route 1 to theborder crossing at Bavet. Taking the timber over theborder by road usually involves using a permit signed
by a high-ranking official.335
One Brigade 70 officer interviewed by Global
Witness stated that the unit was not only transporting
timber to Vietnam, but also exporting containers packed
with wood through sea ports on Cambodia’s south
coast.336 Two businessmen who provide services to
Hak Mao’s group have also told Global Witness about
this activity.337 These different reports corroborateclaims made by officials working at Oknha Mong Portin Koh Kong Province. These port officials told Global
Witness that they were prevented from inspecting
certain sealed containers delivered by Brigade 70, butwere told by the drivers that some contained plywood,
luxury wood furniture and pieces of grade I timber.338
Global Witness investigators have observed trucks
carrying sealed shipping containers leaving the two
Brigade 70 depots on Street 2002 but have not been able
to verify their contents.

Brigade 70’s timber transport service caters primarily
to major timber barons who have close links to elitefamilies. Some of the unit’s more prominent clients
include the following:

Khai Narin340
Khai Narin owns a sawmill on Route 5 in the outskirtsof Phnom Penh and is described by timber industry
insiders as a close associate of Dy Chouch.341 Her
company is listed, along with Seng Keang Company,as the owner of timber stockpiles in Tumring in a2003 log transportation plan prepared by ColeximEnterprise.159
In December 2003, Global Witness discovered
Khai Narin’s sawmill processing illegally-sourced
timber and reported the case to SGS, the new
independent monitor of forest law enforcement. SGS
subsequently attempted an inspection of the site, only
to be, in the words of its project manager, “chasedaway by a man with a big stick”.342 Global Witness

Container truck outside Hak Mao’s depots on Street 2002, Phnom
Penh, October 2006

Employee of the Khai Narin sawmill prepares to throw a stone atsome unwanted visitors, December 2003

Dy Chouch, Seng Keang, Khun Thong and Seng
Kok Heang
As described in Chapter II, Brigade 70’s transportation
services have been a major component of thissyndicate’s illegal logging activities in Prey Long forest.
Seng Kok Heang, the group’s operations manager, ishimself a Brigade 70 officer. His sister, Seng Keang,collaborates with the unit not only in timber ventures,
but also other aspects of her business. According tolocal inhabitants, in 2006 Seng Keang enlisted Brigade
70 officers to help her intimidate rival claimants to land
she is attempting to acquire in Trapeang Svay on theoutskirts of Phnom Penh.339

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

75

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Brigade 70 truck at Khai Narin sawmill, April 2005

wrote to SGS in February 2007 to ask the company tocomment on this episode. SGS replied as follows:“At this time the project had only been in operationfor 11 days and was still in the inception phase awaiting
the formal mandate from the RGC [Royal Governmentof Cambodia] to enter all relevant forest and processing
areas. Thus it was not possible at the time to insist on
access to the mill which was denied by the security
guard. Even so, the SGS team spoke with local villagers
and was able to establish that some illegal logging had
occurred in the area. This was reported to the Forest
Administration and it is understood that they closed
this operation down. Subsequent inspections of the millfrom the river in January and February 2004 revealed noevidence of any further logs being delivered or milling
activities taking place. This incident was reported infull on pages 13 to 14 of the first SGS Quarterly Reportwhich was made publicly available.”167
In April 2005 Global Witness investigators visited
the sawmill again and found it to be well stocked with
100 m3 of protected luxury grade wood (beng and neangnuon) as well as grade I and grade II species. Two Brigade
70 trucks were observed unloading additional timber
supplies. A few weeks later, Global Witness saw oneof the same trucks (number plate Khor Mor 0.5314) in
Kompong Thom Province, travelling along the ‘Hun Sen
Trail’ – the road which carries timber illegally cut in Prey
Long. People living close to Khai Narin’s compound
informed Global Witness that Brigade 70 trucks werecoming to deposit logs at the sawmill on average threetimes a week.343 During an aerial survey in September
2006, Global Witness observed stocks of logs in the Khai
Narin sawmill compound. Over four years into a cutting
and log transport ban it is highly unlikely that this wood
was sourced legally.
76

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Choeung Sopheap, also known as Yeay Phu344
Yeay Phu and her husband, CPP senator Lao Meng
Khin, own Pheapimex, arguably Cambodia’s mostpowerful company. Yeay Phu is a close friend of Hun
Sen’s wife Bun Rany and regularly travels abroad withthe prime minister’s entourage. Lao Meng Khin has
been a CPP senator since 2006. Pheapimex is one ofa small number of firms with ties to Hun Sen that act
as joint venture partners to powerful Chinese firms
moving into Cambodia. The company appears rarely tocommit significant capital to these partnerships itself.345
Within Cambodia, the name Pheapimex issynonymous with illegal logging and over the past
decade Global Witness has repeatedly uncovered
evidence of the company cutting illegally both insideand outside its three logging concessions. Since thesuspension of logging concession operations in 2002,
Pheapimex’s Kompong Thom concession has becomea centre for illicit sawmill operations run by military
units and one of the company’s subcontractors.346
Global Witness published details of these activities inIllegal sawmill in Pheapimex Kompong Thom logging concession,
May 2004

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Yeay Phu keeping up appearances

June 2004. While Pheapimex made no comment,
Prime Minister Hun Sen publicly attacked the report,
telling journalists that “Global Witness has lied before
and today they are lying again”.347
Pheapimex has a wide range of other interests
beyond forests. These include salt iodisation, overwhich the government granted it a monopoly, iron ore
extraction, bamboo cultivation, pharmaceutical imports
and hotel construction.348 In recent years, the company
has increasingly focused on economic land concessions(ELCs) and has partial or complete control of at least
five.348 Through its ELCs and logging concessions
Pheapimex controls 7.4% of Cambodia’s total landarea.19
Three of the Pheapimex ELCs are joint ventureswith the Chinese company Wuzhishan LS and Kong
Triv, another tycoon who is a senator for the CPP.348
Two of these concessions, in Pursat and Mondulkiri
provinces, have been the scene of serious humanrights abuses against local people.349 After eightprotestors against the Pheapimex-Wuzhishan ELC
in Pursat were wounded in a hand grenade attack by
unknown assailants in November 2004, King Norodom
Sihamoni wrote a letter to the prime minister toexpress his concern. In his response to the king, Hun
Sen defended the company, arguing that “the grenadeattack was only aimed at blaming the government or
the local authorities, because according to the technicalexamination by the competent officials, the purposeof the grenade attack (in which some people were
injured and nobody died) was just aimed to make theirpropaganda voices louder.”350
In 2004 Global Witness investigators found a groupof large green military trucks, closely resembling
those used by Brigade 70, transporting logs cut in the
Pheapimex-Wuzhishan ELC in Pursat Province.351 In

2005, one of Hak Mao’s subordinates confirmed to
Global Witness that Yeay Phu had made extensive useof Brigade 70’s transport service.352
In a further expansion of its business empire,
Pheapimex publicly announced in November 2006 that
it was forming a joint venture with Chinese firm Jiangsu
Taihu International to set up a new 178 ha Special
Economic Zone near Sihanoukville.348 Pheapimex
claimed that the two companies would spend US$1
billion developing the area.353 Under Cambodian law,companies developing SEZs are granted a nine year
tax holiday, as well as exemptions on VAT and importand export duties.354 A Chinese official from Jiangsu
Province told journalists that the Pheapimex deal
sprang from a visit to China by Hun Sen.355 Global
Witness is not aware of the government conducting any
public bidding for the rights to this SEZ concession
and does not know what criteria it used to evaluate thePheapimex proposal.
In January 2007 Hun Sen presented Yeay Phu with
the Moha Sereiwath medal – a decoration reserved forindividuals who have made a particularly generous
contribution to Cambodia’s development.356 The
following month, Pheapimex emerged at the centreof yet another deal involving a valuable slice of public
property. On February 6 Phnom Penh Governor Kep
Chuktema signed away 133 ha of the Boeung Kak Lake
area on a 99 year renewable lease to a previously obscurefirm called In Shukaku, whose director is Yeay Phu’s
husband Lao Meng Khin.348 The Housing Rights Task
Force (HRTF), a coalition of local and internationalNGOs, and the Cambodian Center for Human Rights(CCHR), report that the site is home to at least 4,252
families. According to the NGOs, none of thesefamilies were consulted about the deal.357 HRTF and
CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

77

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Yeay Phu receiving the Moha Sereiwath medal

Mayor of Phnom Penh Kep Chuktema. In February 2007 he signed
away 133 ha of the Boeung Kak Lake area to a company directed byYeay Phu’s husband Lao Meng Khin

CCHR have stated that “If these families are forcibly
removed from their homes, following recent precedents
by the Municipality and the poor track record of In
Shukaku’s director Lao Meng Khin, this would markthe largest single displacement of people in Cambodia
since the privatization of land in 1989.”357
Pheapimex’s illegal logging has robbed theCambodian people of a valuable public asset and Global
Witness has repeatedly made the case for prosecuting
the company and stripping it of its concessions. The
firm’s other activities have also caused widespread
damage to the livelihoods of ordinary Cambodians.
Whether in terms of taxes paid or jobs created, there islittle evidence that handing over enormously valuablepublic assets to Pheapimex has contributed in any way
to Cambodia’s development. What is not in doubt isthat the company’s owners and their political patrons
have profited handsomely. The question of why Hun
Sen continues his vigorous promotion of Pheapimex’s
interests remains unanswered, however. In February
2007 Global Witness wrote to the prime minister andhis wife to ask them whether they hold a private stakein Pheapimex. As this report went to print, neither
Hun Sen nor Bun Rany had replied to these letters.
78

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChe Lain358
Che Lain is the wife of naval commander Yim Saran,
the nephew of Senate President and CPP President
Chea Sim.359 Timber trade insiders describe Che Lain as
a forceful character who is given to shouting down thephone at MAFF Minister Chan Sarun when he fails tocomply with her demands.359
Global Witness first found evidence of Che Lain’s
involvement in illegal logging while investigating aboat-building racket in 2004. This inventive scam
involved tricking monks into signing letters stating that
their pagodas needed giant koki logs to build racing
boats so that they could compete in the annual Water
Festival races in Phnom Penh.360 Having secured theirsignatures, Che Lain and other fixers presented theletters to senior officials and persuaded them to signpermits authorising the cutting of koki trees. The fixers
then used these documents as the pretext for logging the
Seima Biodiversity Conservation Area in Mondulkiri
and selling the wood to timber dealers.361 The more
fortunate monks received a small portion of the wood
originally promised, others received bags of cement
and some never heard from the fixers again.360 Global
Witness has obtained copies of the letters and permits
relating to a number of these cases.
Timber traders interviewed by Global Witness in2004 named Che Lain as a major player in the logging
of protected luxury timber species around Anlong
Veng and Trapeang Prasath along Cambodia’s northernborder with Thailand.362 These sources described herhiring Brigade 70 to transport square logs and sawn
wood to Neak Loeung, a river port in Prey Veng
Province and a key transit point for timber shipments
to Vietnam. These accounts were confirmed by a senior
member of the security forces in Neak Loeung who has
close connections with the timber business.363

Hauling an illegally-felled koki log out of the Seima Biodiversity
Conservation Area, October 2003

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Hak Leng364 and Siem Touch365
Hak Leng and Siem Touch have a long-establishedtimber trading operation in Neak Loeung which
includes a sawmill and at least one warehouse.366
Global Witness has previously uncovered evidence of
their involvement in the ‘koki logs for monks’ racket
outlined on the previous page.361
A senior member of the security forces in Neak
Loeung told Global Witness that Hak Leng and Siem
Touch regularly coordinate the transportation ofillegally-logged luxury timber with Hak Mao’s teams
and provide temporary storage facilities for the woodwithin the town. This officer claims that the couple

are also instrumental in shipments of illegally-sourced
timber down the river to Vietnam.363
An associate of Siem Touch describes her as
being a friend of both Hun Sen’s wife Bun Ranyand Koeung Chandy, the wife of General Kun Kim,
Hun Sen’s chief of cabinet.367 Hak Leng, meanwhile,is reported to make regular payments to Kun Kim’s
brother-in-law, Koeung Vannak,368 a provincial Forest
Administration official, to ensure his protection of thecouple’s business.369 According to several residents of
Neak Loeung whom Global Witness interviewed in
September 2006, Hak Leng has recently been given thehonorific title oknha.370

Koki logs on the river bank close to Hak Leng and Siem Touch’s sawmill, September 2003

Constructing a boat from koki at Hak Leng and Siem Touch’s sawmill, September 2006

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

79

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Sean Leang Chhun, also known as Yeay Chhun371
Yeay Chhun is one of the most prolific illegal loggers
in north-eastern Cambodia. She is particularly activein Kratie and Mondulkiri provinces and transports
much of her timber to Neak Loeung or to Vietnam.372
Global Witness has been gathering information on Yeay
Chhun’s activities for more than five years. Officials
report that her involvement in the illegal timber tradegoes back more than a decade.335
In 2001, following a major crackdown on forest
crime in Mondulkiri Province the previous year,
Yeay Chhun acquired a permit to collect the logs that
officials claimed the illegal loggers had left scattered in
the forest.373 The granting of this permit contravened
Hun Sen’s 1999 declaration on forest sector reform,
which banned old log collection licences because of
their persistent misuse as a cover for illegal logging.
In 2003, Chan Sarun authorised Yeay Chhun toestablish a sawmill in O’Reang District, Mondulkiri
Province, in order to process the ‘old logs’.374 Yeay
Chhun proceeded to use these permits as the pretext
for illegally cutting and processing over a hundred
trees from the Seima Biodiversity Conservation Area in
Mondulkiri in 2004.375
In May 2004 Global Witness published a shortreport outlining three cases of illegal logging by
Yeay Chhun: the cutting in the Seima Biodiversity
Conservation Area, unlawful harvesting in the Snuol
Wildlife Sanctuary in Kratie and more illegal felling in
a forest in Snuol District outside the wildlife sanctuaryboundaries. During the last of these operations one of
the trucks carrying Yeay Chhun’s timber fell througha public bridge near Snuol town.376 A Brigade 70
officer told Global Witness that this convoy included
vehicles provided by Hak Mao, but that the truck
which collapsed the bridge belonged to Yeay Chhun.
The officer said that Yeay Chhun regularly hired Hak

Timber trader Yeay Chhun; one of the most prolific loggers innorth-eastern Cambodia

Mao to transport her timber between 2002 and 2004
but that their partnership ended following the attention
generated by the bridge destruction in Snuol.377
A timber trade insider subsequently told Global
Witness that Yeay Chhun was upset by the public
exposure of her activities because it meant that she had
to pay larger than usual bribes to persuade officials
to turn a blind eye.378 The added expense did not
permanently derail her business, however. Not longafter Global Witness released its report, Yeay Chhun
was seen arriving at the Forest Administration officein Phnom Penh for a meeting with Deputy Director
General Chea Sam Ang379 and leaving with a newsheaf of timber transport permits.380 Chea Sam Ang,
the Project Director for the World Bank’s Forest
Concession Management and Control Pilot Project,refused to explain his actions to journalists who called
him for comment; however FA Director General Ty
Sokhun declared that the permits were legitimate.381
Global Witness has obtained information fromsources in the Snuol area that Yeay Chhun was
continuing to transport illegally-logged timberfrom Kratie to Neak Loeung between July and
September 2006.382

Illegal logging operation organised by Yeay Chhun in Snuol District, June 2005

80

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREESChapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Pol Saroeun
Pol Saroeun is the Commander-in-Chief ofCambodia’s army. According to officers in Brigade
70 and other Royal Cambodian Armed Forces units,
between 2003 and 2005 the general contracted Hak
Mao to supply him with protected luxury woodand grade 1 timber to build a house in Svay Rieng
Province.383 Pol Saroeun provided Hak Mao withsigned permits approving the wood’s delivery, despite
having no legal authority to do so. Hak Mao then usedthe documents repeatedly as a pretext for transporting
much larger volumes of luxury timber; much of
it supplied by Dy Chouch. Brigade 70 reportedly
exported around 80% of this wood to Vietnam.383
Preap Tan384
Preap Tan is the governor of Preah Vihear Province.
According to a source in Brigade 70, in July 2006 hecommissioned Hak Mao to transport 185 koki logs
from three locations in Preah Vihear to Phnom Penh.313
Global Witness has previously obtained documents
signed by Preap Tan and Hun Sen Bodyguard Unit
commander Hing Bun Heang concerning procurementof wood from Preah Vihear Province for theconstruction of four boats. Hing Bun Heang described
the boats as being for “Bodyguard Unit activities,
undertaking missions for the Prime Minister and hiswife ... and distributing gifts to villagers in provinces
affected by natural disasters”.385 Global Witness does
not know whether the boats were actually built and, if
so, from where the wood was sourced.

Preap Tan’s own bodyguards also appear to haveinterests in the timber sector. In September 2004 Forest
Administration staff in Tbeng Meanchey District inPreah Vihear Province temporarily closed their office,saying that the governor’s bodyguards had fired shots attheir compound following a dispute over some wood.
According to the FA, Preap Tan acknowledged his
bodyguards were at fault and “educated them not to doit again”.386

Commander-in-Chief of Cambodia’s army, General Pol Saroeun. He isreported to have contracted Hak Mao to supply him with timber tobuild his house

Small truck used by Brigade 70 to distribute goods within Phnom Penh

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

81

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

4. Transportation of Smuggled Goods
by Brigade 70
Global Witness’ initial interest in Brigade 70 related
to its role in Cambodia’s illegal timber trade. Field
investigations, surveillance and extensive interviews
with Brigade 70 officers have yielded additional
information on the unit’s transportation of smuggled
merchandise, however.
Brigade 70 picks up smuggled goods on behalf of
its clients as the items arrive in Cambodia. This enables
the clients to evade import duties. Import duties area potentially important source of revenue for the
Cambodian treasury but corruption ensures that levelsof tax evasion are extremely high. According to the
IMF’s most recent Article IV report on Cambodia,“revenue collection continues to be well below whatis needed to support the government’s expenditureobjectives”.387 Hun Sen periodically announces
crackdowns on smuggling, yet military trafficking
operations remain a major money-spinner for some of
his closest advisors.
Through interviews with Brigade 70 officers andbusinessmen, Global Witness has been able to build
up a picture of the range of commodities the unittransports. These include beer, spirits, cigarettes,
perfume, electronic goods, construction materials,
clothes, sugar, pharmaceuticals, and products destinedfor supermarkets including ice cream.388 Hak Mao
runs the transportation of these goods out of depots
in Phnom Penh, including one of the compounds on
Street 2002.389 According to soldiers and local residents,
Brigade 70 distributes items such as alcohol, perfume
and luxury foods within Phnom Penh using a fleetof small ice cream and soft drinks trucks.390 Global
Witness investigators have observed these types ofvehicles coming in and out of the depots on Street 2002,
but have not been able to inspect their contents.
Who is hiring Hak Mao to transport smuggled
goods? Customs officers interviewed by Global Witness
claimed that the group’s clientele included high-ranking
officials and their families. Amongst these, they singled
out the wives of Minister of Defence Tea Banh391 and his
brother Tea Vinh,392 who
is a naval commander in
Koh Kong.393 Both thesemen have a history of
involvement in illegal
timber exports.394
The same customs
officials also alleged that
Hak Mao was delivering
smuggled products forsome of Cambodia’s
most prominent tycoons
Minister of Defence Tea Banh. His
and companies.393 This
wife is reported to have contracted
claim is echoed by a
Hak Mao to transport smuggled
source close to the
goods
82

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

prime minister, who told Global Witness that most of
the contraband that Brigade 70 transported belonged
to the Attwood Import Export Company.40 Attwood is
profiled in Box 17. Global Witness wrote to Tea Banh,
Tea Vinh and Attwood in February 2007 to ask whether
they had ever enlisted the services of Brigade 70. As thisreport went to print, none of them had replied.

Box 17: Attwood Import Export Co. Ltd
Attwood Import Export Co. Ltd is the official
distributor in Cambodia for Hennessy cognac andwell-known brands of whisky and beer. Attwood’s
Managing Director Lim Chhiv Ho395 is describedby a well-connected source in Cambodia’scommercial sector as one of a quartet of politicallypowerful women who do business deals together.396
The other three members of this quartet are said tobe Yeay Phu of Pheapimex; the wife of National
Customs and Excise Department Director Pen
Simon397; and Tep Bopha Prasidh,398 who is married
to Minister of Commerce Cham Prasidh399 andholds the position of Director of Administration
at the ministry.396 Tep Bopha Prasidh is reported
to own 10% of Attwood’s shares – a stake worth
US$1 million.400 Lim Chhiv Ho’s daughter ismarried to the son of Yeay Phu.396
Attwood has received concessions from thegovernment to develop three Special Economic
Zones (SEZs) near Sihanoukville, Phnom Penh
and Bavet on the Vietnamese border.401 These deals
give the company
generous tax
holidays and duty
exemptions. Global
Witness wrote to
Lim Chhiv Ho in
February 2007 to
ask how Attwoodwent aboutobtaining these
SEZs but has not
yet received a reply.
Hennessy billboard in Phnom Penh

Minister of Commerce Cham
Prasidh’s wife is reported toown 10% of Attwood’s shares

National Customs and Excise
Department Director Pen
Simon. His wife is described
as doing business deals with
Attwood director Lim Chhiv HoChapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Information from Brigade 70 soldiers suggests thatthe rates Hak Mao charges for transporting smuggled
goods are roughly comparable to those for delivering
illegally-logged timber.402 As Box 19 shows, however,for certain very expensive goods the fees can be a great
deal higher.
A member of Hak Mao’s staff told Global Witnessthat Brigade 70 sometimes transports truckloads ofsugar overland from Thailand via the Poipet bordercrossing in Banteay Meanchey Province.403 Global
Witness investigators found loaded Brigade 70 trucks
crossing the border at Poipet in September 2006 but
were unable to obtain information about what goods
they were carrying. Observations and interviewssuggest that the major entry points for the smuggled
items Brigade 70 transports are on Cambodia’s south
coast, however.404

4.1 Smuggling Through Sre Ambel PortIn the early stages of Hak Mao’s career with Brigade
70, most of the contraband his teams handled entered
Cambodia through the port at Sre Ambel in Koh Kong
Province.405 Here Brigade 70 unloaded boatloads ofhigh value goods smuggled from Thailand, notablyinternational brand cigarettes and alcohol, and paidcustoms officials only 5-15% of the duties owed.406
Hak Mao told anyone who asked questions that thesmuggled goods belonged to Tea Banh and Tea Vinh.407
Local officials recall that the Sre Ambel District
governor made efforts to clamp down on these activities
but was not successful.407
From Sre Ambel, Brigade 70 transported thegoods either to Phnom Penh, or along the coast to
Sihanoukville port. Goods transferred to Sihanoukville
were then packed into shipping containers and reexported.408 Following Hun Sen’s coup in July 1997
Hak Mao’s business at Sre Ambel expanded. Brigade 70

began importing increased volumes of contraband while
shipping consignments of luxury grade wood in theother direction.409
As Hak Mao’s enterprise blossomed, other agencies
laid a claim to a share of the profits, sparking a violent
stand-off on at least one occasion. An official based in
Sre Ambel described to Global Witness an incident inwhich a combined law enforcement team of customs
officials, economic police and military police intercepted
three large military trucks as they headed north from Sre
Ambel.407 The trucks were carrying cigarettes, whisky andHennessy410 cognac and the checkpoint team demandedthat the drivers pay them a bribe. The truck drivers
refused, saying that the goods belonged to Tea Banh, Tea
Vinh and prominent tycoon Teng Bunma.411 A standoff
ensued. Two hours later Hak Mao himself arrived with
20 armed troops, threatened the law enforcement teamand directed his trucks to smash their way through thecheckpoint barrier. The two groups then began shooting
at each other, the customs officers, police and military
police retreated and the trucks pulled away.407
Having regrouped, the law enforcement teamcontacted the Military Region III command to requestthat they intercept the Brigade 70 convoy as it headed
along Route 4 towards Phnom Penh. This planfoundered on the close ties between Hak Mao and
MRIII however. When the MRIII troops eventually
arrived on the scene, it was to disarm the checkpoint
officials rather than to back them up. In the aftermath,some members of the law enforcement team were fired
from their positions.407 It appears to be on the strengthof this and similar incidents that local people begancalling Brigade 70 the ‘Samurai’ group.412
By the end of 2004, Hak Mao had largely ceasedusing Sre Ambel and had shifted his operation to Mong
Reththy’s new Oknha Mong port at Keo Phos village,
closer to Sihanoukville.412

Ports used by Brigade 70

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

83

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

4.2 Smuggling through Oknha Mong Port
“There are no longer any barriers between nations ...
The world has become one huge market.” Mong Reththy,
2007426

Oknha Mong Port is the brainchild and private businessholding of tycoon and CPP senator Mong Reththy.
Located just 45 kilometres from Cambodia’s maincommercial port at Sihanoukville, the creation of
the new facility has the explicit backing of Hun Sen,
who inaugurated it in December 2004 and hailed it asa means of fostering greater economic competition.
Despite this optimistic prognosis, there are indications
that the port is effectively exempt from official
regulatory structures and acts as a gateway for largescale smuggling.

Entrance to Oknha Mong Port

When Oknha Mong Port was first announced tothe media earlier in 2004, it was described as coming
equipped with its own customs, police and military
police.427 This description may be rather too literal;
indeed sources at the port say that the approximately
15 customs officers stationed there are answerable
only to Mong Reththy and may not submit a report totheir head office in Phnom Penh unless the tycoon firstauthorises it.428
Hak Mao’s teams began using Oknha Mong Port
soon after it opened for business, transporting goods
to and from Phnom Penh. Brigade 70 is also known totake deliveries from Oknha Mong Port along the coastto the seaport at Sihanoukville.428
Dock workers and local residents have remarked on
the heavily armed escorts accompanying some of thesealed shipping containers Hak Mao’s men deliver forexport via Oknha Mong Port. Asked by Global Witness
what they thought was in these containers, someof the workers joked that they probably contained
narcotics or counterfeit dollars.429 Such a possibility istaken seriously by some members of the diplomaticcommunity, who have privately expressed concerns thatdrugs are being trafficked through the port.430
As at Sre Ambel before, Hak Mao’s men pay thecustoms officials at Oknha Mong Port no more than 515% of the required import tariffs.408 An eyewitness tosome of these transactions claims that the officials haveno choice but to accept these poor terms given Brigade
70’s capacity for violence and the risk of being fired by
Mong Reththy if they raise objections.431
84

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Box 18: Mong Reththy“It should be mentioned also that Mr Oknha [Mong
Reththy] has been doing a great deal for the country”
Prime Minister Hun Sen at the opening of Oknha Mong Port, 2004.413“I will bulldoze the homes of [residents] who refusedmoney” – Mong Reththy commenting on his demolition of theRoyal University of Fine Arts campus, 2005.414

Mong Reththy is one of Cambodia’s most prominent
tycoons and a close ally of Hun Sen. In 2006 hebecame a senator for the CPP.
Plantations, commodities trading, cattle farming
and real estate development are just some of Mong
Reththy’s interests. His eclectic business portfolio has
also encompassed illegal logging in Bokor National
Park and an economic land concession in Stung Treng
which at 100,852 ha is more than ten times the size
permitted by the Land Law.348 This ELC is sited on
the cancelled Macro Panin logging concession in
violation of the sub-decree on Forest Concession
Management. Chan Sarun signed off on the dealin November 2001, three months after the passageof Land Law limiting ELCs to 10,000 ha.415 When
Global Witness wrote to Chan Sarun to question thelegality of his decision, the minister responded withthe argument that the government was obliged togive Mong Reththy the concession because he had
asked for it before the Land Law was ratified.416 In
December 2006 Global Witness received reports froma human rights worker that Mong Reththy’s company
had begun clearing parts of the Green Sea ELC close
to the Lao border.417
Mong Reththy has also been at the forefrontof the recent rash of land-swap deals in which
ownership of public buildings has been transferred
to tycoons with links to the CPP. His land-swap
acquisitions have included Cambodia’s Supreme
Court, Appeals Court, Phnom Penh Municipal

Mong Reththy receiving a medal from Hun Sen

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Court and Justice Ministry buildings.348 He has also
flattened the historic Royal University of Fine Arts
campus in Phnom Penh and forcibly evicted local
residents in order to make way for a development he
has named ‘China Town’.418
The government’s decision to give the green lightfor Oknha Mong Port demonstrates considerable
confidence in a man previously subject to allegations ofdrug trafficking. Claims that there was more to Mong
Reththy’s import-export business than met the eye firstsurfaced in April 1997, when officials in Sihanoukvilleseized seven tons of marijuana from containers labelled
as rubber.419 Newspapers reported that documents
taken during the seizure bore stamps and seals of acompany belonging to Mong Reththy.420 In media
interviews Mong Reththy denied any involvement.421
Secretary of State at the Ministry of Interior
Ho Sok, a member of the CPP’s Funcinpec
coalition partner, led the investigation into Mong
Reththy’s alleged connection with the marijuana.
His announcement that a court was preparing anarrest warrant for the tycoon prompted Hun Sen
to comment that anyone attempting to arrest Mong
Reththy had better “wear a steel helmet”.422 In July
1997, during the coup in which Hun Sen ousted
his Funcinpec co-prime minister Prince Norodom
Ranariddh, Ho Sok was detained by CPP forces andmurdered.423 The investigation into Mong Reththy’s
dealings proceeded no further.
Mong Reththy has continued to deny any
connection with drug trafficking. In an interview
with a local newspaper in 2004, he said “I was accusedof planting and smuggling marijuana. I have tried toignore it. I have never even smoked a cigarette in mylife, so how could I do business like that? I only dowhat is legal”.424
Global Witness wrote to both Mong Reththyand Hun Sen to ask them for their comment on
the reports of drug trafficking. As this report went
to print, Hun Sen had not replied, however Mong
Reththy’s lawyer responded by e-mail as follows:“We have received the inquiry from your office
related to Mr Mong Reththy and he is pleased toreceive it. Mr Mong has asked us to inform youthat he is unable to give Global Witness a written
statement BUT he is willing to interview with a
Global Witness representative in Phnom Penh or in
London. If you have any further inquiry, please do
not hesitate to contact us.”425
Global Witness accepted the invitation totake part in an interview with Mong Reththy, andproposed a tape-recorded discussion over the
telephone. At the time of the report’s publication,
Mong Reththy’s lawyer had not responded to this
proposal.

Illegal clearing and road building in Bokor National Park by
Mong Reththy Group, March 2006

Oknha Mong PortCAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

85

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Box 19: Special Deliveries
According to members of his staff,
in March 2005 Hak Mao received
US$100,000 for transporting 60,000
bottles of Hennessy cognac from Oknha
Mong Port to the InterContinental
Hotel432 in Phnom Penh.433 The
InterContinental Hotel building
previously belonged to Teng Bunma, atycoon famous for shooting out the tyresof an aeroplane after the airline mislaid
his bags.434 However, hotel staff told
Global Witness in 2005 that ownership
had passed to Hun To, the nephew of theprime minister.435
As of September 2006, the bar at
the InterContinental Hotel stocked
three different Hennessy cognacs. Topof the range was the Hennessy Paradis,
weighing in at US$35 per measure or
US$980 per 70 cl bottle. Global Witness
does not know which type of Hennessy
cognac Hak Mao was asked to deliverto the hotel. At InterContinental prices,
however, the retail value of 60,000 bottles
of Hennessy Paradis would be close to
US$5.9 million.
Hennessy’s official distributor,
Attwood, runs a large shop retailing
duty free liquor in a building next tothe InterContinental Hotel. In January
2007 Global Witness wrote to both
Attwood and Hennessy companies to
ask if they were aware of the evidence of
cognac smuggling, but has not received
a response from either firm. There isno suggestion by Global Witness that
Hennessy is involved in the smuggling of
its products, or that the InterContinental
Hotels Group is implicated in any way.
In December 2006 Global Witness staff
observed a truck bearing the Hennessy
logo leaving a warehouse on Street 430,
one block south of the InterContinental
Hotel. Two large green military-styletrucks parked outside this depot were bothlabelled ‘LM’, indicating that they werepart of the Long Meng Group, a smuggling
operation run by members of the police
which is profiled in Box 20. Global Witness
has written to both Attwood and theInterContinental Hotel to ask them if they
have any connection with these premises,
but has not yet received a reply fromeither company.

86

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 86

Brigade 70, the InterContinental Hotel and AttwoodHennessy and Long Meng trucks near the InterContinental Hotel, December 2006

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:29:20

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

5. The Bottom Line – Hak Mao’s Income andExpenditure
Assuming an average return of US$1,100 per truck
for both timber and smuggled goods and ignoring
lucrative one-off deals like the Hennessy delivery, Hak
Mao’s basic monthly takings could be in the region of
US$171,600-US$228,800, depending on whether he has
just 12 trucks or all 16 in operation. Hak Mao’s staff
claim that Brigade 70’s illegal timber and contrabanddelivery services generate average profits of US$1,500US$5,000 per day.436
One Brigade 70 source told Global Witness that
Hak Mao pays a cut of his earnings – at least US$30,000
per month – to the unit itself and that he effectively
underwrites its existence. These funds are said tocover soldiers’ food and travel as well as parties for
its officer corps.437 An associate of Hak Mao provides
more detailed information that broadly corroborates
this account but suggests that the $30,000 is in fact split
between Brigade 70 and the Bodyguard Unit, with thelatter receiving the larger share.438
According to this source, Hak Mao’s basic monthly
contributions to Brigade 70 and the Bodyguard Unit arecalculated according to the number of trucks he is using
at any one time.438 At the start of 2006 he was paying
US$1,000 per vehicle per calendar month towards theoperations of Brigade 70 and the same amount to the
Bodyguard Unit commander Hing Bun Heang – a
combined outlay of US$24,000-US$32,000.438 Global
Witness believes that the share paid to Hing Bun Heang
is intended for Bodyguard Unit operations, although
it is possible that some of the money augments thegeneral’s private bank accounts.
In mid 2006 however, Hak Mao became concernedthat he might be in line for promotion to two star

Bodyguard Unit commander Hing Bun Heang is reported to havereceived monthly contributions from Hak Mao

major general, the same rank as Brigade 70 commander
Mao Sophan.438 One brigade being too small fortwo major generals, the extra star might necessitate
Hak Mao transferring to the army headquarters andthereby losing his capacity to run the unit’s trafficking
businesses.438 Coincidentally or otherwise, it wasaround this time that Hak Mao upped his monthly
payments to Hing Bun Heang to US$1,700 per truck or
US$20,400-US$27,200 in total.438 As this report went toprint, it remained unclear whether or not Hak Mao had
succeeded in evading promotion.
The figures available suggest that the overall annual
turnover of Hak Mao’s operations could be in theregion of US$2 million and US$2.75 million; witharound 60% coming via transportation of illegallylogged timber and the other 40% from delivering
contraband. Of this, between US$388,000 and
US$518,400 is financing Hun Sen’s two most importantmilitary units, Brigade 70 and the Bodyguard Unit.

Soldier and trucks near Hak Mao depots, December 2006

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

87

Chapter IV: The Brigade 70 Connection

Box 20: Long Meng GroupIn the course of investigating Hak Mao and Brigade
70, Global Witness also gathered information ona rival syndicate run by a colonel in the economic
police named Long Meng. According to officials in
Koh Kong Province, Long Meng has been active inthe business since around 2000, arranging deliveryof smuggled goods in much the same manner as
Hak Mao.439 He manages a fleet of at least 20 large
trucks, which are painted military green in the styleof the Brigade 70 vehicles. Each truck carries anidentification plaque in the front windscreen which
begins with the letters ‘LM’.440
Long Meng’s group initially took up the slack
left by Hak Mao’s switch from Sre Ambel to Mong
Reththy’s port in 2004.439 In March 2006 however,Global Witness found ‘LM’ trucks parked at
Oknha Mong Port, suggesting that the Long Menggroup may have expanded its zone of operations.
During the same aerial survey, Global Witness
found a cargo vessel labelled with the Long Meng‘LM’ logo docking alongside a loaded barge sailingunder a Thai flag just off the coast from Keo Phos.
During investigations in December 2006 andJanuary 2007, Global Witness found Long Mengtrucks in convoys of up to 25 vehicles transporting
goods along National Road 4, which connects
Phnom Penh to ports on the coast.

Boat bearing the Long Meng group ‘LM’ logo, March 2006

Long Meng Group trucks at Oknha Mong Port, March 2006. (Inset) LM logo in the truck’s window

88

Cambodia's Family Trees.indd 88

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

11/5/07 16:29:24

Conclusion

CONCLUSION
Eight years after Prime Minister Hun Sen pledged tostamp out forest crime, illegal logging continues toerode Cambodia’s most valuable forests. Areas such as
Prey Long remain seriously at risk.
More than ever, large-scale illegal logging operations,such as the ones described in this report, are the preserveof a relatively small number of people who are relatives
or friends of the prime minister or other senior officials.
Dy Chouch, Seng Keang and Khun Thong have beena fixture in Cambodia’s illegal logging sector for the
past decade. Their careers show how, despite a forestry
reform process launched by the prime minister himself,
elite families have maintained, and even strengthened,
their grip on the illegal logging industry.
The responsibility of Hun Sen and his ministers
goes beyond allowing their families to log illegally,
however. The job auction at the Forest Administration
demonstrates that institutionalised corruption is driven
from the highest levels of the government. By allowing
and in some cases encouraging state institutions togenerate money through extortion and other typesof crime, senior officials are exacerbating the damage
to Cambodia’s forests and the country’s overall
development prospects.
The example of Brigade 70, meanwhile, shows
how intimately Hun Sen’s personal powerbase isconnected to organised crime. Brigade 70’s prominentrole in timber trafficking and smuggling, as with elitefamilies’ dominance of illegal logging, reflects a wider
consolidation of power in Cambodia by Hun Sen andhis allies.
Addressing these problems requires holding themost powerful criminals accountable to the law. Therecan be little doubt that a handful of competently
investigated and prosecuted cases against senior
officials, their relatives and associates would have a far
greater impact on abuse of power and corruption than
new legislation, important though this is.
The stakes in the fight against corruption havebeen raised recently by the discovery of oil and gas
reserves off the coast of Cambodia. The country willsoon be earning hundreds of millions of dollars from
offshore oil and gas extraction, something that should
be a cause for celebration in a country that remains
heavily dependent on overseas aid. However, theprecedent offered by Cambodia’s forest sector is hardly
encouraging. Given the entrenched corruption ingovernment, the oil discovery poses as much a threat as
an opportunity. Under current conditions, Cambodia
has the potential to follow the example of countries
such as Angola, where a super-rich elite, bloated by oilrevenues, rules with little regard for the interests of an
impoverished population.441
Senior officials’ vested interests in the status quomean that change can only be driven by strong pressure
from outside the government. Ideally this would be

led by ordinary Cambodians citizens and civil society
organisations. However, in the current political climate,in which those who speak out against abuses are
threatened or attacked, civil society in Cambodia is notrobust enough to play this role on its own. Those withthe greatest leverage over the government remain theinternational donor community.
In the past decade and a half, international donors
have been reluctant to use this leverage and have helped
legitimise the entrenchment of a kleptocracy. It is not
too late for donors to start playing a more constructiverole, however. At the forthcoming 2007 Consultative
Group meeting donors need to redefine the terms of
their engagement with their Cambodian counterparts.
As a first step, they must directly link future
disbursements of non-humanitarian aid to reforms thatmake the Cambodian government more accountable toits own citizens.

It is time Cambodia’s donors changed their approach to dealing with
Hun Sen’s government

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

89

Appendix 1: Cambodia’s Tycoon-Senators/Cronyometer References

APPENDIX 1: CAMBODIA’S TYCOON-SENATORS/CRONYOMETER REFERENCESviii
Kok An1 Permits to build and operate casinos:
Personal communication from an official, 2007
Kay Kimsong, ‘Sleepy Town on VN Border May be‘New Poipet’’, Cambodia Daily, 8 July 2005.
2 Contracts to generate/distribute electrical
power:
Electricity Authority of Cambodia, ‘Licence No.
115 LD: Generation Licence for Khmer ElectricalPower Co. Ltd’, 15 March 2005, http://www.eac.
gov.kh/pdf/licences/generation/115_KEP_20-1106_en.pdf.
Electricity Authority of Cambodia, Report on
Power Sector of the Kingdom of Cambodia for theyear 2003, October 2004, http://www.eac.gov.kh/
pdf/report/Annual%20Report%202003_Eg.pdf.
Kay Kimsong, ‘Phnom Penh Blackouts Should beFinished’, Cambodia Daily, 10-11 June, 2006.
3 Sits on board of Cambodian Red Cross:Cambodian Red Cross, ‘CRC has a new governing
board and a new Secretary General’, August
2006, http://www.redcross.org.kh/news_events/
2006/4thGA.html.
Sy Kong Triv
1 Economic land concessions:
Ministry of Commerce registration of Wuzhishan
LS Group Ltd., 24 May 2004 (this document lists
the three shareholders of Wuzhishan as Liu Wei,
Lao Meng Khin and Sy Kong Triv).
Contract granting an economic land concessionof 176,065 ha in Kompong Chhnang Province,
signed by MAFF Minister Chhea Song, 8 January,
2000.
Contract granting an ELC of 138,963 ha in
Pursat Province, signed by MAFF Minister Chhea
Song, 8 January, 2000.
MAFF, profile of Wuzhishan’s 10,000 ha
Mondulkiri ELC, http://www.maff.gov.kh/elc/
comprofiles/mdwuzhis.html.
2. Contracts to upgrade and operate airports:
Business News Review (Cambodia), ‘Building up
Khmer skills - Muhibbah sees building potential’,
1 February 1999.
Asian Development Bank, ‘Project completion
report on the Siem Reap Airport project to theKingdom of Cambodia’, December 2004, www.
adb.org/Documents/PCRs/CAM/pcr-cam-27406.
pdf.
ADB, ‘Report and Recommendation of the
President of the Board of Directors on a proposedloan and technical assistance grant to the
kingdom of Cambodia for the Siem Reap Airport
Project’, 1996. www.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/
CAM/rrp-R27896.pdf.
International Finance Corporation, ‘Cambodia
Airports, 21363, Summary of Project Information’,
http://ifcln001.worldbank.org/IFCExt/spiwebsite1.
nsf/2bc34f011b50ff6e85256a550073ff1c/ea373
e2378da6385256dce006ebb91?OpenDocument.
3. Contract to construct a railway line:
ADB, ‘Contract Awards Information on Goods andRelated Services and Civil Works Contracts above
US$100,000 value’, August 2002, http://www.
adb.org/documents/others/contract_awards/
2002/08chap_c.pdf.
World Rainforest Movement, The Death of theForest – A Report on Wuzhishan’s and Green
Rich’s Tree Plantation Activities in Cambodia,
WRM Series on Tree Plantations No. 4, 2006;
p.p. 21-22.
4 Contract to construct/renovate roads:
Muhibbah Engineering BHD, ‘Annual
Report’ 2001, http://announcements.
bursamalaysia.com/EDMS/hsubweb.nsf/0/
48256aaf0027302c48256bc700389830/$FILE/
Muhibah-AnnualReport%202001%20(1.2MB).
pdf.
Hun Sen, ‘Speech at the Inauguration Ceremony
for Official Use of the Section of National Roads
No. 5 and 6’, 19 November 2004, http://www.
cnv.org.kh/2005_releases/19nov05_national_
road_5&6_siemreap.htm.
5 Accompanied Hun Sen on a trip to China:
Images from Cambodian television news footage
obtained by Global Witness, 2004.

Lao Meng Khin (husband of
Yeay Phu)
1 Logging concessions:
Asian Development Bank Sustainable Forest
Management Project, Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report, 2000, p.13.
Forest Administration, ‘Forest Cover andForestland Categories / 4. Forest Concession
Areas’, http://www.forestry.gov.kh/Statistic/
Forestcover.htm.
Keith Barney, Customs, Concessionaires andConflict, Forest Trends, August 2005, http://www.
forest-trends.org/documents/publications/Cambodia%20Report_final_6-1-05.pdf.
2 Economic land concessions:
Ministry of Commerce registration of Wuzhishan
LS Group Ltd., 24 May 2004 (this document lists
the three shareholders of Wuzhishan as Liu Wei,
Lao Meng Khin and Sy Kong Triv).
Contract granting an economic land concessionof 176,065 ha in Kompong Chhnang Province,
signed by MAFF Minister Chhea Song, 8 January,
2000.
Contract granting an ELC of 138,963 ha in Pursat
Province, signed by MAFF Minister Chhea Song,
8 January, 2000.
MAFF, profile of Wuzhishan’s 10,000 ha
Mondulkiri ELC, http://www.maff.gov.kh/elc/
comprofiles/mdwuzhis.html.
Contract for two ELCs of 70,000 ha (Banteay
Meanchey) and 230,000 ha (Battambang)
signed by Ministers to the Council of Ministers
Sum Manit and Nouv Kanon, Phnom Penh, 8June 1998.
Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning &Construction GIS data-set showing the two ELCs
in Banteay Meanchey and Battambang, 2004.
3 Concession to quarry limestone:
Chea Sieng Hong, Secretary of State, Ministryof Industry, Mines and Energy, speech given
at ‘Mining Opportunities in the Greater
Mekong Sub-Region Conference’ meeting in
Laos, June 2006, http://www.gmsbizforum.
com/dmdocuments/MGS_MI~2.pdf.
4 Concession to explore for iron ore:
Xinhua, ‘Cambodia, China to cooperate on ironmine exploration, 20 March 2005, http://english.
people.com.cn/200503/20/eng20050320_
177505.html.
Kuch Naren, ‘Cambodian Chinese Firms to Invest
in Mine’, Cambodia Daily, 22 March 2005.
Robin Paxton, ‘Cambodia Wants Gold Mines
to Replace Land Mines’, Reuters, 29 March
2005, http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/
dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=30118.
Chea Sieng Hong, Secretary of State, Ministryof Industry, Mines and Energy, speech given
at ‘Mining Opportunities in the Greater
Mekong Sub-Region Conference’ meeting in
Laos, June 2006, http://www.gmsbizforum.
com/dmdocuments/MGS_MI~2.pdf.
5 Permit to cut trees in state rubber plantations:
Susan Postlethwaite, ‘“Anarchy” in Cambodia’s
rubber business’, Phnom Penh Post, 20 October-2
November 1995.
6 Awarded lease of public land in Phnom Penh:
The Housing Rights Task Force and theCambodian Center for Human Rights, ‘Boeung
Kak Contract Violates Cambodian Law’, February
2007.
Prak Chan Thul and James Welsh, ‘Firm Lands
99-Year Lease on Boeng Kak Lake’, Cambodia
Daily, 8 February 2007.
Allister Hayman and Sam Rith ‘Boeung Kak
lake latest city sell-off’, Phnom Penh Post, 9-23
February 2007.
Personal communication from UNOHCHR, March
2007.
Cambodian Center for Human Rights, ‘Boeung
Kak Lake Residents Fear Mass Eviction as Phnom
Penh Municipality Signed a 99-Year Contract with
Sokako Inc Company’, 20 March 2007.
7 Concession to set up a tax-free economic zone:
DFDL, ‘Weekly Law Update’, 1 November 2006.
Kay Kimsong, ‘High Hopes for New Economic
Zone in S’ville’, Cambodia Daily, 30 November
2006.

viii All web references last downloaded on 6 April 2007

90

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

Personal communication from member of staff of
UNOHCHR, 2007.
8 Contract to import medical supplies forgovernment:
World Rainforest Movement, The Death of theForest – A Report on Wuzhishan’s and Green
Rich’s Tree Plantation Activities in Cambodia,
WRM Series on Tree Plantations No. 4, 2006;
p.21.
9 Monopoly on salt iodisation:
Personal communication from a member of staff
at UNICEF, 2005.
World Rainforest Movement, The Death of theForest – A Report on Wuzhishan’s and Green
Rich’s Tree Plantation Activities in Cambodia,
WRM Series on Tree Plantations No. 4, 2006;
p.21.
10 Financed construction of bases for the army:
Minutes of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries meeting at the General Headquarters of
the RCAF, 3 February 1997.
11 Accompanied Hun Sen on trips to China:
Images from Cambodian television news footage
obtained by Global Witness, 2004.
China-ASEAN business and investment summit,
list of participants, http://www.cabiforum.
org/foreign.html.
Ly Yong Phat
1 Economic land concessions:
MAFF, profile of Koh Kong Plantation Company
Ltd, http://www.maff.gov.kh/elc/comprofiles/
kkplantation.html.
MAFF, profile of Koh Kong Sugar Company Ltd,
http://www.maff.gov.kh/elc/comprofiles/kksugar.
html.
Licadho, ‘Cambodian military police mobilised
to protect land concession of ruling party
senator’, 8 February 2007, http://www.licadho.
org/articles/20070208/51/index.html.
Kang Kallyan, ‘Des familles de Koh Kong
manifestent’, Cambodge Soir, 8 March 2007.
2 Permits to build and operate casinos:
Personal communication from an official, 2007.
Personal communication from a member ofCambodia’s business community.
Agence France Presse, ‘Cambodia maps out
plan to lure tourists to Khmer Rouge sites,’ April
13, 2005 http://www.fourelephants.com/travel.
php?sid=286.
Phnom Penh Hotel website, http://www.
phnompenhhotel.com/recreation.php.
Koh Kong International Resort Club website,
http://www.kohkonginter.com; http://www.
kohkonginter.com/osmach.htm.
3 Permit to build and operate a port:
Hun Sen, ‘Inaugurating a Zoo in Koh Kong
Province’, Cambodia New Vision, Issue
60, January 2003. http://209.85.135.104/
search?q=cache:X5MqLtCiV_MJ:www.cnv.org.
kh/cnv_html_pdf/cnv_60.pdf+ly+yong+phat&hl=
en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=10.
Personal communications from a researcher, 2006
and 2007.
4 Contract to construct/renovate roads:
DFDL ‘Weekly Law Update’, February 18, 2003,
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:1uy_
LFIJ9QIJ:www.dfdl.com.kh/pdf/03Feb18eml_
weely_law_update.pdf+ports+cambodia+Ly+Yon
g+Phat&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk.
5 Contract to construct a bridge:
Ek Madra (Reuters), ‘Cambodia’s ‘Wild West’poised on a bridge between two eras,’ The
Philadelphia Inquirer, June 16, 2002.
Hun Sen, ‘Address to the inauguration of Spien
Koh Kong over the Koh Pao Canal in Koh Kong
Province’, April 4, 2002, www.cnv.org.kh/2002_
releases/040402_kohkong_bridge_bot.htm.
6 Contracts to generate/distribute electrical
power:
Electricity Authority of Cambodia, ‘Generation
Licence for providing electric power generation
service at Phnom Penh, 31 May 2006,
http://www.eac.gov.kh/pdf/licences/generation/
LD_CEP%20_08-6-06__en.pdf.
Electricity Authority of Cambodia, ‘Distribution
license for providing electric power distribution

service at provincial town of Koh Kong andOsmarch town, Khum Osmarch, Samrong District,Oddor Meanchey Province – Duty Free Shop Co.
Ltd.’, 22 November 2002, http://www.eac.gov.
kh/pdf/licences/distribute/dutyfreeshop_eng.pdf.
Electricity Authority of Cambodia, Report on
Power Sector of the Kingdom of Cambodia for theyear 2003, October 2004, http://www.eac.gov.kh/
pdf/report/Annual%20Report%202003_Eg.pdf.
7 Sits on board of Cambodian Red Cross:Cambodian Red Cross, ‘CRC has a new governing
board and a new Secretary General’, August
2006, http://www.redcross.org.kh/news_events/
2006/4thGA.html.
Men Sarun
1 Economic land concessions:
MAFF, profile of Men Sarun Import Export Co.
Ltd, http://www.maff.gov.kh/elc/comprofiles/
kcmsarun.html.
MAFF, profile of Global Tech Sdn., Bhd, Rama
Khmer International and Men Sarun Friendship,
http://www.maff.gov.kh/elc/comprofiles/rtgtech.
html.
2 Contract to supply rice to the army:
Ministry of Commerce, ‘Sectoral Rice Study’,
http://www.moc.gov.kh/sectoral/rice_study/
charter3/marketingsystem.htm.
3 Accompanied Hun Sen on trip to China:
Images from Cambodian television news footage
obtained by Global Witness, 2004.
Mong Reththy
1 Economic land concessions:Green Sea Company economic land concession
contract, 23 November 2001.
Kay Kimsong, ‘Tycoon, Thai Billionaire plan $50
million sugar plantation’, Cambodia Daily, 18
July 2006.
Mong Reththy Group website, http://www.
mongreththy.com/mongreththy.
MAFF, profile of Mong Reththy Investment Oil
Palm Cambodia Co., Ltd., http://www.maff.gov.
kh/elc/comprofiles/svillemr1.html.
MAFF, profile of Mong Reththy Investment
Cassava Cambodia Co., Ltd, http://www.maff.gov.
kh/elc/comprofiles/svillemr2.html.
2 Awarded ownership of public buildings inPhnom Penh:
Miloon Kothari, Report of the Special Rapporteuron adequate housing as a component of theright to an adequate standard of living, UN
Commission on Human Rights, Economic andSocial Council, 21 March 2006, http://cambodia.
ohchr.org/report_subject.aspx.
Field observations, 2006.
3 Permit to build and operate a port:
Mong Reththy Group website, http://www.
mongreththy.com/oknhamong.htm.
Hun Sen, speech at the opening of Okhna Mong
Port, 2 December 2004, http://www.cnv.org.kh.
4 Sits on board of Cambodian Red Cross:Cambodian Red Cross, ‘CRC has a new governing
board and a new Secretary General’, August
2006, http://www.redcross.org.kh/news_events/
2006/4thGA.html.
5 Accompanied Hun Sen on a trip to China:
China-ASEAN business and investment summit,
list of participants, http://www.cabiforum.
org/foreign.html.
6 Financed ‘Hun Sen Schools’ programme:
Som Sattana, ‘Drug seizure quickly enters
Cambodia’s political feuding’, Associated Press
Worldstream, 6 April 1997.
Kheang Un, ‘Politics, Power and Hybrid
Democracy’, Asian Perspective, Vol. 29, No. 2,
2005. p. 226.

References

REFERENCES
1 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chan Sarunin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Chan Sarun, please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
2 Global Witness wrote a letter to Ty Sokhun
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Ty Sokhun please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
3 Global Witness wrote a letter to Hing Bun
Heang in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Hing Bun Heang please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
4 Global Witness wrote a letter to Hak Mao
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Hak Mao please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
5 Global Witness wrote a letter to Dy Chouch
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Dy Chouch please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
6 Global Witness wrote a letter to Seng Keangin February 2007 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Seng Keang please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
7 Global Witness wrote a letter to Khun Thongin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Khun Thong please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
8 Global Witness wrote a letter to Seng Kok
Heang in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Seng Kok Heang please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
9 Cambodia Independent Forest Sector Review,
2004, http://www.cambodia-forest-sector.net/.
(Last downloaded 18 March 2007).
10 International Monetary Fund, ‘Guide on
Resource Revenue Transparency’, June 2005,
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/grrt/
eng/060705.pdf. (Last downloaded 13 March
2007).
11 For information on the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative (EITI), see http://www.
eitransparency.org/section/abouteiti. (Lastdownloaded 13 March 2007).
12 The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
Change is a report by economist Sir Nicholas
Stern commissioned by the UK Treasury (Finance
Ministry) and published in October 2006. It canbe downloaded fromhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_
reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm (lastdownloaded 22 March 2007). The review’scomments on the role of natural forests are in
Chapter 25 ‘Reversing Emissions from Land Use
Change’, p. 537.
13 Global Witness wrote a letter to Prime
Minister Hun Sen in February 2007 to ask forhis comments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response. For informationon the content of this letter to Prime Minister
Hun Sen please contact Global Witness via
mail@globalwitness.org.
14 Global Witness wrote a letter to Lia Chun
Hua in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Lia Chun Hua please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.

15 Global Witness wrote a letter to Sao Sokha
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Sao Sokha please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
16 Global Witness wrote a letter to Mong Reththy
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on themain issues raised in this report as involve or
relate to him. Mong Reththy’s lawyer responded,declining to provide a written response, butinstead offering a verbal interview. Global Witness
accepted this offer, but at the time of publishing
had not heard from Mong Reththy’s lawyer.
For information on the content of this letter toMong Reththy please contact Global Witness via
mail@globalwitness.org.
17 Statement by Peter Leuprecht, Special
Representative of the UN Secretary General on
Human Rights in Cambodia, to the 61st Sessionof the UN Commission on Human Rights, 19
April, 2005.
18 Steve Heder, ‘Hun Sen’s Consolidation – Deathor Beginning of Reform?’, Southeast Asian Affairs
2005, p. 114; USAID, Cambodian Corruption
Assessment, August 2004, p.p. 2, 4 & 7; Tim
Conway and Caroline Hughes, Understanding
pro-poor political change: the policy process inCambodia, ODI, 2004, p.p. 18 & 42.
19 Global Witness has calculated that Pheapimex
holds 1,333,931 ha in logging and economic
land concessions. Cambodia’s total land area is
18,104,000 ha.
20 Global Witness wrote letters to Kok An, Ly
Yong Phat, Lao Meng Khin, Choeung Sopheap,
Men Sarun and Kong Triv in February 2006 to
ask for their comments on the main issues raisedin this report as involve or relate to them. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response. For information on
the content of any of these letters, please contact
Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
21 Interviews with two confidential sources,
2005; interview with a journalist, 2005; personalcommunication from a former official, 2005.
22 Tim Conway and Caroline Hughes,
Understanding pro-poor political change: thepolicy process in Cambodia, ODI, 2004, p. 19;
USAID, Cambodian Corruption Assessment,
August 2004, p. 6; Christine J. Nissen, Living
Under the Rule of Corruption – An Analysis ofEveryday Forms of Corrupt Practices in Cambodia,
Center for Social Development, Phnom Penh,2005, p.p. 18 & 24.
23 Col. DJ Mead (Ret.), ‘Reforming the Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces: Leadership is the Key’,
Phnom Penh Post, 30 January-12 February 2004.
24 Interviews with a confidential source and adiplomat, 2005; interviews with RCAF officers,
2005 and 2006; field observations, 2005.
25 Interviews with RCAF officers, 2005.
26 The World Bank, Cambodia – A Vision
for Forestry Sector Development, 1999, p. i;
Asian Development Bank Sustainable Forest
Management Project, Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report, 2000, p. 20.
27 East Asia Forest Law Enforcement andGovernance Declaration, 13 September 2001.
28 See, for example, request and authorisation
documents regarding procurement of logs for
Brigade 911 to build a tower for parachuting
practice, December 2003 and January 2004;
Request for logs to make pagoda racing boats
signed by Chea Son, 13 May 2003; interview
with the sawmill manager of Northeast Lumber
Company, 2003.
29 Lee Berthiaume and Pin Sisovann, ‘Customs
Officials Hold Illegal Logging Reports’, Cambodia
Daily, 3 June 2005.
30 Letter from MAFF Minister Chan Sarun toForest Administration Director General Ty Sokhun,
7 March 2005.
31 Global Witness wrote a letter to Cheam Yeap
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Cheam Yeap, please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
32 Letter from Chairman of the parliamentary
Committee on National Assembly Construction
Cheam Yeap to MAFF Minister Chan Sarun, 29
May 2004.
33 Personal communication from a researcher,2007.
34 Global Witness wrote a letter to Heng Brothersin February 2007 to ask for its comments on themain issues raised in this report as involve or
relate to the company. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Heng Brothers please contact Global

Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
35 Letter from Forest Administration Director
General Ty Sokhun to the Head of the Forest
Administration Cantonment in Ratanakiri, 9March 2005.
36 Personal communication from a researcher,
2004; Road construction contract between
Huot Radsady and Green Elite Group Co. Ltd
which refers to previous contracts between thetwo parties to carry out logging; Yun Samean,‘Police Rescue Workers from Timber Company’,
Cambodia Daily, 12 May 2004.
37 Global Witness wrote a letter to the Ly
Chhuong Construction Company in February
2007 to ask for its comments on the main issues
raised in this report as involve or relate to thecompany. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response. For
information on the content of this letter to the Ly
Chhuong Construction Company please contact
Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
38 Personal communication from a journalist,
2007; Yun Samean, ‘Suit Filed on Sale of F’pec
Headquarters’, Cambodia Daily Weekly Review,
6-10 November, 2006; Ly Chhuong Company
document given to journalist by loggers working
for Heng Brothers, 2005.
39 Interviews with local residents, 2005; personalcommunication from a researcher, 2007.
40 Interview with a confidential source, 2006.
41 Personal communication from an official,
2006; Leang Delux, ‘Bois du nouveau palais del’Assemblée: la polémique flambe’, Cambodge
Soir, 25-27 August 2006.
42 Royal Government of Cambodia,
Implementing the Rectangular Strategy andDevelopment Assistance Needs, November 2004,
p. 33, paragraph 126.
43 Pin Sisovann and Lee Berthiaume, ‘PM
criticizes Global Witness, says ‘it’s finished’’,Cambodia Daily, 2 September 2005.
44 David A. Ashwell, Frank R. Miller and Ignas
Dummer, ‘Ecology, Forest Cover & Quality’,Cambodia Independent Forest Sector Review Part
II, Chapter I, 2004.
45 Interview with a technical advisor to the WorldBank Forest Concession Management and Control
Pilot Project, 2003.
46 Prime Minister Hun Sen, ‘Address at theArbor Day Event at the Watershed Area of Kbal
Chhay, Sihanoukville’, 9 July 2003, http://www.
cnv.org.kh/2003_releases/090703_arbor_day_
sihanoukville.htm. (Last downloaded 24 March
2007).
47 FAO, Global Forest Resource Assessment
2005, Annex 3 – Global Tables, p. 233, ftp://ftp.
fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E14.pdf.
(Last downloaded 18 March 2007).
48 Guy De Launey, ‘Cambodia ‘Suffering Land
Crisis’’, BBC, 2 September 2005, http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4207138.stm. (Lastdownloaded 19 March 2007).
49 Comment by a government minister quoted
in Steve Heder, ‘Political Theatre in Cambodia:
State, Democracy, Conciliation’, unpublished draft,
May 2004.
50 Charles McDermid and Vong Sokheng, ‘RGC
counts $601 million blessings’, Phnom Penh Post,
March 10-23 2006.
51 Cat Barton, ‘UN rights men Hun Sen’s longtime whipping boys’, Phnom Penh Post, April
7-20 2006.
52 Global Witness wrote a letter to Hun To
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Hun To please contact Global Witness via
mail@globalwitness.org.
53 Interview with a confidential source, 2006;
personal communication from a human rights
worker, 2006.
54 Interviews with residents of Kompong Cham
Province, 2005. Global Witness wrote a letter
to Sat Soeun in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Sat Soeun please contact
Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
55 Personal communication from a former
member of staff at UNOHCHR, 2006; Lor
Chandara and Porter Barron, ‘Master of the Earth
Wouldn’t Miss, Judge Finds’, Cambodia Daily,
20 July 2004.
56 Interviews with residents of Kompong Cham
Province, 2005; Hurley Scroggins, ‘Master ofthe Mekong goes down’, Phnom Penh Post, 30
October-12 November 1998.
57 See, for example, Global Witness, The
Untouchables, 1999; Deforestation Without
Limits, 2002.
58 Interview with a sawmill owner, 2005;

interviews with local residents, 2005; personalcommunication from a confidential source, 2003.
59 Interviews with Forest Administration officials,
2005.
60 Interviews with a human rights worker and aconfidential source, 2005.
61 Royal Government of Cambodia, Sub-decree
on on the Creation of the National Construction
Medal and the National Construction Certificate,
30 June 1994.
62 Interview with a resident of Kompong Champrovince, 2005.
63 Personal communication from a researcher,
2003; interview with a Forest Administration
official, 2006; Log supply agreement between
Seng Keang and Khun Thong and Kingwood,
dated 3 October 2001.
64 Global Witness investigations, 2000.
65 Interview with Forest Administration officials,
2005.
66 Global Witness wrote a letter to Bun Ranyin February 2007 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Bun Rany, please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
67 Global Witness wrote a letter to Leang Vouch
Chheng in February 2007 to ask for her commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Leang Vouch Chheng please contact
Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
68 Interview with employees of Dy Chouch, 2005;
personal communication from a human rights
worker, 2006.
69 Interview with employees of Dy Chouch, 2005.
70 Interviews with logging company staff andForest Administration staff, 2001.
71 Global Witness investigations, 2001.
72 Global Witness investigations, 2000; Log
supply agreement between Seng Keang and KhunThong and Kingwood, dated 3 October 2001.
73 Interviews with individuals involved inassembling the case against Everbright CIG Wood,
2003, 2004 and 2005.
74 Interviews with sawmill operators, 2001.
75 Interview with an associate of Dy Chouch,
2004; documents recording business agreements
between Khun Thong, Seng Keang and theKingwood Company.
76 Asian Development Bank; Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report, 2000, p. 31.
77 Kingwood Industry Pte., Ltd, Memorandum
and Articles of Association, 1995. Global Witness
wrote a letter to Lim Yok Fong in February 2007
to ask for his comments on the main issues raisedin this report as involve or relate to him. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response. For information on
the content of this letter to Lim Yok Fong pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
78 Global Witness wrote a letter to Sok Keo
in February 2007 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Sok Keo please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
79 Lease Agreement between Sok Keo and
Kingwood, September 1994. Global Witness
wrote a letter to Ky Tech in February 2007 to ask
for his comments on the main issues raised inthis report as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Ky Tech please contact
Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
80 Report by industry analysts, 2001.
81 Mortgage Agreement between Cambodian
Public Bank and Sok Keo, 8 June 2001.
82 Global Witness investigations 1997; Letterfrom Co-Ministers of the Council of Ministers to
the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
regarding ‘The case of proposal for approvalof collection of 50,000 m3 of No. 2 wood cut
down in the Kingwood Industry Pte Ltd forest
concessionaire in Kratie Province’, 27 March
1997.
83 Global Witness investigations, 1998.
84 Asian Development Bank; Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report, 2000, p. 7.
85 Log supply agreement between Seng Keangand Khun Thong and Kingwood, dated 3 October
2001.
86 Interviews with a confidential source, 2003
and 2004.
87 Global Witness wrote a letter to MayBank in
February 2007 to ask for its comments on themain issues raised in this report as involve or

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

91

References

relate to the company. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to MayBank please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
88 Judgement of the Supreme Court, 11 August
2005; interviews with a confidential source,
2003 and 2004.
89 Interviews with two confidential sources,
2004.
90 The Cambodia Daily, ‘Bar Association
Demands More Control Over ECCC Defence’,
Cambodia Daily Weekly Review 13-17 November
2006.
91 Erika Kinetz, ‘Sok An Calls for UN ‘Dialogue’
On KR Defence’, Cambodia Daily, 18 December,
2006; International Bar Association, ‘Threatsby Cambodian Bar Force Cancellation of IBA
Training in Support of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal’,
24 November 2006, http://www.ibanet.org/iba/
article.cfm?article=100. (Last downloaded 14
March 2007) This IBA statement talks about Ky
Tech threatening “measures” against Cambodian
lawyers joining the IBA training sessions.
92 Human Rights Watch, ‘Cambodia:
Government Interferes in Khmer Rouge Tribunal;
Donors Should Recognize How Government
Tactics Threaten Entire Process’, 5 December
2006, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/05/
cambod14752_txt.htm, (last downloaded 10
April 2007); personal communications from two
human rights workers, 2007.
93 Having uncovered evidence of GAT’s illegal
logging, Global Witness organised visits tothe firm’s concession by government officials,
international donors and journalists.
94 Written agreement between Seng Keang,
Khun Thong and Lia Chun Hua, 12 August 2002.
95 Written agreement between Seng Keang,
Khun Thong and Lia Chun Hua, 19 August 2002.
96 Written agreements between Seng Keang,
Khun Thong and Lia Chun Hua, 20 August 2002.
97 Sub-decree No. 88 ank-bk dated December
29, 1997, article 8.2 on the Implementation of
the Law on Investment.
98 Interview with a close associate of Seng
Keang, 2004.
99 Interview with a timber trade worker, 2004.
100 Interview with a business associate of Seng
Keang, 2004.
101 Interview with an employee of Dy Chouch,
2005.
102 Interview with an official, 2004.
103 Interview with an RCAF officer, 2002.
Global Witness wrote a letter to Keo Sarimin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Keo Sarim please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
104 Interview with staff at Kingwood factory,
2005.
105 Interview with an employee of Dy Chouch,
2002; interview with a close associate of Seng
Keang, 2004.
106 Global Witness investigations, 2002.
107 Field observations, 2005; interview with an
employee of Dy Chouch, 2005.
108 Judgement of the Supreme Court, 11
August 2005.
109 Personal communication from a public
official, October 2006.
110 Interviews with a confidential source, 2003
and 2004.
111 Global Witness wrote a letter to Lee Kwan
Siang in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Lee Kwan Siang please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
112 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chet
Boravuth in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Chet Boravuth pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
113 Council of Ministers document cancellingthe concessions of Kingwood and Mieng Ly Heng
companies, 12 August 2003.
114 Asian Development Bank; Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report, 2000, p. 25.
115 Asian Development Bank; Cambodian
Forest Concession Review Report, Appendix 1,
2000, p. 2.
116 Government Communiqué on theDevelopment of Family-Scale Rubber Plantations,
8 August 2000.
117 Global Witness wrote a letter to ColeximEnterprise in February 2007 to ask for its

92

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

comments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to the company. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response. For informationon the content of this letter to ColeximEnterprise please contact Global Witness via
mail@globalwitness.org.
118 Sub-decree on the withdrawal of red land
from forest concessions for rubber plantation, 17
August 2001.
119 Andrew Macdonald, Ecological Survey ofPrey Long, Kampong Thom, 2004, p. 24.
120 David A. Ashwell, Frank R. Miller and Ignas
Dummer, ‘Ecology, Forest Cover & Quality’,Cambodia Independent Forest Sector Review
Part II, Chapter I, 2004, p. 34.
121 Macdonald, Survey of Prey Long, 2004,
p. 27.
122 David A. Ashwell, Frank R. Miller and Ignas
Dummer, ‘Ecology, Forest Cover & Quality’,Cambodia Independent Forest Sector Review
Part II, Chapter I, 2004, p. 35.
123 Inspection Panel Investigation report on
Cambodia: Forest Concession Management andControl Pilot Project; April 11th, 2006. p. xx.
124 Cambodia Independent Forest Sector
Review, Main Report, 2004, p.39.
125 David Ashwell in collaboration with
the Department of Nature Conservation andProtection of the Ministry of Environment,
Cambodia – a National Biodiversity Prospectus,
IUCN, 1997, p. 56.
126 Field observations, 2006; interviews with
HBH company representative, 2006; personalcommunication from NGO workers, 2007.
127 Cambodia Independent Forest Sector
Review, Main Report, 2004, p. 50.
128 Nicholas Stern, Stern Review Report on the
Economics of Climate Change, 2006, Chapter 25.
129 Report from Director of Department ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kompong
Thom, Aem Phean, to Minister for Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries, Chan Sarun, 27 November
2000.
130 Prom Tola and Bruce McKenney, Trading
Forest Products in Cambodia: Challenges,
Threats and Opportunities for Resin, Cambodia
Development Resource Institute, 2003, p. ii.
131 Tom Evans, Hout Piseth, Phet Phaktra
and Hang Mary, A Study of Resin-tapping andlivelihoods in southern Mondulkiri, Cambodia,
with implications for conservation and forest
management, Wildlife Conservation Society,2003, p. 6.
132 McKenney, Chea, Tola and Evans, Focusing
on Cambodia’s High Value Forests, Cambodia
Development Resource Institute and Wildlife
Conservation Society, November 2004, p. 55.
133 Tola and McKenney, Trading Forest Productsin Cambodia, Cambodia Development Resource
Institute, November 2003, Chapter 3.
134 Log harvesting books compiled forPheapimex-Fuchan Stung Treng/Thalabariwat
concession, 2001.
135 Interviews with logging concession
company staff, 2001.
136 Evans, Piseth, Phaktra and Mary, A Studyof Resin-tapping and livelihoods in southern
Mondulkiri, Wildlife Conservation Society,2003, p. 7.
137 Speech by Prime Minister Hun Sen, 29
August 2001.
138 Global Witness wrote a letter to the directorof Chup Rubber Company, Mok Kim Hong, inFebruary 2007 to ask for his comments on themain issues raised in this report as involve or
relate to him or the Chup Rubber Company.
At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response. For
information on the content of this letter to Mok
Kim Hong please contact Global Witness via
mail@globalwitness.org.
139 UN Cambodia Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights, Land
Concessions for Economic Purposes in
Cambodia, A Human Rights Perspective, Annex 1,
November 2004.
140 Global Witness investigations, 2002.
141 Ministry of Commerce document registering
Seng Keang Import Export Company Limited,
November 2002.
142 This authorisation is referred to in Ministryof Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ‘Permission
to Establish a Veneer Factory Granted to Seng
Keang Import Export Co. Ltd’, September 2004.
143 Center for Social Development, Corruption
and Cambodian Households – Household Survey
on Perceptions, Attitudes and Impact of Everyday
Forms of Corrupt Practices in Cambodia, Phnom
Penh 2005, p. 48.
144 Letter from MAFF Minister Chan Sarun to
Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, 14 March 2006.
145 Personal communication from a humanrights worker, 2005.
146 Interviews with local residents, 2003.
147 Field observations, 2003.

148 Porter Barron, ‘Borders Unclear at K
Thom Rubber Plantation’, Cambodia Daily, 2September 2003. Global Witness staff were
present at the interview with the official whose
comment is cited here.
149 Personal communication from a researcher
concerning interviews with Forest Administration
officials, 2003; field observations, 2003.
150 Porter Barron, ‘Borders Unclear at K
Thom Rubber Plantation’, Cambodia Daily, 2September 2003.
151 Letter from MAFF Minister Chan Sarunto the international donor Working Group on
Natural Resource Management, 23 September
2003.
152 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries ‘Permission to Establish a Veneer
Factory Granted to Seng Keang Import Export Co.
Ltd’, September 2004.
153 Royal Government of Cambodia, Sub-decree
on Measures Restricting Certain Investment
Sectors, 1999.
154 Interview with Forest Administration
officials, 2005.
155 See, for example, Global Witness crime
reports, 2002 and 2003.
156 Field observations, 2005.
157 Interview with a guest at the Seng Keang
Company factory opening, 2005.
158 Interviews with local residents, 2004 and2005.
159 Colexim Enterprise, Timber Transport
Proposal, May 2003.
160 Field observations, 2002 and 2003.
161 Colexim ‘Petition for Activities Resuming’
sent to MAFF Minister Chan Sarun, 12 December
2003.
162 Letter from Colexim to the Forest
Administration, 16 May 2003; letter from theWorld Bank to the Forest Administration, October
2002.
163 Letter from international donor Working
Group on Natural Resource Management to
MAFF Minister Chan Sarun, 30 June 2003.
164 Letter from international donor Working
Group on Natural Resource Management to
MAFF Minister Chan Sarun, 28 October 2003.
165 Personal communication from an SGS
representative, 2005.
166 Field observations, 2005; personalcommunication from an SGS representative,
2005.
167 Letter from SGS to Global Witness, 15
February 2007.
168 Interviews with local residents, 2005.
169 Interviews with local residents and factorystaff, 2005.
170 Field observations and interviews with local
residents, 2005 and 2006.
171 Field observations, 2005; interviews withsawmill workers, 2005.
172 Field observations, 2005 and 2006;
interviews with local residents and officials, 2005
and 2006; interviews with NGO workers, 2005.
173 Field observations, 2005; interviews withlocal residents and officials, 2005.
174 Global Witness wrote a letter to So Sovann
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to So Sovann please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
175 Colexim Enterprise, Sustainable Forest
Management Plan, 2002; GFA Consulting
Group, Cambodia – Review of Strategic Forest
Management Plans prepared by concession
companies operating in Cambodia part II, August
2005, p.54-55; e-mail correspondence between
Hang Sun Tra, a Forest Administration official
who describes himself as an assistant to So
Sovann and a timber company, 14 April 2002.
176 See, for example Global Witness, The
Untouchables (2000) and Deforestation Without
Limits (2002). These reports can be downloaded
from www.globalwitness.org.
177 Global Witness interviews with local
residents, 2000; UN Cambodia Office ofthe High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Land Concessions for Economic Purposes in
Cambodia, November 2004.
178 Global Witness wrote a letter to Cheng
Savath in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Cheng Savath, please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
179 Global Witness wrote a letter to Svay Savathin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of

this letter to Svay Savath please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
180 Personal communication from a researcher,
2006.
181 GFA Consulting Group, Cambodia – Reviewof Strategic Forest Management Plans Preparedby Concession Companies Operating in
Cambodia Part II, August 2005, p. 60.
182 Global Witness wrote a letter to Neak Sok
Nai in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Neak Sok Nai please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
183 Global Witness wrote a letter to Ngin
Vanthai in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Ngin Vanthai pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
184 Interviews with local residents, 2005 and2006.
185 Interview with factory staff, 2005.
186 Field observations, 2006.
187 Duong Bunny, memo to MAFF Minister
Chan Sarun, written November or December
2006 (no date on document).
188 Global Witness wrote a letter to Sath
Chantha in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Sath Chantha pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
189 Global Witness wrote a letter to Uy Kearin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Uy Kear please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
190 Field observations, 2004; interviews withloggers and local residents, 2004.
191 Field observations, 2005; interviews withloggers, timber traders and local residents, 2005.
192 Interview with loggers, 2005.
193 Interview with a local resident, 2005.
194 Personal communication from an NGO
worker, 2005.
195 Interview with an employee of Seng Keang
Company, 2005.
196 Interview with a former employee of Dy
Chouch, 2005; interviews with local residents,
2005; field observations, 2005.
197 Interviews with local residents, timbertraders and Brigade 70 officers, 2005.
198 Interviews with an RCAF officer and a local
official, 2005; field observations, 2005.
199 Interviews with two confidential sources,
2004 and 2005.
200 Global Witness investigations, 2001.
201 Interviews with staff at the Kingwood
factory, 2004 and 2005; interviews with MAFF
officials, 2004; field observations 2002, 2003,
2004 and 2005.
202 Interviews with MAFF officials, 2004.
203 Forest Administration, ‘Cambodia: Forestry
Statistics 2004’, May 2005.
204 World Trade Atlas (for 2003 and 2004),
http://comtrade.un.org/; China Customs Statistics
Yearbook (for 2005) and China Customs (forJanuary to November 2006).
205 UNESCAP, ‘Trader’s Manual for Least
Developed Countries: Cambodia’, 2003, http://
www.unescap.org/tid/publication/t&ipub2320_
part3.pdf. (Last downloaded 10 April 2007);
National Bank of Cambodia, ‘Stock Taking on
Restrictions of Capital Flows’, August 2006,
http://www.aseansec.org/carh/Capital%20Acco
unt%20regime%20files/Cambodia%20Capital%20Account%20Regime.pdf. (Last downloaded
10 April 2007).
206 Based on successive recent annual
reports from the International Tropical Timber
Organisation.
207 Interviews with timber traders, 2006.
208 Interviews with police and military police
officers, 2005.
209 Interviews with RCAF officers and local
residents, 2005.
210 Field observations, 2006.
211 Interviews with loggers 2005; fieldobservations 2005 and 2006.
212 Interviews with resin tappers, 2005 and2006
213 Interviews with resin tappers, 2006.
214 Interviews with villagers and loggers, 2005.
215 Interview with a local resident, 2006.

References

216 Interview with members of the community
forest group, 2005.
217 Interviews with eye-witnesses, 2005.
218 Interviews with eye-witnesses; personalcommunication from member of UNOHCHR
staff, 2005.
219 Interviews with eye-witnesses; personalcommunication from a human rights NGO, 2007.
220 Interviews with eye-witnesses; personalcommunication from member of UNOHCHR staff,
2005; field observations, 2005.
221 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chea
Kapoul in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Chea Kapoul please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
222 Interviews with eye-witnesses; personalcommunication from member of UNOHCHR staff,
2005; interviews with local residents, 2005.
223 Personal communication from a humanrights NGO, 2007.
224 Interviews with eye-witnesses, personalcommunication from member of UNOHCHR staff,
2005; personal communication from a humanrights NGO, 2006.
225 Personal communication from member of
UNOHCHR staff, 2005; personal communicationfrom a human rights NGO, 2007.
226 Personal communication from member of
UNOHCHR staff, 2005; personal communicationfrom a human rights NGO, 2006.
227 SGS, Third Quarter 2004 Report,
Independent Monitor – Forest Crime Monitoring
and Reporting, October 2004, p.p. 19 & 20.
228 UNOHCHR, Report of the Special
Representative of the Secretary General on
Human Rights in Cambodia, Yash Ghai, February
2006, p. 18.
229 Interview with local residents, 2006.
230 Global Witness wrote a letter to Huor
Kimchheng in March 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Huor Kimchheng pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
231 Personal communication from a confidential
source, 2007.
232 Letter from Seng Keang to the governor of
Kompong Thom Province, 18 August 2005.
233 Kompong Thom provincial authorities,‘Minute of field survey on forest conditions for
Seng Keang Import Export Co. Ltd in Sandan
District, Kompong Thom Province’, 5 September
2005.
234 Personal communication from a confidential
source, 2006; interview with an official, 2006.
235 Interview with an official, 2007.
236 Personal communications from NGO
workers, 2007.
237 Interview with an RCAF officer, 2005.
238 Interviews with loggers and local residents,
2005 and 2006.
239 Interview with FA and RCAF officers, 2005.
240 Interview with an FA officer, 2005;
interviews with an official, 2005; interviews
with and personal communications from aformer official, 2005 and 2006; interviews witha confidential source, 2005 and 2006; USAID,
Cambodian Corruption Assessment, August
2004, p. 4.
241 Interview with an FA officer, 2005; interview
with an official, 2005; interview with a former
official, 2005; interview with and personalcommunications from a former official, 2005;
interviews with a confidential source, 2005
and 2006.
242 Personal communication from a former
official, 2005.
243 World Bank, ‘Independent Forestry Sector
Review – World Bank Comments and Proposals
Going Forward’, October 2004.
244 Interviews with an official, 2005; interviews
with and personal communications from aformer official, 2005 and 2006; interviews with aconfidential source, 2005 and 2006.
245 Interviews with an official, 2005.
246 Interviews with, and personalcommunications from, a former official, 2005
and 2006.
247 Interviews with loggers and local residents,
2004 and 2005.
248 Interviews with FA officers, 2005.
249 Interviews with FA officers, 2005 and 2006.
250 Interview with an official and local
residents, 2005.
251 Interview with FA officers, 2005.
252 Interviews with FA and RCAF officers, 2005.
253 Interviews with local officials, 2005.
254 Interview with loggers, 2005.
255 Field observations, interviews with local

officials, local residents, loggers and RCAF
officers, 2005 and 2006.
256 Personal communication from a former
member of staff at UNOHCHR, 2006.
257 Interviews with RCAF officers, 2005;
personal communication from a confidential
source, 2005; personal communication from ahuman rights worker, 2006.
258 Personal communication from a researcher,2006.
259 Field observations, 2004; interviews withmilitary police officers, 2004. Global Witness
has previously written about Sao Sokha’s role inillegal logging in Taking a Cut (2004), which canbe downloaded from www.globalwitness.org.
260 Interview with a human rights worker, 2005;
personal communication from a researcher,2006. Global Witness wrote a letter to Dy Phenin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Dy Phen please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
261 Interviews with military police officers,
2005.
262 Interviews with military police officers, local
officials, timber traders and local residents, 2005.
263 Interviews with local officials, 2005.
264 Interviews with local officials andbusinessmen, 2005.
265 Global Witness wrote a letter to Seong Kim
Ran in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Seong Kim Ran please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
266 Interviews with RCAF officers, 2001 and2005.
267 Global Witness wrote a letter to Seng Measin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Seng Meas please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
268 Interviews with local officials and residents,
2005.
269 Interviews with loggers and local residents,
2004; field observations 2004.
270 Interviews with RCAF officers and local
residents, 2004 and 2005.
271 Global Witness wrote a letter to Mol Roeup
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Mol Roeup please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
272 Heder, ‘Hun Sen’s Consolidation’, Southeast
Asian Affairs 2005, p. 118.
273 Interviews with local residents and timbertraders, 2005 and 2006.
274 Interviews with RCAF officers and FA
officials, 2005.
275 Center for Social Development, Corruption
and Cambodian Households, Phnom Penh 2005,
p. 45, p. 48.
276 Interviews with police officers, 2004.
277 Global Witness wrote a letter to Nguon
Nhel in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Nguon Nhel please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
278 Global Witness wrote a letter to Om Pyly
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Om Pyly please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
279 Interviews with local officials and residents,
2005.
280 Interviews with local officials and timbertraders 2005 and 2006.
281 Global Witness wrote a letter to Nhem
Sophanny in February 2007 to ask for hercomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to her. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Nhem Sophanny pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
282 Global Witness wrote a letter to Nhem
Buntha in April 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Nhem Buntha please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
283 Global Witness wrote a letter to Un Noeung
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Un Noeung please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
284 Interviews with local residents, 2003 and2005.
285 Global Witness wrote a letter to Men Pha
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Men Pha please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
286 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chet Ra
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Chet Ra please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
287 Interviews with timber traders, 2004 and2005.
288 Field observations, 2001, 2004, 2005;
interviews with local residents 2003.
289 Hun Sen, Speech at the 10th Anniversaryof the Establishment of Brigade 70 in Cham
Chao, 15 October 2004, downloaded from www.
cnv.org.kh.
290 Personal communication from a former
Brigade 70 officer.
291 Sam Rith and Liam Cochrane, ‘Army bestfriends with China and Vietnam’, Phnom Penh
Post, 21 October-3 November, 2005; e-mail froma spokesman for the US Embassy in Phnom Penh,2007; Australian Government Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘Cambodia Country
Brief – March 2007’, http://www.dfat.gov.
au/geo/cambodia/cambodia_brief.html (Lastdownloaded 30 March 2007). Global Witness
wrote to the Australian and Chinese embassies
in Cambodia and their respective foreign affairs
ministries to ask for details of their defence cooperation agreements with Cambodia in March
2007. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received responses tothese letters.
292 Global Witness wrote a letter to Mao
Sophan in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Mao Sophan pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
293 Interview with an RCAF officer, 2006.
294 Global Witness wrote a letter to Kun Kim
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Kun Kim please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
295 Interviews with police and FA staff, 2001;
interview with a confidential source, 2002.
296 Interviews with local residents, 2001 and2002; Council of Ministers document setting out
responsibilities of this committee signed by Prak
Sokhon, 6 October 2005.
297 Kuch Naren and John Maloy, ‘Hing Bun
Heang Appointed To Monk Assembly’, Cambodia
Daily, October 26 2006.
298 This observation is based on Global
Witness’ monitoring of political developments in
Cambodia over a period of 12 years. For specificreferences to the prime minister claiming that
his removal would cause instability, see thefollowing articles: Reaksmey Heng, ‘CPP Election
Losses Would Mean Instability, Hun Sen Warns’,
Voice of America, 15 March 2007; Yun Samean,‘Hun Sen Gives up Poet Dreams, Stays in Politics’,
Cambodia Daily Weekly Review, 8-12 January2007; Pin Sisovann and Lor Chandara, ‘PM Says
His Death Would Cause Chaos’, Cambodia Daily,
26 January 2005; Pin Sisovann, ‘PM: Would-beRebels Should ‘Prepare Coffins’’, Cambodia Daily,
20 June 2005.
299 Personal communication from a former
member of staff at UNOHCHR, 2006; Human
Rights Watch, Cambodia – Aftermath of theCoup, 1997, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/
cambodia (Last downloaded 28 March 2007).
300 Interview with a logging subcontractor,
2000; investigations 2001, 2002 and 2003.

301 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers, 2004,
2005 and 2006; field observations 2004 and2005.
302 Interviews with military police officers, 2004
and 2005; field observations 2004 and 2005.
303 Global Witness wrote a letter to Choeun
Sovantha in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Choeun Sovantha pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
304 Interview with local residents, 2003, 2004
and 2005; interviews with RCAF officers andofficials, 2004; field observations 2003, 2004,
2005; Pin Sisovann, ‘Soldiers Beat Two Villagers’,Cambodia Daily, 7 December 2004; Pin Sisovann,‘RCAF Commander Denies Attacking Activist’,Cambodia Daily, 9 December 2004.
305 Global Witness wrote a letter to Keo
Samuon in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on
the content of this letter to Keo Samuon pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
306 Interviews with RCAF officers, timbertraders, local residents and officials, 2004; fieldobservations 2004.
307 Interviews with RCAF officers, 2004.
308 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers 2004,
2005 and 2006; interviews with police officers,
businessmen and local residents, 2005.
309 Field observations, 2004; interviews with
RCAF officers, 2004.
310 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers andbusinessmen, 2005.
311 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers, 2005.
312 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers, 2004,
2005 and 2006; field observations, 2005.
313 Interview with a Brigade 70 officer, 2006.
314 Field observations, 2005 and 2006.
315 Field observations, 2004, 2005, 2006.
316 Interviews with a Brigade 70 officer, 2004
and 2005.
317 Global Witness wrote a letter to Meas
Sophea in April 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Meas Sophea please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
318 Global Witness wrote a letter to Mrs
Meas Sophea in February 2007 to ask for hercomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to her. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Mrs. Meas Sophea pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
319 Interviews with RCAF officers, 2004.
320 Interview with timber dealer, 2005.
321 Interview with Brigade 70 officers, 2004,
2005 and 2006; field observations 2004 and2005.
322 Interview with a Brigade 70 officer, 2005;
Global Witness wrote a letter to Kong Hormin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Kong Horm please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
323 Field observations, 2005; interviews with
Brigade 70 officers and local residents, 2005.
324 Field observations, 2005 and 2006.
325 E-mail from a spokesman for the US
Embassy in Phnom Penh, 2007.
326 Field observations, interviews with Brigade
70 officers, 2005 and 2006.
327 Interviews with a Brigade 70 officer, 2005
and 2006.
328 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers andpolice officers, 2005.
329 Global Witness wrote a letter to Pol Saroeunin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Pol Saroeun please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
330 Global Witness wrote a letter to Moeung
Samphan in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Moeung Samphan please

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

93

References

contact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
331 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers, 2004
and 2005.
332 Interview with police officers, 2005; Saing
Soenthrith, ‘Driver Crushed by Truck’, Cambodia
Daily, 11 May 2005.
333 Interview with an RCAF officer, 2006.
334 Interview with an RCAF officer, 2005.
335 Interview with an official, 2005.
336 Interview with a Brigade 70 officer, 2004.
337 Interviews with two businessmen, 2004.
338 Interviews with port officials, 2005.
339 Written complaint lodged by residents ofTrapeang Svay Village, 2006.
340 Global Witness wrote a letter to Khai Narin
in February 2007 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Khai Narin please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
341 Personal communication from a researcher,2003.
342 Interview with SGS representative, 2004.
343 Interview with local residents, 2005.
344 Global Witness wrote a letter to Choeung
Sopheap in February 2007 to ask for hercomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to her. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Choeung Sopheap pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
345 World Rainforest Movement, The Death of
the Forest – A Report on Wuzhishan’s and Green
Rich’s Tree Plantation Activities in Cambodia,
WRM Series on Tree Plantations No. 4, 2006;
p. 21.
346 Field observations, 2003, 2004 and 2005;
interviews with loggers and local residents, 2003
and 2004.
347 Solana Pyne and Yun Samean, ‘Hun Sen
says Global Witness lied in Report’, Cambodia
Daily, 7 June 2004. Hun Sen and other senior
officials have made several widely reported
verbal attacks on Global Witness over a periodof several years.
348 See Appendix 1 for references.
349 UN Cambodia Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights, Land
Concessions for Economic Purposes in
Cambodia, A Human Rights Perspective,
Annex 4 & Annex 5, November 2004; personalcommunication from member of UNOHCHR staff,
2005; UNOHCHR, Role and achievements of the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights in assisting the Government
and the people of Cambodia in the promotion
and protection of human rights – Report of theSecretary General, January 2006, p.6.
350 Letter from Prime Minister Hun Sen to King
Norodom Sihamoni, February 24, 2005.
351 Field observations, 2004.
352 Interviews with a Brigade 70 officer 2004
and 2005.
353 Kay Kimsong, ‘High Hopes for New
Economic Zone in S’ville’, Cambodia Daily, 30
November 2006.
354 Price Waterhouse Coopers, ‘Asia PacificTax Notes - Managing and Planning for Tax inAsia Pacific’, May 2006, http://www.pwchk.
com/webmedia/doc/632840612600873952_
aptn19_may2006.pdf (Last downloaded 17
January 2007); Kay Kimsong, ‘High Hopes for
New Economic Zone in S’ville’, Cambodia Daily,
30 November 2006.
355 Kay Kimsong, ‘High Hopes for New
Economic Zone in S’ville’, Cambodia Daily, 30
November 2006.
356 Notice placed in newspaper by Ngin Khorn,an advisor to Hun Sen, congratulating Yeay Phu
on receipt of her medal, January 2007.
357 Housing Rights Task Force and theCambodian Center for Human Rights, ‘Boeung
Kak Contract Violates Cambodian Law’, February2007; Cambodian Center for Human Rights,‘Boeung Kak Lake Residents Fear Mass Eviction
as Phnom Penh Municipality Signed a 99-Year
Contract with Sokako Inc Company’, 20 March
2007.
358 Global Witness wrote a letter to Che Lainin February 2007 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Che Lain, please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
359 Interviews with an official, 2004; personalcommunication from a researcher, 2004.
360 Field observations; interviews with monks,
2003 and 2004.
361 Field observations, interviews with officials

94

CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

and local residents, 2003 and 2004.
362 Interviews with timber traders, 2004.
363 Interview with an RCAF officer, 2005.
364 Global Witness wrote a letter to Hak Lengin February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Hak Leng please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
365 Global Witness wrote a letter to Siem Touchin February 2007 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Siem Touch please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
366 Field observations, 2003, 2004 and 2006;
interviews with local residents, 2003, 2004 and2006; interview with sawmill workers, 2006.
367 Interview with associate of Hak Leng andSiem Touch, 2004; personal communication froma researcher, 2004.
368 Global Witness wrote a letter to Koeung
Vannak in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Koeung Vannak pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
369 Personal communication from a researcher,
2004.
370 Interview with local residents, 2006.
371 Global Witness wrote a letter to Sean Leang
Chhun in February 2007 to ask for her commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Sean Leang Chhun please contact
Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
372 Field observations, interviews with officials
and local residents, 2003-2005.
373 Interviews with officials and local residents,
2002; Letter from MAFF Under-secretary of State
Chan Tong Yves to Ty Sokhun regarding the saleof 593 m3 of confiscated timber to Sean Leang
Chhun, 8 June 2001; Department of Forestry andWildlife internal memo regarding US$30,150
owed by Sean Leang Chhun for the rights to 593
m3 of confiscated timber, 6 June 2002; invoicesent by DFW to Sean Leang Chhun regarding
payment of the US$30,150, 19 June 2002.
374 Letter from Chan Sarun to Ty Sokhun
approving Sean Leang Chhun’s request to
establish a new sawmill for six months in
O’Reang District, Mondulkiri, 21 April 2003;
Letter from Mondulkiri Deputy Governor Kuy Kun
Huor to local officials regarding an extension
of Sean Leang Chhun’s sawmill permit, 10
February 2004.
375 Field observations, interviews with local
residents, 2004.
376 Field observations, 2004; Solana Pyne
and Van Roeun, ‘Questions Linger Over Two
Collapsed Bridges’, Cambodia Daily, 4 May
2004.
377 Interview with a Brigade 70 officer, 2005.
378 Interview with a former employee of alogging concessionaire, 2005.
379 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chea Sam
Ang in March 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Chea Sam Ang please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
380 Interview with a confidential source, 2004;
Solana Pyne, ‘Permits Still Going to Woman
Linked to Logging’, Cambodia Daily, 15 July
2004.
381 Pyne, ‘Permits Still Going to Woman Linked
to Logging’, Cambodia Daily, 15 July 2004;
Global Witness co-operated closely with theCambodia Daily in researching this case.
382 Interviews with local residents, 2006.
383 Interviews with a Brigade 70 officer;
interviews with RCAF officers, 2005.
384 Global Witness wrote a letter to Preap Tan
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Preap Tan please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
385 Five letters signed by Preap Tan, Hing Bun
Heang, Ty Sokhun and others, January andFebruary 2004.
386 Van Roeun, ‘ Remote Forestry Office Closed
after Shooting’, Cambodia Daily, 3 September

2004; Van Roeun and Solana Pyne, ‘Officials
Meet to Resolve Preah Vihear Clash’, Cambodia
Daily, 8 September 2004; SGS, Third Quarter2004 Report, Independent Monitor – Forest
Crime Monitoring and Reporting, October 2004
p.p. 19-20.
387 IMF, Article IV Consultation – Staff Report;
Public Information Notice on the Executive Board
Discussion; and Statement by the Executive
Director for Cambodia, July 2006.
388 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers andbusinessmen, 2004 and 2005.
389 Field observations 2004 and 2005;
interviews with Brigade 70 officers 2004, 2005
and 2006.
390 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers andlocal residents, 2004 and 2005.
391 Global Witness wrote a letter to Tea Banh
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Tea Banh please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
392 Global Witness wrote a letter to Tea Vinh
in February 2007 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Tea Vinh please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
393 Interviews with customs officials, 2004
and 2005.
394 Global Witness investigations, 1997 and1998.
395 Global Witness wrote a letter to Attwood’s
Managing Director, Lim Chhiv Ho, in February
2007 to ask for her comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate toher or the company. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response. For information on the content of thisletter to Lim Chhiv Ho, please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
396 Interview with a source in Cambodia’s
business community, 2005.
397 Global Witness wrote a letter to Pen Simonin April 2007 to ask for his comments on themain issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Pen Simon please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
398 Global Witness wrote a letter to Tep
Bopha Prasidh in February 2007 to ask for hercomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to her. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Tep Bopha Prasidh pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
399 Global Witness wrote a letter to Cham
Prasidh, in February 2007 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response. For information on thecontent of this letter to Cham Prasidh, pleasecontact Global Witness via mail@globalwitness.
org.
400 Erik Wasson and Kay Kimsong,‘Sihanoukville Tax-Free Zone Awarded to
Private Firm’, Cambodia Daily, 28 April 2005;
Kay Kimsong, ‘Minister of Commerce Accusedof Nepotism’, Cambodia Daily 13 May 2004;
Interview with a source in Cambodia’s business
community, 2005.
401 Minister of Commerce Cham Prasidh,‘Investing in Cambodia: a fascinating country inthe making’, presentation given at the ASEANJapan Center, November 17, 2006, Tokyo, Japan;
Attwood Import Export Co. Ltd. website http://
www.attwoodgroup.com/ (last downloaded 29
March 2007).
402 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers, 2004,
2005 and 2006.
403 Interviews with a Brigade 70 officer, 2004.
404 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers, officials
and businessmen 2004, 2005 and 2006; fieldobservations 2004, 2005 and 2006.
405 Interviews with Brigade 70 officers, officials
and businessmen, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
406 Interviews with officials 2004 and 2005.
407 Interviews with officials, 2004 and 2005.
408 Interviews with customs officials and port
workers, 2005.
409 Interviews with officials, 2005.
410 Global Witness wrote a letter to Hennessy
in February 2007 to ask for its comments on themain issues raised in this report as involve or
relate to the company. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a

response. For information on the content of thisletter to Hennessy please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org.
411 Global Witness wrote a letter to Teng
Bunma in February 2007 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received
a response. For information on the content of
this letter to Teng Bunma please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
412 Interview with a local resident, 2004.
413 Hun Sen speech at the opening of Okhna
Mong Port, 2 December 2004, http://www.cnv.
org.kh (last downloaded 24 March 2007).
414 Prak Chan Thul and Lee Berthiaume, ‘Some
Standing Firm at RUFA as Deadline Ends’,
Cambodia Daily, 30 June 2005.
415 Green Sea Company economic land
concession contract, 23 November 2001.
416 Letter from MAFF Minister Chan Sarun to
Global Witness, 12 June 2002.
417 Interview with a human rights worker, 2006.
418 Field observations, 2006; Kothari, Reportof the Special Rapporteur, UN Commission, 21
March 2006.
419 Interview with a confidential source, 2006;
Som Sattana, ‘Arrest made in marijuana caseafter general backs down’, Associated Press
Worldstream, 22 April 1997.
420 Interview with a confidential source, 2006;
Som Sattana, ‘Drug seizure quickly enters
Cambodia’s political feuding’, Associated Press
Worldstream, 6 April 1997; Sattana, ‘Arrest
made in marijuana case’, Associated Press
Worldstream, 22 April 1997; Sam Rith andRichard Woodd, ‘Business tycoon started small’,Phnom Penh Post, 19 November-2 December
2004.
421 Som Sattana, ‘Arrest made in marijuanacase’, Associated Press Worldstream, 22 April
1997; Nate Thayer, ‘Drug Suspects Bankroll
Cambodian Coup Leader; Narcotics Traffic
Booms as Loans, Gifts Flow’, Washington Post,
22 July 1997.
422 Human Rights Watch, Cambodia– Aftermath of the Coup, 1997; Thayer, ‘Drug
Suspects Bankroll Cambodian Coup Leader;
Narcotics Traffic Booms as Loans, Gifts Flow’,Washington Post, 22 July 1997.
423 Interview with a confidential source, 2006;
Thayer, ‘Drug Suspects Bankroll Cambodian
Coup Leader’, Washington Post, 22 July 1997;‘Official linked to narcotics trade re-arrested’,
Associated Press Worldstream, 4 January 1998;
Human Rights Watch, Cambodia – Aftermath of
the Coup, 1997.
424 Rith and Woodd, ‘Business tycoon started
small’, Phnom Penh Post, 19 November-2
December 2004.
425 E-mail from Sarin & Associates, 22 February
2007.
426 http://www.mongreththy.com/
mongreththygroup.htm (Last downloaded 13
March 2007).
427 Staffan Lindberg, ‘Millionaire Mong Reththybuilds his own Port’, Phnom Penh Post, 2-15
July 2004.
428 Interviews with port workers and local
residents, 2005.
429 Interviews with port workers, 2004 and2005.
430 Interviews with diplomats, 2005.
431 Interview with a local resident, 2005.
432 Global Witness wrote a letter to theInterContinental Hotel in February 2007 to ask
for its comments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to the company. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response. For information on
the content of this letter to the InterContinental
Hotel please contact Global Witness via
mail@globalwitness.org.
433 Interviews with a Brigade 70 officer, 2005.
434 Personal communication from a journalist,
1998.
435 Interview with member of staff at theInterContinental Hotel, 2005.
436 Interview with Brigade 70 officers, 2005.
437 Interviews with a Brigade 70 officer, 2004
and 2005.
438 Interviews with an associate of Hak Mao,2005 and 2006.
439 Interviews with officials and businessmen,
2004 and 2005.
440 Field observations, 2006.
For further information on Angola, see forexample Global Witness, A Crude Awakening,
1999; All the President’s Men, 2002; Time forTransparency, 2004, www.globalwitness.org.

Global Witness is a UK-based non-governmental organisation
which investigates the role of natural resourcesin funding conflict and corruption around the world.
References to ‘Global Witness’ above and in the body of thisreport are to Global Witness Limited, a company limited
by guarantee and registered in England and Wales.
This report is compiled, published and distributed by
Global Witness Publishing Inc. from the results of theinvestigations carried out by Global Witness Limited
and is used to brief governments, inter-governmentalorganisations, civil society and the media.

The conclusions in this report are basedon results from Global Witness’ use of i2 Limited’s awardwinning software, which is used as standard by enforcement
and intelligence agencies worldwide. The software allows
organisations to undertake complex investigations involving
huge and varied datasets, providing visualisation and analysis
tools which are used by 1500 organisations in 90 countries. i2
Limited has very generously supplied this software to Global
Witness, along with intensive support and consultancy.
CAMBODIA’S FAMILY TREES

95

Elitus Kleptocraticus / n
Only responds to asset freeze.
Normal habitat includes lavishproperty developments, but
often also found in spas, banks
and casinos in prominent
luxury locations such as
Zurich, London, Paris, Geneva,
Monaco, New York, Singapore,and increasingly, Beijing.
Unfortunately, behaviouralproblems usually ignored by
species Donorus pedestriensis.

Global Witness Publishing Inc.
8th floor, 1120 19th Street NW
Washington DC 20036
Email mail@globalwitness.org
ISBN 0-9772364-7-1©Global Witness Publishing Inc. 2007