Wealthy Businesswoman Demands Police Accelerate Fraud Case Against Amulet Dealer
Wealthy businesswoman Madam Gaeng has petitioned Thailand's Deputy National Police Chief to accelerate fraud charges against an amulet dealer accused of swindling her through multiple business deals and bounced checks over several years.
On September 9, Dorn Thianthawarawong, known as Madam Gaeng, submitted a letter to Deputy National Police Chief Suwatn Sangnoom at the Phitaksan Police Building, requesting that investigators accelerate evidence gathering and prosecution of Tonthong Sukkhaeng (Ton Bang Khae) on fraud and related charges under the supervision of Investigation Division 2 of the Crime Suppression Division.
Thianthawarawong disclosed that the case involves substantial financial losses stemming from multiple transactions over an extended period, including sales of branded goods, investment in amulet-viewing scopes, amulet auctions, an exhibition hall construction project, and land transactions. She said previous attempts to restructure debt, execute purchase agreements, pledge assets, and settle debts by check have failed, including bounced checks, and she has not yet received full compensation.
She stated she came today to follow up on the case as normal, fearing delays and requesting the officer's assistance. She noted that having the case with the central investigation police gives her confidence, and after she assigned "one lawyer" to negotiate with the opposing party, some contact has been made and discussions are ongoing, which she believes may yield positive results.
Thianthawarawong explained the primary reason for her letter: although the defendant expressed a wish to seek settlement negotiations before the investigating officer, and she herself did not reject compensation, she worries that waiting solely for negotiation results could delay the case and might be used as a tactic to stall proceedings. She therefore requested that investigators proceed with examination, evidence collection, and case prosecution according to legal procedures in parallel, ensuring that settlement negotiations do not cause the case to stall.
The complainant also submitted copies of three Supreme Court judgments (No. 4263/2528, 1398/2530, and 4335/2554) as supporting documents, citing them as legal precedent regarding the nature of the offense, fraudulent intent, creation of false credibility, and payment by check issued after the incident occurred. She urged officials to carefully consider the overall circumstances and ensure fair justice to the victim through the judicial process.
