Parliament Panel Clears Phra Pikul Secretary in Bribery Probe
A parliamentary anti-corruption committee has cleared the Secretary of the Phra Pikul Institute of any wrongdoing in a 500,000 baht bribery allegation after a six-meeting investigation. The committee found no financial records supporting the claim, and the accused provided an alibi with travel evidence for the date of the alleged payment. The complainant later withdrew the complaint but refused to cooperate with police investigators, while the Institute Secretary has filed counter-charges for false accusation and defamation.
The Parliamentary Committee on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption and Misconduct revealed its investigation results into the Phra Pikul Institute Secretary case, finding no wrongdoing in the 500,000 baht bribery allegation. On November 12, 2026, at Parliament, MP Asaphan Santriphap (Srisaket, Bhumjaithai Party), in his capacity as committee chair, stated that the committee had invited Isara Seriwatanawuth, Secretary of the Phra Pikul Institute, representatives from Ratthanathibet Police Station, and representatives from Thung Song Hong Police Station to attend a meeting. The matter originated on June 15 when Prames Chaiyaphacharankul (also known as Chaiyrat Jamnongkan) and Chaimet Milinchinda (also known as Chaiyaphacharankul) filed a complaint at Ratthanathibet Police Station, accusing Isara and a police officer of colluding to defraud 500,000 baht, claiming it was payment to secure a seat in the 30th batch of the Phra Pikul Institute training course. Later in August, the complainant withdrew the complaint, claiming the money had been returned. The committee investigated the matter from August 12, holding a total of six meetings and hearing from all parties. MP Asaphan stated that at the meeting, the committee had comprehensively reviewed the matter and concluded that documents from the Phra Pikul Institute, which the Institute confirmed as official records, showed no record of receiving or paying 500,000 baht to the complainant from October 1, 2024 to November 10, 2026. Today, the Institute Secretary personally appeared before the committee to provide clarification, denying all allegations, confirming he never saw, never called, never received, and never returned any money, never admitted anything to the complainant, did not even know about the complaint or its withdrawal until seeing media reports. Regarding the evening of July 18, 2025, when payment was allegedly made, he stated he was not yet Institute Secretary and was not a member of the student selection committee. Crucially, on the afternoon of the alleged date, he had traveled by plane to Surat Thani and returned to Bangkok on July 20, 2025, and can account for his activities every hour with evidence, and is willing to hand over his phone for verification. Isara has filed a counter-complaint against the accusers for false accusation and defamation, and is preparing a civil suit for damages, awaiting the outcome of the police investigation; if delayed or the prosecutor declines to charge, he will file suit himself within this year. MP Asaphan added that the committee also heard from investigators on two separate tracks: first, the bribery allegation, where Ratthanathibet Police transferred the case to Thung Song Hong Police on October 8, 2026; Thung Song Hong Police queried the Phra Pikul Institute on October 9 and received a response on November 11 stating that on July 18, 2025, the accused was still Deputy Secretary and the police officer allegedly involved had no connection whatsoever with the Institute. Second, regarding the case where the Institute Secretary filed a counter-complaint for false accusation and defamation, currently under investigation at Ratthanathibet Police, investigators reported they have interviewed witnesses including Institute staff and the applicant mentioned along with relatives; both denied ever paying money to anyone. Additionally, regarding the money return claimed by the complainant in the withdrawal record, investigators stated there are no documents confirming any admission, and no witnesses or evidence confirming money delivery. Investigators also reported that Prames refused to give a statement to investigators, even after being contacted and asked to testify as a witness.