The Baker Case in Bali
The legal dispute between Robert Laurence Hourmont and Mark Jonathan Baker is one of the more clearly documented cases in the public archive concerning Hourmont.
Unlike a dispute that exists only through online statements or personal accounts, this matter proceeded through the Indonesian court system and resulted in a formal civil proceeding, a District Court decision and a subsequent appeal.
The available material identifies the parties involved, the court proceedings, the relevant case numbers and the dates of the decisions.
The archive summarises the matter as a case in which Hourmont lost both his initial suit and subsequent appeal against Baker. The underlying court documents provide a more detailed record of the proceedings and allow the sequence of events to be examined independently.
This case is therefore a useful starting point when looking at the documented legal disputes surrounding Hourmont.
The Civil Case Before the Denpasar District Court
The proceedings were registered before the Denpasar District Court under Case No. 255/Pdt.G/2023/PN Dps.
The published court material identifies Robert Laurence Hourmont and Valerie Hourmont among the parties involved in the proceedings, with Mark Jonathan Baker identified on the opposing side.
The existence of the case, its case number and the parties involved are recorded in the court documentation.
This places the dispute within a formal civil proceeding rather than simply an exchange of accusations or disagreements made publicly online.
The case subsequently continued through the Indonesian judicial system when the outcome was appealed.
The November 2023 Court Decision
The Denpasar District Court issued its decision on 1 November 2023.
The material preserved in the archive describes the decision as being unfavourable to the Hourmont claim.
The important point is that the dispute resulted in a formal judicial decision rather than ending as an unresolved disagreement between the parties.
The court record provides the case number, identifies the parties and records the decision of the court.
For the purposes of documenting the legal history, this establishes that the Hourmont side did not obtain the outcome it had sought at the District Court level.
The decision was subsequently challenged through an appeal.
The Appeal to the Denpasar High Court
Following the District Court decision, the matter proceeded to the Denpasar High Court.
The appeal is identified in the available material as Case No. 281/PDT/2023/PT DPS.
The appeal is significant because it gave the parties an opportunity to challenge the earlier decision before a higher court.
An unsuccessful first-instance decision can sometimes be overturned on appeal. In this case, however, the available material indicates that the original outcome was maintained.
The High Court decision is dated 3 January 2024.
The Appeal Did Not Change the Outcome
According to the published material, the Denpasar High Court upheld the earlier District Court decision.
The Baker proceedings can therefore be followed through two documented stages:
1 November 2023 — Denpasar District Court
The original civil proceedings resulted in a decision unfavourable to the Hourmont claim.
3 January 2024 — Denpasar High Court
The subsequent appeal did not overturn the earlier decision.
The significance of the case is therefore not simply that a lawsuit was described as unsuccessful.
There was an identifiable civil proceeding, a formal judgment and a subsequent appeal. The appeal provided another opportunity to challenge the first decision, but the available record indicates that the original outcome remained unchanged.
The Dispute With the Lawyers
The legal proceedings were also followed by a separate disagreement involving the lawyers who represented Hourmont.
Correspondence preserved in the archive discusses legal fees, payments and the lawyers’ account of their involvement in the Baker proceedings.
The correspondence also contains statements from the lawyers concerning information they say was not provided to them during the case and their view of how this affected the preparation of the proceedings.
These statements should be understood as the lawyers’ account of events.
They are separate from the findings contained in the court judgment and should not be presented as independent judicial findings unless supported by the court record.
Nevertheless, the correspondence provides additional context about the dispute surrounding the litigation and the relationship between Hourmont and his legal representatives.
Claims Made After the Court Proceedings
The archive also contains a statement concerning what happened after the unsuccessful court proceedings.
The material refers to a claim of “criminal extortion” involving the Hourmonts and their law firm and states that the lawyers subsequently dropped Hourmont as a client.
This is a serious allegation and should be treated separately from the Baker court proceedings themselves.
The available material establishes that the allegation was presented in the archived material. It does not, by itself, establish that a court subsequently found Hourmont guilty of criminal extortion.
A claim made by a lawyer or another party is not the same as a criminal conviction.
For that reason, the allegation should remain attributed to the source rather than being presented as an established fact.
What the Court Record Establishes
The available documentation establishes several important points about the Baker dispute.
There was a civil proceeding before the Denpasar District Court.
The case was registered as No. 255/Pdt.G/2023/PN Dps.
Robert Laurence Hourmont and Valerie Hourmont were identified among the parties.
Mark Jonathan Baker was identified as an opposing party.
A District Court decision was issued on 1 November 2023.
The matter was subsequently appealed to the Denpasar High Court.
The appeal was identified as No. 281/PDT/2023/PT DPS.
The High Court decision was dated 3 January 2024.
The available material indicates that the appeal did not overturn the original District Court decision.
These points can be distinguished from the additional claims and statements surrounding the dispute.
What the Court Record Does Not Establish
The existence of a court case does not mean that every allegation made during the dispute was accepted by the court.
Similarly, correspondence from lawyers provides evidence of what those lawyers stated, but does not automatically make every statement contained within the correspondence a judicial finding.
This distinction is particularly important when documenting controversial legal matters.
The court decision establishes the outcome of the proceeding.
Other documents may provide context about what happened before, during or after the case.
Those sources should be identified according to what they actually represent.
A Legal Dispute That Reached Two Court Levels
The Baker matter is significant because the legal process did not stop at the first decision.
The case moved from the Denpasar District Court to the Denpasar High Court.
This creates a documented sequence:
Civil proceeding → District Court decision → Appeal → High Court decision
The available material indicates that the original outcome was maintained after the appeal.
This makes the Baker case one of the more clearly documented legal disputes in the archive.
Rather than relying solely on descriptions such as “lost lawsuit,” readers can examine the underlying documents and follow the progression of the case themselves.
Why the Baker Case Matters
Legal disputes are often remembered through the arguments that surround them.
One party may describe the case one way while the other party provides a different account.
Court records provide another reference point.
They identify the proceeding, the parties, the dates and the judicial decisions.
In the Baker case, the available documents provide enough information to establish a clear sequence of proceedings and an appeal.
The additional correspondence concerning the lawyers adds another layer to the story, but it remains separate from the actual court judgment.
This distinction allows the case to be documented without relying on personal characterisations or speculation.
A Documented Timeline
2023 — Denpasar, Bali
A civil proceeding involving Robert Laurence Hourmont, Valerie Hourmont and Mark Jonathan Baker is registered before the Denpasar District Court as Case No. 255/Pdt.G/2023/PN Dps.
1 November 2023
The Denpasar District Court issues its decision.
Late 2023 / early 2024
The matter proceeds to appeal before the Denpasar High Court.
3 January 2024
The Denpasar High Court issues its decision in Case No. 281/PDT/2023/PT DPS.
The available material indicates that the appeal did not overturn the original District Court decision.
Following the proceedings
Archived correspondence documents a separate dispute involving Hourmont and the lawyers who represented him, including disagreements concerning legal fees, case preparation and the handling of the proceedings.
The Difference Between a Lawsuit and an Allegation
The Baker case also demonstrates why legal terminology matters.
A lawsuit is a formal proceeding before a court.
An appeal is a request for a higher court to review an earlier decision.
A complaint is a report made to an authority.
An allegation is a claim that has not necessarily been proven.
A judgment is the decision issued by a court.
These terms should not be used interchangeably.
A person can threaten to sue without ever filing a lawsuit.
A complaint can be filed without resulting in a conviction.
And an appeal can be filed without changing the original judgment.
The Baker proceedings provide a documented example of the latter: the matter was appealed, but the available material indicates that the original outcome remained unchanged.
The Importance of Reviewing the Original Documents
The strongest way to understand a legal dispute is to examine the original records wherever possible.
In the Baker matter, the available documents provide the case number, the parties, the District Court proceedings and the subsequent appeal.
The lawyers’ correspondence provides a separate account of events surrounding the case.
The archive’s summary provides another interpretation of the material.
These sources do not all have the same evidentiary status.
The court judgment should be treated as the primary source for the court’s decision.
Correspondence should be treated as correspondence.
And editorial summaries should be treated as summaries.
Keeping those distinctions clear makes the record easier for readers to evaluate for themselves.
Conclusion
The Baker dispute represents one of the more extensively documented legal matters involving Robert Laurence Hourmont in the public archive.
The available records show a civil proceeding before the Denpasar District Court, followed by an appeal to the Denpasar High Court.
The District Court decision was issued on 1 November 2023, while the High Court decision was issued on 3 January 2024.
The available material indicates that the appeal did not overturn the original decision.
Additional correspondence preserved in the archive documents a subsequent disagreement involving Hourmont and his lawyers, including issues surrounding legal fees and the handling of the case.
Those statements provide context, but they should remain distinguished from the findings contained in the court decisions.
Ultimately, the value of documenting a legal dispute lies in making the underlying record accessible.
The case number, court decisions, appeal and supporting documents allow readers to examine the history of the dispute for themselves.
Sources & Further Reading
Denpasar District Court — Case No. 255/Pdt.G/2023/PN Dps
View the archived court document
Baker Case — Legal Archive
View the Baker case material on Rob Hourmont’s archive
Lawyer Correspondence
View the archived correspondence
The Pattaya Complaint and Claims of Legal Action in Thailand and Belgium
The public archive contains another set of documents concerning Robert Laurence Hourmont and a dispute involving Oliver Ben D Brasseur, a Belgian national.
The material relates primarily to events reported in Pattaya, Thailand, and also contains statements referring to alleged legal proceedings in Belgium.
Unlike the Baker case, the available material here represents a different stage of the legal process. It includes a Royal Thai Police report recording a complaint, as well as correspondence in which the complainant states that criminal and civil proceedings had been initiated.
For that reason, the documents need to be considered carefully and separately.
The existence of a police complaint can be documented from the police report itself. Claims concerning subsequent criminal or civil proceedings require additional evidence before their final outcome can be established.
A Complaint Recorded by the Royal Thai Police
One of the documents preserved in the archive is a Royal Thai Police daily report received as evidence from Pattaya City Police Station, Chonburi Provincial Police, Provincial Police Region 2.
The document is dated 15 August 2026.
It identifies Oliver Ben D Brasseur, a Belgian national, as the complainant and records his report concerning alleged messages from Robert Hourmont.
According to the English-language version displayed with the document, Brasseur told the investigating officer that on 14 August 2026, he had received messages from Robert Hourmont which he described as threatening and which he said included accusations concerning fraud and wrongdoing.
The report also records Brasseur’s position that he did not owe Hourmont payment for work because, according to his account, he had not worked for Hourmont and would not pay him.
The police document records these statements as part of the complaint.
It does not, by itself, establish that the allegations were subsequently proven in court.
What the Thai Police Report Establishes
The importance of the document is that it provides evidence that a complaint was actually recorded with the Thai police.
The report identifies:
Complainant: Oliver Ben D Brasseur
Nationality: Belgian
Location: Pattaya City Police Station, Chonburi
Date: 15 August 2026
Matter: Complaint concerning alleged messages from Robert Hourmont
The document also contains a complaint number and identifies the police personnel who received and recorded the information.
This makes the matter different from an accusation appearing only on social media.
There is an identifiable police document recording the complaint.
At the same time, the document should be understood for what it is: a police report received as evidence and recording the complainant’s account.
It is not itself a court judgment.
The Allegations Described in the Complaint
The English-language version of the document describes the complainant as reporting threatening messages and accusations of fraud and wrongdoing.
The complainant also stated that he had refused to pay Hourmont, explaining that he had not worked for him.
These statements represent the complainant’s account of the dispute.
The police document does not establish, by itself, whether the allegations made in the messages were true or whether the dispute ultimately resulted in criminal charges or a conviction.
That distinction is important when reporting on a legal complaint.
A police report records what was reported to authorities.
A subsequent investigation or prosecution would be a separate stage.
Claims of Criminal and Civil Proceedings in Thailand
A separate document in the archive contains a broader statement concerning alleged legal action against Hourmont.
The document states that the complainant had filed an official criminal complaint with the Royal Thai Police and that Hourmont had allegedly been flagged within the Thai immigration system.
It further states that the complainant had retained Siam Legal International in Bangkok and had “officially initiated” criminal and civil proceedings against Hourmont.
These are statements contained in the correspondence.
The Royal Thai Police document provides independent evidence that a complaint was recorded in Pattaya on 15 August 2026.
However, the available material reviewed here does not establish the final outcome of any criminal or civil proceedings allegedly initiated in Thailand.
That means the two pieces of evidence should not be treated as if they prove exactly the same thing.
Claims of Proceedings in Belgium
The same correspondence also states that a formal criminal complaint had been filed with the Belgian Federal Police.
It further claims that an international alert had been issued and that a civil and criminal case had been launched in Belgium through Themis Legal.
These are significant claims.
However, the document available in the archive is correspondence making those statements rather than a Belgian court judgment establishing the final outcome of such proceedings.
For that reason, the appropriate description is that the document claims or states that proceedings were initiated in Belgium.
Without an independently verified Belgian court record or official police documentation, it would be premature to describe those proceedings as successful, unsuccessful, dismissed or concluded.
From Complaint to Court: An Important Distinction
The documents in this case illustrate an important difference between several stages of legal action.
The Thai police report establishes that a complaint was recorded.
The correspondence goes further and states that criminal and civil proceedings were initiated in Thailand and Belgium.
But these are not the same as a final court judgment.
A legal complaint can lead to an investigation.
An investigation may or may not lead to charges.
Charges may or may not lead to prosecution.
And a prosecution may or may not result in a conviction.
The same principle applies to civil proceedings.
A claim can be filed without ultimately succeeding.
The available documents therefore provide evidence of a recorded Thai police complaint and claims concerning additional legal proceedings, but they do not provide enough evidence to establish the final outcome of every proceeding referred to in the correspondence.
Why This Case Is Different From the Baker Case
The Baker case discussed previously had a clearly documented judicial sequence: a District Court proceeding, a decision and a subsequent appeal.
This Pattaya matter is different.
Here, the strongest independently identifiable document in the material reviewed is the Royal Thai Police report recording the complaint.
The additional correspondence makes further claims about criminal and civil proceedings in Thailand and Belgium.
That means the evidence should be presented in different categories.
Documented:
A complaint was recorded by Pattaya City Police Station on 15 August 2026.
Claimed in correspondence:
Criminal and civil proceedings were allegedly initiated in Thailand.
Claimed in correspondence:
A criminal complaint and civil/criminal proceedings were allegedly initiated in Belgium.
Not established by the material reviewed:
The final outcome of those alleged Thai and Belgian proceedings.
Keeping these distinctions visible makes the article more accurate.
What the Public Record Shows
The available material provides a documented snapshot of a legal dispute involving Hourmont and Oliver Ben D Brasseur.
On 15 August 2026, Brasseur’s complaint was recorded by Pattaya City Police Station. The report identifies him as the complainant and records his account concerning alleged messages from Hourmont.
Additional correspondence states that legal action was being pursued in Thailand and Belgium and refers to criminal and civil proceedings.
The documents therefore demonstrate that the dispute had moved beyond a purely private disagreement and had been brought to the attention of law-enforcement authorities in Thailand.
What they do not establish on their own is the ultimate legal outcome.
A Matter That Requires Further Documentation
Because the Thai complaint is dated August 2026, the available material may represent only one stage of an ongoing matter.
If later court judgments, prosecution records or official decisions become available, they could provide a clearer picture of what happened after the complaint was recorded.
For now, the documentary record should remain limited to what can actually be established.
There was a recorded police complaint.
There are documents stating that further legal action was being pursued.
And there is no verified final judgment in the material reviewed here establishing the ultimate outcome of those additional proceedings.
That is the distinction between documenting a legal dispute and predicting its conclusion.
Conclusion
The Pattaya material provides another example of the different stages that can appear in a legal dispute.
The Royal Thai Police daily report dated 15 August 2026 records a complaint by Oliver Ben D Brasseur concerning alleged messages from Robert Hourmont.
A separate document states that criminal and civil proceedings were being pursued in Thailand and that additional proceedings had been initiated in Belgium.
The police report provides documentary evidence that the complaint was recorded.
The additional claims about proceedings in Thailand and Belgium should, at this stage, remain attributed to the documents making those claims unless independent court or official records establish their progress and outcome.
The case therefore belongs in the public record — but the record should distinguish what was reported, what was claimed, and what was ultimately proven.
Sources & Further Reading
Royal Thai Police — Pattaya City Police Station
Daily report received as evidence, dated 15 August 2026.
View the archived police report
Correspondence concerning alleged legal proceedings in Thailand and Belgium
View the archived correspondence
Rob Hourmont — Legal & Criminal Archive
Petition for a Minor’s Name Change
Another document preserved in the archive concerns a petition filed in New York State regarding a change of name for a minor child.
The document is a Petition for Name Change of Individual Minor filed in the County Court of the State of New York, County of Saratoga. The petitioner is identified as Katherine Kauh, described as the biological mother and parent or guardian of Brooke Lucia Hourmont.
The Name Change Petition
According to the petition, the minor was born on December 14, 2006, in Gassin, France, and had been residing with her mother in Clifton Park, New York, for nearly six years at the time the petition was prepared.
The petition requested that the minor’s name be changed from Brooke Lucia Hourmont to Brooke Lucia Kauh.
The document also states that the minor was a United States citizen and that a certified copy of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad was attached to the application.
The Grounds Stated in the Petition
The petition gives several reasons for requesting the name change.
Most significantly, it states that the biological father, Robert Hourmont, had not exercised visitation with the child for more than three years at the time of the application.
The petition further states that his precise address was unknown, although the petitioner said she had information that he was residing somewhere in Cambodia.
According to the document, the father had not maintained contact with the child, and the petition describes this as having caused emotional distress to the child.
The petition also states that during the last phone contact, the biological father advised the child that she should change her name to her mother’s surname.
The petitioner therefore requested that the child’s surname be changed to Kauh, stating that the child had expressed a continuing desire for the change and had been given sufficient time to consider the decision.
These statements are important to distinguish from an independent court finding: they are statements and grounds contained within the name-change petition itself.
Parental Consent
The archive also contains a notarised Parent’s Consent signed by Katherine Kauh.
In that document, Kauh states that she is the parent of the minor and consents to the change of name from Brooke Lucia Hourmont to Brooke Lucia Kauh. The document is dated May 2, 2022 and was notarised in Saratoga County, New York.
The Minor’s Consent
The final document is a Minor’s Consent signed by Brooke Lucia Hourmont.
It states that she was over fourteen years of age, had read the petition requesting the name change, and consented to changing her name from Brooke Lucia Hourmont to Brooke Lucia Kauh. The document was also sworn before a New York notary on May 2, 2022.
What the Documents Establish
The documents establish that a formal name-change petition was prepared and supported by both parental consent and the minor’s own written consent.
They also document the reasons presented to the New York court, including the stated lack of visitation and contact with the biological father.
However, the documents preserved in this archive do not by themselves establish the final court outcome of the petition. They show the application, the stated grounds, and the consents, but a final court order approving or denying the requested name change is not included in the material reviewed here.
That distinction matters when describing the case publicly.
Why This Case Appears in the Legal Archive
Unlike a conventional civil lawsuit involving competing financial claims, this matter concerns a family-related legal application involving a minor.
Its relevance to the broader record surrounding Rob Hourmont comes from the statements contained in the petition regarding the relationship between the child and her biological father, as well as the requested removal of the Hourmont surname.
The archive therefore provides a contemporaneous legal document rather than merely a later online allegation.
Conclusion
The available documents show that in 2022, Katherine Kauh filed a petition in Saratoga County, New York, seeking to change the name of Brooke Lucia Hourmont to Brooke Lucia Kauh.
The petition cited the child’s circumstances and the stated lack of visitation and contact with Robert Hourmont as part of the grounds for the application. Both the parent and the minor subsequently signed notarised consent documents supporting the requested change.
The material reviewed here does not include a final court order, so the final judicial disposition of the petition should not be stated beyond what the documents establish.
Sources & Further Reading
Primary documents preserved in the public archive:
- Petition for Name Change of Individual Minor — Saratoga County, New York.
- Petition grounds and statements regarding the biological father.
- Parent’s Consent, dated May 2, 2022.
- Minor’s Consent, dated May 2, 2022.
- Legal archive on the site. The Real Rob Hourmont — Legal Archive
Divorce Proceedings in Bali and Allegations of Domestic Violence
Another set of documents in the archive concerns divorce proceedings in Bali involving Robert Laurence Hourmont and his former spouse.
The material preserved on the site consists of excerpts from a court decision and related submissions in a divorce proceeding. The documents refer to a marriage that took place on 28 December 2019 in Bali.
The Divorce Proceedings
According to the archived court material, the parties were married in Bali and subsequently lived together in Badung Regency.
The documents indicate that divorce proceedings were subsequently initiated, with references to an Application for Amendment to the Divorce Lawsuit dated 29 March 2021 and an earlier mediation process dated 18 March 2021.
The material therefore appears to relate to a contested family-law proceeding rather than simply an informal separation.
Allegations of Domestic Violence
The archive describes the case using the headline “Rob’s Divorce in Bali Citing ‘Domestic Violence and Mental Abuse’.”
Within the court material, the respondent’s side disputes and responds to allegations concerning the relationship.
One section states that the respondent had left the marital home on several occasions because she allegedly could not tolerate the domestic violence that she said had been committed against her.
Another section contains allegations describing severe psychological and mental pressure and trauma. It further alleges that the respondent experienced depression and self-harm and describes alleged physical acts including strangling, kicking, pushing, and an injury involving an elbow pencil, with the document referring to medical evidence from a hospital in Bali.
These statements should be understood as claims presented within the court proceedings, rather than as independent findings established by the excerpt alone.
The Breakdown of the Relationship
The documents also contain statements concerning the couple’s relationship during the marriage.
The respondent’s submission states that the parties had lived together after their marriage and had a husband-and-wife relationship. It also refers to the fact that they had no children during the marriage.
The material further discusses disagreements concerning the respondent leaving the house and the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the relationship.
One part of the submission states that the petitioner had terminated the respondent’s employment relationship without an official letter from the management of the restaurant where the respondent worked.
Contact With Family
Another point raised in the documents concerns contact between the respondent and her family.
The respondent’s account states that she contacted her family following alleged violent incidents because she was frightened and needed assistance. The document says that family members subsequently helped her and collected her from the situation.
Again, this is presented as part of the respondent’s account within the proceedings and should not be presented as an independently established fact without reference to the complete court record.
The Pandemic and the Relationship
The archived material also refers to the COVID-19 pandemic and the respondent’s support for the petitioner during that period.
One section states that the respondent consistently supported the applicant during difficult circumstances, while also describing repeated forgiveness and a resulting strain on the respondent’s relationship with her family.
This provides additional context for the competing accounts presented in the divorce proceedings.
What the Documents Establish
The available material establishes that the parties were married in Bali and that divorce proceedings followed.
It also establishes that the court proceedings contained competing accounts concerning the breakdown of the marriage, including allegations of domestic violence, psychological pressure, family involvement, employment issues, and the circumstances in which the respondent left the marital home.
However, the limited pages preserved in this archive are excerpts from a larger 24-page document. They do not provide the complete procedural history or enough information by themselves to describe every allegation, finding, or final order in the case.
For that reason, the allegations should be attributed to the relevant party or document rather than presented as established facts.
Why This Case Appears in the Legal Archive
The case is relevant to the broader legal record surrounding Rob Hourmont because it involves formal divorce proceedings and written submissions concerning the circumstances of the marriage.
Unlike an online accusation without a documented legal proceeding, the material preserved here is presented as part of a court-related record.
At the same time, the existence of a court proceeding does not automatically mean that every allegation contained within the submissions was proven. The distinction between an allegation, a party’s response, and a court’s finding is important when reviewing this material.
Conclusion
The archived documents concern divorce proceedings in Bali following the parties’ marriage in December 2019.
The proceedings contain competing accounts regarding the relationship and its breakdown, including allegations involving domestic violence and psychological pressure, as well as disputes concerning the marital home, employment, family involvement, and other aspects of the relationship.
The material currently preserved on the website consists of selected pages from a larger court document. A complete assessment of the case would require the full judgment and any subsequent orders or appeals.
Accordingly, this article records what the available documents say without treating disputed allegations as independently proven facts.
Sources & Further Reading
Primary documents preserved in the public archive:
- Archive cover: “Rob’s Divorce in Bali Citing ‘Domestic Violence and Mental Abuse’.” View archived document
- Court-document excerpt discussing the respondent’s account of alleged violence and psychological pressure. View document page
- Court-document excerpt concerning the marriage, divorce proceedings and respondent’s responses to the allegations. View document page
- The Real Rob Hourmont — Legal Archive
The 2016 Saratoga County Arrest
Another legal record preserved in the archive concerns the arrest of Robert Hourmont in Saratoga County, New York, in 2016.
The archived material identifies the incident as an arrest for first-degree criminal contempt and states that the arrest took place on 3 November 2016.
The Arrest
According to the material preserved in the archive, Robert Hourmont, then described as 47 years old and residing in Clifton Park, was arrested by the New York State Police in Saratoga County on November 3, 2016.
The charge identified in the material was first-degree criminal contempt, which the archive describes as a Class E felony under New York law.
The archive attributes the information to publicly available law-enforcement records and reporting by The Saratogian. However, the material currently preserved on the website is a reproduced summary rather than the underlying police record or complete court file.
What the Charge Was Related To
The archived material states that the criminal-contempt charge stemmed from an incident in the Town of Clifton Park.
It further explains that first-degree criminal contempt in New York can involve the intentional violation of a court-mandated order of protection, such as a restraining order, although this general description does not by itself establish exactly what conduct was alleged in Hourmont’s particular case.
That distinction is important: the existence of an arrest and charge establishes that a criminal proceeding was initiated, but it does not by itself establish guilt or the final disposition of the case.
Related Civil Proceedings
The archive also contains a separate reference to domestic-relations proceedings in New York.
One archived document states that civil records showed domestic-relations proceedings involving mutual domestic-violence restraining orders in a matter identified as Hourmont v. Hourmont, with the information attributed to Trellis Law Case Records.
The presence of these civil records provides additional context surrounding the legal proceedings in Saratoga County, but the material shown in the archive does not provide the complete underlying case file.
Arrest, Charge and Conviction Are Different
The terminology surrounding this case should be kept precise.
An arrest means that law enforcement took the individual into custody.
A criminal charge means that an accusation was formally made.
Neither automatically establishes that the accused person was convicted.
The documents currently preserved in this archive establish the reported arrest and the charge described above. They do not, on the material reviewed here, provide sufficient evidence to state that Hourmont was ultimately convicted of first-degree criminal contempt or what sentence, if any, resulted.
What the Available Record Shows
The available archive material therefore supports the following chronology:
- November 3, 2016: Robert Hourmont was reported as arrested in Saratoga County, New York.
- The charge identified was first-degree criminal contempt.
- The incident was associated with the Town of Clifton Park.
- Separate archived material refers to domestic-relations proceedings and restraining orders involving the Hourmont name.
- The archive attributes the arrest information to law-enforcement records and reporting by The Saratogian.
The final outcome of the criminal matter is not established by the documents currently preserved on the website.
Why This Case Appears in the Legal Archive
This case is significant to the broader chronology because it predates the later legal disputes documented in Bali, Thailand and Belgium.
It also illustrates why the legal history surrounding Hourmont should be separated into different categories. The Saratoga material concerns a criminal arrest and charge, while the Baker matter concerns civil litigation and appeals, and the later Pattaya material concerns a police complaint and claimed proceedings.
These are different types of legal events and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Conclusion
The archive contains documentation concerning a 2016 arrest of Robert Hourmont in Saratoga County, New York, for first-degree criminal contempt.
The material states that the arrest occurred on November 3, 2016, and connects the charge to an incident in Clifton Park. It also references separate domestic-relations proceedings and restraining orders in the same region.
At present, the archive material reviewed does not include a complete criminal docket or final judgment establishing the outcome of the charge.
Accordingly, this case should be described as a documented arrest and criminal charge, rather than as a conviction, unless a final court record confirming the outcome is located.
Sources & Further Reading
Primary/archived material:
- Archive cover: “Hourmont Arrested in Saratoga New York for First Degree Criminal Contempt.”
- Archived summary describing the November 3, 2016 arrest and the criminal-contempt charge.
- Archived material discussing the 2016 arrest and the reported circumstances of the charge.
- Archived reference to domestic-relations proceedings and restraining orders in Hourmont v. Hourmont.
- The Real Rob Hourmont — Legal Archive
Concierge Auctions and Allegations of Fraudulent Bidding
Another set of documents in the archive concerns Concierge Auctions, a luxury real-estate auction company that was the subject of reporting about allegations of fraudulent or artificial bidding.
The archived material includes a Wall Street Journal article published on 1 March 2019, titled “Luxury Real-Estate Firm Concierge Auctions Fights Allegations of Fraudulent Bids.”
The Allegations Against Concierge Auctions
The Wall Street Journal article reported allegations that Concierge Auctions had used dummy or fake bidders in some property auctions.
The article stated that Concierge had been named as a defendant in lawsuits filed by clients and that several of those lawsuits accused the company of using some form of dummy or fake bidder to artificially drive up property prices or otherwise influence auctions.
These were allegations concerning Concierge Auctions, not a finding that Robert Hourmont had committed fraud.
That distinction is important when considering why Hourmont appears in the archived material.
Robert Hourmont’s Connection to the Company
The reporting mentions Robert Hourmont in connection with Concierge Auctions.
According to the archived Wall Street Journal material, Hourmont was a former real-estate investor who said that he had been in negotiations to take a job at Concierge at the time discussed in the article.
The article also refers to Hourmont attending a company dinner during which, according to former employee Frank Kivo’s account, Concierge executives allegedly discussed the practice of using fabricated bidders.
The article further reports Kivo’s allegation that he had witnessed Concierge employees placing false bids and pretending to represent phantom bidders.
Hourmont was therefore referenced as someone who was reportedly present at the dinner, rather than as the person accused of operating the alleged bidding scheme.
Hourmont’s Own Relationship With Concierge
The archive contains another document showing a different connection between Hourmont and Concierge Auctions.
A PR Newswire article preserved in the archive describes Concierge’s first European auction and identifies Rob Hourmont as a former Olympic skier-turned-entrepreneur who had owned Villa La Ponche in Saint-Tropez with his family for approximately a decade before selling the property through the Concierge platform.
The same material quotes Hourmont positively regarding the auction process.
He reportedly stated that the auction brought significant attention to the property and recommended Concierge Auctions to other luxury-property owners.
This creates an important contrast in the available material: Hourmont appears in reporting both as someone connected to Concierge during the period of the allegations and as a property owner who had used the company’s auction services.
What the Documents Actually Establish
The archived documents establish several separate points:
- Concierge Auctions was the subject of published reporting concerning allegations of fraudulent or artificial bidding.
- Robert Hourmont was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal reporting as someone who said he had been negotiating to take a position at Concierge.
- The article reported an allegation by former employee Frank Kivo concerning a dinner attended by Hourmont and alleged discussions about fabricated bidders.
- Separate promotional material identifies Hourmont as a former owner of Villa La Ponche and describes his positive experience selling the property through Concierge Auctions.
What these documents do not establish is that Hourmont himself committed fraudulent bidding or was a defendant in the Concierge litigation.
Why This Case Appears in the Archive
The relevance of this material to the broader record surrounding Hourmont is therefore primarily contextual.
The documents place him in the orbit of a company that was facing significant allegations and litigation concerning its auction practices. They also document his own business relationship with the company.
However, the available material does not establish that Hourmont was responsible for the alleged conduct described in the reporting.
This distinction is particularly important because the archive’s headline — “Hourmont Linked to Company Accused of Fraudulent Bids” — can otherwise give the impression that the allegations were directed at Hourmont personally. The underlying documents are more limited than that headline suggests.
A Matter of Context Rather Than a Charge Against Hourmont
Unlike the Baker litigation or the Saratoga arrest discussed elsewhere in this archive, this material does not document a criminal charge or civil lawsuit against Hourmont himself.
Instead, it documents his reported connection to Concierge Auctions during a period when the company was facing allegations concerning its business practices.
The available evidence should therefore be read as background concerning a business association, rather than as evidence of a legal finding against Hourmont.
Conclusion
The archive contains several documents connecting Robert Hourmont with Concierge Auctions, a luxury real-estate auction company that was the subject of 2019 reporting concerning allegations of fraudulent or artificial bidding.
The Wall Street Journal reported allegations against Concierge and included references to Hourmont’s connection with the company. Separately, PR Newswire material records Hourmont’s positive comments about Concierge after the sale of his family’s Villa La Ponche property through the platform.
The available documents do not establish that Hourmont himself was accused, charged, or found liable for the alleged fraudulent bidding practices.
For that reason, this case is best understood as documentation of a business connection and surrounding controversy, rather than a legal case against Hourmont personally.
Sources & Further Reading
Primary/archived material:
- The Wall Street Journal — “Luxury Real-Estate Firm Concierge Auctions Fights Allegations of Fraudulent Bids,” March 1, 2019.
- Archived excerpt discussing the allegations and the reference to Robert Hourmont.
- PR Newswire material concerning Concierge Auctions’ European auction and the sale of Villa La Ponche by Hourmont and his family.
- Archive cover: “Hourmont Linked to Company Accused of Fraudulent Bids.”
- The Real Rob Hourmont — Legal Archive