Martin van den Hemel, Richmond, B.C. (Richmond Review) - A Richmond Mountie who was acquitted Monday afternoon on a charge of possessing stolen property must wade through new legal hot water.
The Richmond Review has learned that Khomphet Khamphoune, who was the subject of a child-pornography investigation that unearthed evidence that led to this trial, is facing at least one new charge of theft.
Khamphoune, who claims he is the target of some members of the RCMP who don’t like him, refused to discuss his May 29 arrest by the Vancouver Police Department on a charge of theft.
Sources tell The Review that he was also arrested last Thursday on suspicion of theft, but Khamphoune denied he was arrested when he spoke exclusively to The Richmond Review outside the courtroom.
Though he was never charged with any child pornography-related offence and he was acquitted Monday, Khamphoune has been prohibited from possessing a firearm for three years. The only exception is that he can possess a firearm in the course of his employment.
Khamphoune said he was relieved by the verdict of Richmond provincial court Judge Ron Fratkin, who again aired his belief that there was more to this trial than just possession of stolen property.
“I hope…this wasn’t a show trial, but I can’t help but make that comment on the hope that it wasn’t.”
The court was told that the Mountie investigation was sparked when a fellow RCMP member at the airport detachment observed Khamphoune downloading child pornography onto his personal laptop computer.
On Monday, he denied that was the case, and explained that the RCMP officer who witnessed the incident had a lack of understanding of computers, and that resulted in his misinterpretation of what he saw.












2 responses so far ↓
1 chilled // Jul 23, 2008 at 02:46
“”Though he was never charged with any child pornography-related offence and he was acquitted Monday, Khamphoune has been prohibited from possessing a firearm for three years. The only exception is that he can possess a firearm in the course of his employment.”"
WTF? Amongst about everything else.
2 Deepthroat // Jul 23, 2008 at 18:17
Would appear to be akin to the old impaired driving exemptions for certain situations where the livelihood’s gets an exception, ie: can only drive to and from work.
You must log in to post a comment.