The Criminal Court has sentenced "Aphirak Kodthi" and four co-defendants — five people in total — to 49,110 years in prison each in the Forex 3D investment fraud case, and has ordered them to repay money to the victims. Meanwhile, actress "Pinky," her brother, and her mother have been acquitted.
On 13 August, at Courtroom 806 of the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road, the court convened to deliver its verdict in the Forex 3D Ponzi scheme fraud case, black case number Por. 853/2021, in which the Special Prosecutor 4 filed charges as plaintiff against Aphirak Kodthi, the company executive, along with Miss Sawika Chaidet — known as "Pinky" — the well-known actress, Mrs. Sarinya Chaidet, her mother, Mr. Kittichest, also known as Sarayut Chaidet, her brother, and 20 others, totalling 24 defendants, on charges of jointly fraudulently borrowing money from the public and violations of the Computer Crime Act.
The prosecution's charges can be summarised as follows: between 24 November 2015 and 8 September 2020, the defendants jointly deceived the public by advertising and soliciting members of the general public to invest in online foreign exchange trading through a website and Facebook page called "Forex 3D" (www.Forex-3D.com), operating under the fund name "Forex 3D." Defendant No. 2's company, operated by Defendant No. 1, claimed to have a professional team handling investments on behalf of investors. Investors could start with as little as USD 500 or 15,000 baht, later raised to a minimum of USD 2,000 or 50,000 baht. No knowledge of foreign exchange trading was required — investors simply needed to deposit money and wait to receive dividend profits, with a 100 percent principal guarantee and no risk of loss. This caused 9,842 people to be deceived into investing a combined total of over 2,489 million baht, when in fact the defendants made no investments whatsoever and conducted no actual foreign exchange buying, selling, or trading as claimed. The offences occurred in Din Daeng Subdistrict, Din Daeng District, Bangkok, and other connected locations throughout the kingdom.
The plaintiff sought punishment of the defendants according to the charges, and also sought a joint order for them to repay 2,489 million baht to the victims.
All defendants pleaded not guilty and most were held in detention, with the exception of Miss Sawika Chaidet, Defendant No. 7, who was released on bail of 5 million baht.
After considering the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, the Criminal Court found that the Forex 3D trading in this case, from 24 November 2015 to 8 September 2020, involved investment in global currency fluctuations. The number of victims who filed complaints in this case was 9,822 people, with total damages exceeding 2,473 million baht. Defendant No. 1 was the executive of Defendant Company No. 2. Defendant Company No. 3 advertised and made recommendations through social media, inviting interested individuals to join the investment, promising profits to be distributed across five tiers based on investment level. In the early period, investors received real returns. However, beginning in early 2019, payments began to slow, until by mid-2019 investors could no longer withdraw their money or returns. Eventually, the administrators and Defendant No. 1 announced that they would make full payment by October 2019.
Defendant No. 1 operated several businesses — such as a gas cylinder rental business and a gymnasium — each of which had staff carrying out their duties. However, in the case of the Forex 3D business, which should have been the most lucrative and was supposedly the main business, it was found that employees had no knowledge of or involvement in it and were unaware that such an operation existed, even though it was generating large sums of money for Defendant No. 1. A witness from the Bank of Thailand testified that upon investigation, Defendant Nos. 1 through 3 and the Forex 3D company had never applied for a licence, and no international financial transactions were found. If they had genuinely operated a foreign exchange trading investment business, there would have had to be international money transfers for investment in overseas markets. Furthermore, the Forex 3D business was not licensed to operate in Thailand, and Defendant No. 2 had received authorisation only for currency exchange.
In addition, Defendant No. 1 held a large number of nominee bank accounts and used them to transfer money to victims, demonstrating dishonesty, evasion of scrutiny by government officials, and concealment of financial trails to avoid taxation and account seizure. It was also found that people were hired to open nominee accounts at compensation of between 5,000 and 10,000 baht per account.
The court found that the prosecution's witnesses gave consistent testimony that they had learned of this investment through personal contacts and online media, that they knew Defendant No. 1 was the executive, that the investment involved foreign exchange trading with a guarantee that the company would cover any losses, and that some people had already received real returns, which led them to invest. In the early period they received genuine returns and therefore invested more. The victims' testimony accurately confirmed the sequence and details of events in a manner that would be difficult to fabricate as false accusation; the court found their testimony credible.
The prosecution's evidence was sufficient to establish that Defendants No. 1 through 3 had defrauded people into investing in Forex 3D trading through a scheme designed to lure people into depositing money in what was essentially a Ponzi scheme. Defendants No. 1 through 3 were therefore found guilty of defrauding the public and of posting false information into a computer system, and of jointly fraudulently borrowing money from the public.
As for Defendants No. 6 through 8, they had a close relationship as mother, child, and siblings, and their actions were interrelated. Defendant No. 6 had been close to Defendant No. 1 for a long time and had jointly participated in the construction of Defendant Company No. 2's premises; the company's memorandum of association had been amended several times, and those amendments were carried out by Defendant No. 1 alone. It was found that Defendant No. 6 had opened bank accounts in her own name and in her father's name to receive money.
It was also found that Defendant No. 7 had initially opened an investment portfolio worth 15 million baht; after receiving returns, she continued investing, bringing the total to 30 million baht. Subsequently, Defendant No. 8 invested 2 million baht and received a profit of 2.9 million baht. In addition, photographic evidence was found showing that Defendants No. 7 and 8 had attended social gatherings with Defendant No. 1 on several occasions, including birthday celebrations and Christmas parties. It was also found that Defendants No. 7 and 8 were listed as shareholders in Defendant No. 1's company, which was a foreign exchange-related business.
Among the prosecution's witnesses was Miss Ja Nongphanee Mahadthai, a well-known singer, who testified that Defendant No. 23 had invited her to invest, leading her to make an initial investment of 500,000 baht. Seeing a profit, she then invested a further 8 million baht, before later being unable to withdraw her money. Miss Ja Nongphanee's former boyfriend knew Defendant No. 8 and therefore telephoned to demand repayment; Defendant No. 8 said she would follow up on the matter, after which a certain sum of money was transferred into the witness's account.
It was found that Defendants No. 6 through 8 had been close to Defendant No. 1 for a long time — from before the founding of Forex 3D — and were also shareholders. Looking at the prosecution's evidence, the court found that Defendants No. 6 through 8 were directly involved, and that the investigation by the inquiry officers revealed a financial trail with approximately 40 million baht in circulation linked to them, suggesting they should have known that Forex 3D was a public fraud. However, the prosecution's evidence was not yet conclusive enough to establish this. The court considered that the 40 million baht in circulation involving Defendants No. 6 through 8 may have come from other businesses, and that they may not have known that the Forex 3D business was a fraud — because if they had known, they would not have transferred their own money back as investment to Defendant No. 3, as this would have risked losing their money. Furthermore, Defendant No. 7 was a well-known actress, and the sums in question were not disproportionate to her earning capacity. The amount invested was roughly commensurate with the returns received, indicating that genuine investment had taken place and that false portfolios had not been fabricated to deceive the public. Moreover, Defendants No. 6 through 8 were investors, not recruiters who solicited others into this business.
The court therefore gave Defendants No. 6 through 8 the benefit of the doubt. Reporters present noted that throughout the reading of the verdict, Defendants No. 6 through 8 maintained expressionless faces, but the moment the court stated "the benefit of the doubt is given to the defendants," all three burst into tears and embraced one another in joy at the verdict.
Regarding Defendants No. 5, 9, 11, and 21, the court found that Defendant No. 5 had written the program for the Forex 3D website and was well acquainted with the details; 62 million baht had passed through his account, and he had no employment contract or evidence to support his claim; his expertise in programming was therefore merely an assertion that was insufficiently credible to rebut the prosecution's evidence. Immediately after the court finished reading the verdict concerning Defendant No. 5, he broke down in tears.
Defendant No. 9, who served as Defendant No. 1's personal secretary, had a share in the management of Defendant Company No. 2 and Company No. 3, and was therefore considered a principal co-offender in the said offences.
Defendant No. 11, who was responsible for managing the company's documents under the supervision of Defendant No. 9, had acted in a manner giving grounds to believe that he was aware of the purpose of the fraudulent public borrowing, and was therefore deemed a principal co-offender together with Defendants No. 1 through 3, making him guilty as charged.
As for Defendant No. 21, who is the wife of Defendant No. 1 and has lived with him as husband and wife since 2015, she had posted on social media displaying a luxurious lifestyle after the Forex 3D business commenced. Investigation revealed that 90 million baht had circulated through Defendant No. 21's accounts, with no apparent source from any identifiable business. The defendant claimed that the money was transferred to her monthly and on special occasions by her husband, Defendant No. 1, while also claiming to be a homemaker — a claim that contradicted the fact that she was listed as the chairperson of a cosmetics company. The defendant's assertions were therefore not credible enough to rebut the prosecution's evidence.
The court ruled that Defendants No. 1, 5, 9, 11, and 21 were guilty of fraudulently borrowing money from the public, violations of the Computer Crime Act, and defrauding the public. As these offences constituted a single course of conduct falling under multiple legal provisions, the sentence was imposed under the most severe provision — fraudulent public borrowing — imposing a sentence of 5 years per count, with 9,822 counts, for a total of 49,110 years' imprisonment per defendant. They were also jointly ordered to repay all 9,822 victims the amounts defrauded and borrowed from them, plus interest.
The court also fined Defendant Companies No. 2 and 3, being juristic persons, at 500,000 baht per count across 9,822 counts, amounting to a fine of 4,911 million baht each.
However, as the law provides for a maximum custodial sentence of 20 years, the court determined that Defendants No. 1, 5, 9, 11, and 21 are to be imprisoned for 20 years each in accordance with the law. The remaining defendants were acquitted, including Miss Sawika Chaidet — "Pinky" — her brother, and her mother. (The defendants acquitted are Nos. 4, 6–8, 10, 12–20, and 22–24.)
Miss Sawika, or Pinky, made a brief statement after hearing the verdict, saying she was not yet ready to give an interview, but that she was happy the court had acquitted her mother, herself, and her brother, and that she would go to collect her mother and brother from prison. When a reporter asked whether she could be interviewed outside the prison after collecting her mother and brother, Pinky said she was still not ready to give any interviews and wished to go by the information stated in the court's verdict, while wearing a smile that conveyed a sense of relief.
As for Aphirak and the other defendants sentenced to imprisonment by the court, none of them submitted bail applications.
The full list of all 24 defendants in order is as follows: 1. Mr. Aphirak Kodthi; 2. RMS Familia Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. Sarayut, also known as Kittichest Chaidet; 3. MeDePay Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. Sitthanatat Phothi-ngoen; 4. Mr. Sitthanatat Phothi-ngoen; 5. Mr. Suphinyo Meesomprat; 6. Mr. Sarayut, also known as Kittichest Chaidet — Pinky's brother; 7. Miss Sawika Chaidet, also known as "Pinky," former well-known actress; 8. Mrs. Sarinya Chaidet — Pinky's and Sarayut's mother; 9. Mr. Natthathee Pheerachairom, also known as Mr. Warit Asher, also known as Mr. Phasit Suphasakthananin; 10. Mr. Siramest Supaksiriprasat; 11. Mr. Thatsiwat Chanthanukun; 12. Mr. Phatiphan Manat; 13. Mr. Anupong Chunlamusik; 14. Mr. Nawaphon Rueang-aksorn; 15. Mr. Raphiphat Phiromchan; 16. Mr. Surasit Khamyan; 17. Mr. Nattaphong Panyawong; 18. Mrs. Nongnuch Kodthi; 19. Mr. Kittichai Kodthi; 20. Mr. Abdulhakim Pimamae; 21. Miss Phakhamon Silun; 22. Mr. Kasom Konlapraneet; 23. Miss Thanyanan Natthonchaynatat; and 24. Mr. Thinnakorn Kodthi.
