Lawmaker Accuses Digital Minister Of Vague Bribery Claim
A parliamentary committee chair accuses Digital Economy Minister Chaiyachanok of making vague bribery claims without solid evidence, citing inconsistencies in the investigation and questioning whether the allegations have any factual founda
On September 17, 2025, at parliament, Rangsimanth Rom, chair of the House Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, addressed the results of a committee meeting following briefings by Digital Economy Minister Chaiyachanok Chidchob and Interior Deputy Minister Worrasit Liangprasit on the alleged 40-million-baht bribery offer. Rom said the case split into two issues: a corruption allegation involving a 40-million-baht bribe, and a separate matter concerning 4,000 illegal gambling websites calculated at 10,000 baht per site, totaling 40 million baht monthly.
Both acts appeared unlawful, but only the bribery allegation was referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Rom noted that Chaiyachanok himself seemed uncertain about who committed the offense and on what grounds. The minister said he learned of the claim from Interior Deputy Minister Worrasit, who cited information from a parliamentary aide named Chattamonkol, creating confusion about whether any bribery actually occurred.
Rom highlighted inconsistencies in the investigation. A suspect identified as "Q," allegedly involved in the bribery attempt, was questioned by cyber police weeks later—but only regarding gambling website matters, not the bribery claim. No formal charges were ever filed against Q, and Chaiyachanok's committee never directly interviewed Q to verify details. Rom questioned whether Chaiyachanok's earlier parliamentary speech on September 30, 2024, relied on any factual foundation, since the Digital Economy Ministry investigation committee never summoned Q for evidence and Chaiyachanok never pursued details from Chattamonkol.
When asked how to proceed given the minister's own uncertainty, Rom stated that if the allegations lacked merit, they could constitute false parliamentary speech subject to legal action. However, if Q had genuinely engaged in gambling website operations and attempted bribery as alleged, Rom questioned why Q was never interrogated during the bribery investigation and was only questioned after the legal committee pressed for it. Rom suggested this pattern implied possible protection of Q and called for investigating who stood behind such protective measures. If Q's guilt was established, Rom insisted authorities must identify and pursue those orchestrating his assistance.
