RB: Con man 'prince' writes of life of luxury

RELAXING: Abdelkarim Serhani, inset, and at a resort in Indonesia after fleeing Australia

A FRENCHMAN who posed as a member of a Saudi Arabian royal family and left Australia as a fugitive has written a tell-all book on how he scammed $42,000 from Hamilton Island.

Self-confessed impostor Abdelkarim Serhani, 28, writes in his yet-to-be released L'imposteur how he staked out the Whitsundays for two days before talking his way into free accommodation, meals, drinks - including $20,000 worth of champagne - and helicopter flights at Hamilton Island in May, 2009.

He says the risk of becoming a false Arab prince was "huge, even reckless" but admits he has no regrets and hopes his story does not encourage "copycats".

Mr Serhani spent 16 days on Hamilton Island living a life of luxury filled with booze, women and resort activities after he found a flyer advertising the Whitsundays' white sandy beaches, coconut trees and coral reef while he was at Hyde Park in Sydney, holed up in a backpacker hostel.

"Without hesitation I spend the rest of my savings to buy the plane ticket that will take me right to an extraordinary adventure," he writes in a French to English translation. "I took a water taxi from the port to which Airlie Beach leads on Hamilton Island, a paradise on Earth, the perfect island, which has a payment system that allows you to eat in restaurants, do all the activities of the island by paying at the end of your stay, and on top of that the hotel do not ask for ID, the dream.

"Good deception is 80 per cent preparation and 20 per cent performance."

His explanations seem to be something plucked out of a James Bond movie in which it took him two days to "study all the solutions" in case he was exposed, such as water taxi times to the locations of the heliport and police station as well as "places to hide".

When Mr Serhani's exploits were discovered by staff, police charged him with fraud and his passport was confiscated by local police but he skipped Proserpine court after claiming he had "broken legs" which he admits "bought him time" to make his way to Darwin and escape by yacht to Bali.

The Frenchman is notorious in his country for his infamous antics since 2007 and allegedly continued that lifestyle when he arrived in North Queensland.

He taunted Queensland police with his "catch me if you can" phrase and sent photos from various locations showing himself drinking champagne, partying, in sports cars, helicopters, on jet-skis and boats, relaxing at hotels and resorts and teaching students in a classroom.

In an interview via Skype with the Townsville Bulletin, he said he made up the fake Arab prince disguise because he was "tired of discrimination".

"In France and in Belgium, to get in to a party if you are Arabic and don't have money, you are not welcomed. So I played with that," he said.

The French version of the book will be released in Europe in December and the English translation may be up for grabs by February.

Would you ever Marry the man who raped you?

For Afghan Woman, Justice Runs Into Unforgiving Wall of Custom

KABUL, Afghanistan — When the Afghan government announced Thursday that it would pardon a woman who had been imprisoned for adultery after she reported that she had been raped, the decision seemed a clear victory for the many women here whose lives have been ground down by the Afghan justice system.

But when the announcement also made it clear that there was an expectation that the woman, Gulnaz, would agree to marry the man who raped her, the moment instead revealed the ways in which even efforts guided by the best intentions to redress violence against women here run up against the limits of change in a society where cultural practices are so powerful that few can resist them, not even the president.

The solution holds grave risks for Gulnaz, who uses one name, since the man could be so humiliated that he might kill his accuser, despite the risk of prosecution, or abuse her again.

The decision from the government of President Hamid Karzai is all the more poignant coming as Western forces prepare to leave Afghanistan, underscoring the unfinished business of advancing women’s rights here, and raising questions of what will happen in the future to other women like Gulnaz.

Indeed, what prompted the government to act at all was a grass-roots movement that began after Gulnaz was featured in a recent documentary film commissioned by the European Union, which then blocked the film’s release.

Supporters of the filmmakers charged that European officials were shying away from exposing the sort of abuses Afghan women routinely suffer for fear of offending their host government.

While Gulnaz’s pardon is a victory for both Clementine Malpas, a filmmaker who spent nearly six months on the documentary, and for Kimberley Motley, an American lawyer here who took Gulnaz’s case on a pro bono basis, it also shows that for women in the justice system, the odds are stacked against them.

The banned film, “In-Justice: The Story of Afghan Women in Jail,” which was seen by The New York Times, profiles three Afghan women who were in prison. One was Gulnaz, then about 19, who gave birth to the child of her rapist in prison, after initially being sentenced to three years. In a second trial, her sentence was increased to 12 years, but a judge on camera offered her a way out: marry her rapist.

A second woman in the film was abused by her husband and ran away with a man she fell in love with; both are now in prison for adultery. The third woman was a child of 14, who appeared to have been kidnapped but was held as a runaway and has since been returned to her family.

After the film was completed, the European Union banned its release, effectively silencing the women who were willing to tell their stories. The reason given for the ban was that the publicity could harm the women, because an Afghan woman who has had sex out of wedlock can easily become the victim of a so-called honor killing. The women had not given their written consent to be in the film, said Vygaudas Usackas, the European Union’s ambassador to Afghanistan.

But an e-mail obtained by The Times from someone supportive of the filmmakers suggested that the European Union also had political reasons for the ban.

The e-mail addressed to the filmmakers by the European Union attaché for justice, the rule of law and human rights, Zoe Leffler, said the European Union “also has to consider its relations with the justice institutions in connection with the other work that it is doing in the sector.”

Even if the women in the film “were to give their full consent,” the European Union would not be “ willing to take responsibility for the events that could ensue and that could threaten the lives of the documentary’s subjects,” the e-mail said.

Mr. Usackas said that concern for the women was central in the European Union’s decision. “Not only does the E.U. care about women, but we have spent over 45 million euros,” about $60 million, “in support of different programs for women,” he said, adding that the European Union also finances shelters for women.