Lawyer Thamm Brings Supplies to Achariya Outside Bangkok Prison
Lawyer Sithara Beebangborn, known as Thamm Thamm, delivered essential supplies to detainee Achariya Ruangrattanapong outside Bangkok Special Prison after the Criminal Court denied his request for temporary release on fraud, money‑laundering and illegal gambling charges. Thamm warned that if soap falls in the shower it must not be picked up, and said he feels both affection and frustration toward Achariya while pitying his unprepared entry into prison. Investigators opposed bail, fearing witness intimidation, asset concealment, flight or evidence tampering.
On October 5, 2026, at the Bangkok Special Prison, lawyer Sithara Beebangborn, aka "Thamm Thamm", a former inmate, came to hand over essential supplies to Achariya Ruangrattanapong after the Criminal Court rejected his bail request in a case of collective fraud, money laundering, and illegal boxing gambling. After being remanded, Achariya had applied for temporary release with collateral, but the court considered the seriousness of the charges and the suspects’ conduct, noting they had split responsibilities, misused personal and charity‑association accounts, and moved large sums of money, indicating a blatant disregard for the law. Investigators opposed bail, warning the suspect might threaten witnesses, hide assets, flee, or interfere with evidence, and therefore there was insufficient grounds to grant temporary release. Thamm explained he brought items such as a wash basin, toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, and instant noodles, drawing from his own time in prison, and cautioned that if soap drops while showering, one should not bend to pick it up but replace it immediately for safety. As the prisoner transport truck passed, Thamm shouted encouragement: "Good luck, stay strong." He described his relationship with Achariya as complex, with moments of both affection and resentment, yet he felt pity seeing him enter prison unprepared. When asked about allegations of being harassed, Thamm said no one would dare to harass him because any such act would implicate the police, and without clear evidence or a transparent money trail, the court would not issue arrest warrants or pursue charges.
