Pond Denies Donation Fraud Claims, Pledges Action Over Words
Pond Chakrakrisna denied donation fraud allegations at a news conference, claiming financial documents were AI-generated attacks, and explained the association's expenses cover thousands of annual cases and employee salaries totaling about
On July 17 at the Maleenont Building, Pond Chakrakrisna gave an extensive interview to address allegations of misappropriated charitable donations. He firmly denied the claims, arguing that the financial documents presented were AI-generated attacks against him. He stated that association treasurer Karnchai had reviewed the bank statement showing only 80 million baht in funds, far below the alleged 200 million, and questioned where that figure came from.
Pond detailed the association's legitimate expenses: handling approximately 10,000 cases annually at 5,000 baht per case equals 50 million baht alone, plus vehicle maintenance, fuel, and assistance to bereaved families. The association also pays roughly 10 employees, with the highest salary not exceeding 9,000 baht, averaging 100,000 baht monthly.
Regarding the 30,000-baht transfers, Pond explained this follows association rules allowing such withdrawals for managing operational costs. While he initially used his wife's account as a conduit due to the association account lacking banking app and card access, he has now switched to the association president's account per a meeting resolution.
Pond acknowledged wrongly obtaining the list of 18 complainants from officials to verify if they were defaming him—something he shouldn't have done. Regarding Nayana, he revealed he once intended to buy her property to build a sacred statue but abandoned the purchase after she allegedly went back on a price-reduction promise, leading him to demolish the structure.
Concerning the land registered under his mother's name, Pond explained the broker claimed the owner was his relative and worried about tax implications if transferred to the association, so he requested individual registration first with later transfer to the association. He admitted lacking legal knowledge and didn't consult a lawyer.
Pond clarified his income sources: previously from creating and selling amulets, now from product reviews on Facebook, tiktok sales, and product endorsements. The free nose surgery allegation he flatly denied—the clinic performed it for free in exchange for influencer reviews. On the lottery ticket controversy, he explained he borrowed lottery tickets from someone who won first prize to photograph for content, noting in comments that they belonged to someone else.
Pond concluded by saying if society accepts his explanation, his actions going forward will serve as proof of his integrity.
