Understanding the law on revoking gifts due to ingratitude: who has the right to sue and recover property, and under what circumstances? While it is possible to reclaim gifted property, Thai law stipulates that only the original gift-giver—not other family members—has the legal standing to file such a lawsuit. If property is inherited directly from ancestors without passing through an intermediary, descendants cannot invoke ingratitude as grounds for recovery.

1. Legal grounds for revoking a gift due to ingratitude (Section 531) A gift-giver can reclaim property only if the recipient commits one of the following acts:

- Committing a serious criminal offense of violence - Physically harming or damaging the reputation of the gift-giver (such as attempted murder or causing serious bodily injury) - Seriously damaging the gift-giver's reputation or showing grave contempt - Using abusive language or making accusations that cause severe embarrassment - Refusing to provide necessities for the gift-giver's livelihood when the gift-giver is in poverty and the recipient has the means to help (for example, a parent gifts land to a child, but later when the parent lacks money for food, the wealthy child refuses to provide support)

2. Consequences of revoking a gift When the court orders a gift revoked due to ingratitude, the property reverts to the original gift-giver, with unjust enrichment provisions applied accordingly (Section 534).

How do gifts differ from inheritance? Inherited property and property received through gift are distinct legal matters. An inheritance occurs when a property owner dies and their rights transfer to heirs through law or will. A gift transfers property while the donor is still alive. Therefore, the right to revoke a gift due to ingratitude applies only to actual gifts, not direct inheritance.

A 28-year-old woman from New York City was arrested by police for posing as a 16-year-old girl to enroll in a high school in the Bronx. The case has captured significant American public attention due to its resemblance to several Hollywood films about adults impersonating students.

The suspect, identified as Casey Classen, faced charges of identity fraud and trespassing before appearing in court in late April. She denied all allegations. According to court documents, Classen applied to a high school on April 13 using the fake name "Chamara Rachad" and claimed to have been born in 2010 to appear as a 16-year-old. She told the school principal that she had recently moved from Ohio. However, school officials became suspicious after discovering information on social media that revealed her true age and identity.

When questioned by police, Classen admitted to lying and claimed a friend had suggested she commit the fraud to access more government assistance programs. She was released on her own recognizance and scheduled to return to court on June 15.

A spokesperson for the New York school system stated that enrollment fraud is a serious crime that undermines the fundamental values of the education system. Police are continuing their investigation and will pursue appropriate legal action. This is not the first such case in the United States—in 2023, a 29-year-old woman named Hye-jeong Shin from New Jersey was accused of forging a birth certificate to enroll in high school. She entered a probation program and underwent psychiatric evaluation.

These incidents have prompted calls from various parties in the U.S. for schools to implement stricter student identity verification measures to prevent safety risks within educational institutions.

Deputy Prime Minister Supamaas Issaraphakdi, overseeing the Consumer Protection Board (CPB), disclosed developments in the case of Kriang Kai (surname withheld), known as 'Contractor One,' a home construction contractor and operator of the Facebook page 'Huan Jeep Home Building,' later renamed 'Contractor One Home Building.' The contractor appeared on a radio program on May 6, following the discovery of over 60 victims across northeastern provinces including Nakhon Ratchasima, Khon Kaen, Roi Et, and Sisaket, with total damages exceeding 45 million baht.

Supamaas stated that upon learning of the case, she immediately ordered CPB Secretary-General Ranrong Poolphiphat to dispatch officials for urgent investigation and assigned Consumer Protection Director 3 Lertsak Ruktham to participate in the case and gather facts rapidly.

The contractor's modus operandi involved using beautiful home photographs from others on his Facebook page, offering construction at 9,000-10,000 baht per square meter with promotional packages including air conditioning and hot water systems. He convinced consumers to transfer large deposit amounts ranging from 500,000 baht to full payments in the millions. After receiving payment, he would only pour the foundation, erect steel frames, or build the roof before abandoning the project.

Supamaas highlighted the most heartbreaking case: a 59-year-old civil servant who invested 2 million baht in life savings to build a retirement home but was defrauded, resulting in severe stress and death. This demonstrates that contractor abandonment causes not only financial loss but destroys people's life dreams.

CPB officials discovered that Kriang Kai's business violated consumer contract regulations. The contractor used unfair contract terms such as specifying that the five-month construction timeline begins only from the day the main posts are erected, making it difficult for consumers to claim compensation for delays. He also failed to provide payment receipts as required by CPB regulations.

The Deputy Prime Minister stated that CPB exercised legal authority to summon Kriang Kai for a meeting on May 12, 2025 at 9:30 AM at CPB headquarters to present all victim information and clarify facts, as well as discuss compensation. Legal action both civil and criminal will follow if violations are confirmed.

'I have ordered CPB to take proactive action immediately so consumers don't have to file individual civil lawsuits,' Supamaas stated. 'The contractor's actions have treated people unjustly regarding housing, which is essential to people's livelihoods. The government under Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul prioritizes consumer protection as urgent policy. The money people save their entire lives to build one home will not be allowed to be fraudulently taken away without consequence.

I have also ordered CPB to coordinate with law enforcement agencies...'

Two forest foragers from Prasart subdistrict in Ban Kruat, Buriram province remain adamant that they encountered Cambodian soldiers conducting patrols on Thai territory during a nighttime outing on May 8, forcing them to flee after the soldiers attempted to capture them and fired one gunshot. The men—63-year-old Aphirak and 59-year-old Prayoon—have undergone spiritual cleansing rituals and received support from their community. Aphirak expressed disappointment with the Army spokesman's dismissal of the incident as a misunderstanding, emphasizing that he can speak Cambodian, confirming the soldiers' identity, and noting that as a former ranger, he knows the difference between Thai and Cambodian military personnel. He stressed that while their languages are similar, they are not the same, and communication was nearly impossible. "What won't we understand," he asked rhetorically, criticizing the spokesman's inconsistent statements as damaging public trust. Aphirak insisted the foraging area was well within Thai territory, at least two kilometers from the border, and called on the military to find solutions rather than burden civilians with confronting Cambodian troops alone. Prayoon corroborated the account, noting he was the first to speak with the Cambodian soldier and immediately recognized them by their accent and fully armed appearance. He credited their escape to superior knowledge of the terrain. Aphirak's wife added that she hopes relevant authorities take the incident seriously to enhance safety measures in the area, without seeking to create further controversy.

On May 10, 2026, Srisuwan Janya, leader of the Thai Nation Lovers Organization, announced that his organization has received an order from the Constitutional Court to submit a written opinion on whether the Election Commission's use of QR codes and barcodes on ballots complies with the Constitution and laws. The submission must address specific points outlined by the court and include relevant supporting documents in connection with a complaint filed through the Ombudsman under Section 213 of the 2017 Constitution.

Srisuwan explained that he initially filed a petition with the Ombudsman on February 13, 2026, requesting the court consider whether the Election Commission's barcodes on ballots could compromise ballot secrecy and the integrity of recent parliamentary elections, and whether the 2023 Election Commission Regulations Section 129 align with the 2017 Constitution Section 85 and the 2018 Election Law Sections 84 and 86. The Constitutional Court voted 6-3 to accept the Ombudsman's petition on March 18, 2026, designating it as case 30/2569.

For the court's consideration, Srisuwan stated that the Constitutional Court has ordered the organization to prepare written opinions addressing five specific issues, including how voters exercise their voting rights, visibility of QR and barcodes, methods that could reveal another person's voting choice or identify the voter, complaints filed before media coverage, and submission of all related evidence.

While Srisuwan believes some of the court's questions may diverge from the original complaint's intent—since the core issue is whether barcodes compromise ballot secrecy—he acknowledged he cannot challenge the court's discretion. The organization will expedite its response, compile evidence, and request additional witness testimony, submitting everything to the Constitutional Court within 15 days as required under the 2017 Constitutional Court Procedure Act Section 27(3), aiming to uphold the Constitution's integrity and prevent illegal exercise of state power.