Bangkok: Mr. Panathep Puapongphan, Dean of the College of Oriental Medicine at Rangsit University, has presented clear evidence in the ongoing 71 million baht fraud and money laundering case involving Mr. Sittra Biabangkerd, also known as Lawyer Tum, and the plaintiff, Ms. Chatuphol, referred to as Madam Oi. The evidence highlights a contract in Madam Oi’s name, raising concerns over potential asset transfers and implicating three individuals for urgent investigation.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Panathep detailed that the alleged fraud was uncovered through a contract that surfaced following a Line chat conversation between Noi, the secretary, and Lawyer Tum. The chat, dated between January 28-30, 2023, was portrayed as evidence by Lawyer Tum, despite being a one-sided conversation where Noi merely acknowledged the messages. The contract in question is linked to an application development deal between Madam Oi and a company producing the Nakhi app, not involving Lawyer Tum at all.
Mr. Panathep recoun
ted that Madam Oi traveled from France to Thailand from February 2-8, 2023, for purposes unrelated to affection-driven money transfers or contract signings. At the time, Lawyer Tum served as her legal advisor, but the evidence suggests that all assets belong solely to Madam Oi. Consequently, Lawyer Tum’s involvement is limited to advisory roles, with no legitimate claims over the finances or assets.
Further revelations indicate that after returning to France, Madam Oi intended to invest the transferred funds, which were directly deposited into her account without tax obligations. The transfer was facilitated by Lawyer Tum, who instructed her to channel the money through his account, leveraging the existence of a signed contract. However, the evidence suggests that the contract was drafted at his office and was not indicative of a joint investment or a loan.
Mr. Panathep expressed concerns about Lawyer Tum’s credibility, noting that his wife is part of a working group aware of the fraudulent activities. More
over, a brand-name man associated with threats against witnesses might be involved, although no direct threats against Madam Oi were confirmed.
The investigation also points to the destruction of evidence by Lawyer Tum, including phone records, raising doubts about his transparency. The case involves 39 million baht linked to defendants Nu and Salinee, with potential repercussions for Lawyer Tum. Allegations concerning false claims about account suspensions and deceptive complaints to law enforcement further complicate the matter.
Mr. Panathep highlighted irregularities in a car purchase transaction, suggesting the issuance of two receipts at different amounts, one of which may be fraudulent. He emphasized the need for further investigation into the 71 million baht fraud and additional dimensions uncovered by media scrutiny.
Finally, Mr. Panathep called for an expedited investigation into three individuals: Lawyer Tum’s wife’s sister, a luxury watch seller named Jack, and an individual known as Oh, residin
g in Chiang Mai or Chiang Rai, involved in selling luxury brand items. These individuals are believed to hold crucial information regarding potential asset transfers and the broader fraud network.