BANGKOK, THAILAND – The legal battle over controversial businessman Ben Smith intensified as his lawyer said he would not return to Thailand for now and framed the arrest warrant as arising from a civil share deal in Laos.
Lawyer rules out return for now
Smith would not surrender to authorities in Thailand in the near term due to a lack of trust in the country’s justice system, his lawyer Witoon Kengngan said.
“Smith will not present himself in Thailand for the time being because there is no confidence in the Thai justice system.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
He indicated that a return would only be considered if there were realistic chances of bail in line with international standards.
“A return would only come into question once there are realistic prospects for bail that meet international standards.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
Defense view of what the warrant is really about
According to Witoon, the complaint filed by the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) concerned a dispute over the purchase of shares in a company in Laos, which he described as essentially a civil-law matter.
“In the CIB’s complaint, this is about a dispute over share purchases in a company in Laos and, at its core, about a civil dispute.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
He rejected allegations such as fraud or money laundering that had circulated in public debate and described them as politically motivated portrayals intended to label Smith as a scammer.
“Allegations such as fraud or money laundering, which had previously resonated in the public discussion, are unfounded. These are politically motivated portrayals meant to brand Smith as a scammer.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
Political clash between Anutin and Rangsiman
The lawyer pointed out that the now public account aligned with earlier remarks by Anutin Charnvirakul, who had depicted Smith more as a businessman or broker.
“This depiction corresponds to earlier statements by Anutin Charnvirakul, who described Smith primarily as a businessman or broker.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
At the same time, he contradicted statements made in parliament by Rangsiman Rome, who had portrayed Smith as a central figure in fraud structures.
“I must disagree with the statements by Rangsiman Rome in parliament, in which Smith was described as a central figure in fraud structures.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
991 million baht loss vs. over 10 billion seized
In the complaint, the damage was stated as 991 million baht, while authorities had seized assets worth more than 10 billion baht, Witoon criticized.
“The complaint mentions damage of 991 million baht, yet authorities have seized assets worth more than 10 billion baht.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
He added that 991 million baht was also the amount reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Office as the underlying predicate offense, raising questions about the proportionality of the measures.
“The sum of 991 million baht was reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Office as the underlying predicate offense, which calls into question the proportionality of the actions taken.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
Three irregularities in the process
Witoon cited as a first irregularity that the allegedly affected company in Laos had not yet been publicly named.
“First of all, the allegedly affected company in Laos has, to this day, not been publicly identified.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
Second, he said a complaint from 2024 initially appeared to lack proper authorizations before a new complaint was filed on 9 February, and third, that after a criminal case number was assigned on 12 February, an arrest warrant was issued as early as 26 February, which he considered unusually quick.
“Secondly, the 2024 complaint was, at first, apparently submitted without proper powers of attorney, before a new complaint was filed on 9 February; thirdly, after a criminal case number was issued on 12 February, an arrest warrant followed already on 26 February, which is unusually fast.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
Deadlines, older allegations and a comparison case
The lawyer also questioned how an allegation of fraud relating to events from 2022 could be accepted only in 2024, noting that in private fraud cases a complaint often had to be filed within three months of becoming aware of the matter.
“One must ask how a fraud allegation concerning events from 2022 could only be admitted in 2024, when in cases of private fraud a complaint often has to be lodged within three months of knowledge.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
As a comparison, he cited a fraud dispute described as an ordinary business case involving a lawyer named Tattam, in which a civil court had ordered the return of assets.
“As a comparison, there is the fraud dispute around a lawyer named Tattam, described as a normal business case, where a civil court ordered the return of assets.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
2024 statement and claim of premature seizure
Smith had already given a statement to CIB officers on 10 July 2024, and its receipt had been acknowledged, Witoon said.
“Smith already provided a statement to CIB officials on 10 July 2024, and its receipt was duly confirmed.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
He alleged that assets were seized before criminal proceedings in the matter had been properly advanced, which he considered an irregularity.
“Assets were seized before criminal proceedings in this matter were even properly pursued, which I regard as irregular.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
Where Smith is now and what comes next
According to a report by Thaitabloid, Smith left open whether he might eventually return to Thailand, while Witoon stressed that bail was particularly difficult in high-profile cases.
“Whether Smith will return to Thailand at a later stage remains open. In prominent cases, obtaining bail is especially difficult.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
He declined to disclose his client’s current whereabouts but said that, after consultation, further evidence and documents could be submitted.
“I will not disclose my client’s current location. After further consultation, however, additional evidence and documents may be provided.”
said Witoon Kengngan, lawyer.
Debate over justice, politics and transparency
The case illustrated how quickly an economic dispute in Thailand could turn into a political issue, in which transparency around investigations and seizures ultimately determined trust.
“This case shows how quickly an economic dispute in Thailand can become a political issue, where in the end it is the transparency of investigations and seizures that decides over trust.”
said Thaitabloid, in its analysis.
It raised the broader question of whether arrest warrants and seizures in such situations should be more strictly justified and reviewed by courts more quickly, or whether the state required maximum freedom of action when large sums were involved.
“Should arrest warrants and asset seizures in such cases be justified more strictly and be subject to faster judicial review, or does the state need maximum room for manoeuvre precisely when very large sums are at stake?”
said Thaitabloid, in its analysis.