Previously, Khet Thanthap together with his wife, Nat Thaksaya, were linked by various pages using initials to allegations of embezzling Art Toy funds. Recently, Khet, Nat, and their lawyer held a press conference to clarify the business dispute over SEA Games licensed merchandise. They denied any embezzlement or unpaid debts as alleged, adding that a person claiming to be a broker used threats and false information that damaged their long-established reputation.
Nat: "Our company was assigned to manage the rights to use the SEA Games emblem solely for producing merchandise—specifically the products sold to the public, produced by various manufacturers. We oversee management, distribution, and ensure compliance with all regulations."
She continued, "After the event, all sales and stock figures were reconciled and verified without issues, except for one party involved in the news, which I will refer to as Art Toy Company."
"Using the emblem for merchandise production is not through contract manufacturing; interested producers must apply and propose their designs. Approval comes from the committee, not us, based on design, quality, and price. The problematic Art Toy Company had permission to produce a total of 20,000 pieces."
"Before the problem arose, I'd like to explain that there are two types of licensing agreements: one where the license fee is paid once upfront and production proceeds, and another where revenue is shared. We agreed on the latter, and there were no issues with that. Production was limited to the agreed quantities only; use of the emblem for other purposes or stockpiling merchandise was not permitted."
"The problem surfaced after completion and verification of sales. Upon auditing, we found that out of the 20,000 pieces approved, only 6,000 were actually imported without prior notice or permission—this was the first issue."
"Secondly, during stock counting, we discovered 1,530 pieces missing from the 6,000. So, from the original 20,000, only 6,000 arrived, and from those, 1,530 were missing. We were told those were distributed without permission, which was unauthorized."
"All revenue collected was forwarded to the benefits committee, including operational fees. The main issue involved the 1,530 missing pieces. After concluding the review, our team submitted this figure, but we could not accept it and insisted on revenue sharing as usual. The dispute was over the share from these 1,530 units."
"One false claim in the news was that the items completely vanished intentionally. In reality, they did not disappear; we have ongoing communication records. When the news broke, Nat was confused because the figures had already been verbally confirmed beforehand."
"Today, after the news and media references, Art Toy Company contacted us to discuss and has now agreed on the figures. They do not want to escalate the matter."
"We want to emphasize that the company and its staff were not involved in leaking the false news, which is something Nat finds puzzling—so who was responsible?"
Khet: "There are two issues. The company matter has been resolved. The problem lies with a group claiming to be brokers who introduced us to the contracting party, then contacted us afterward. We always thought they represented the company."
Nat: "I only found out a few days ago that they weren't."
Khet: "They are professional brokers who have been threatening us continuously. We believe all facts are clear and truthful; we have nothing to fear. Yet, those who threatened us proceeded to use my name—albeit abbreviated—on various pages. In my 30 years of work, I've never been publicly accused like this. I feel this is unjust."
"I want to clarify to all media that I have always been reachable. Anyone who knows me knows how to contact me. I never avoid problems, but this time I was hurt by what happened."
"Regarding those who spread the news and intermediaries: I am well known; you operate in the shadows, thinking you can damage someone publicly whenever you want. Is that fair to me?"
Khet: "They invited me to appear on a popular show, asking if I wanted to join. I told them I already have the host's number and was in contact. I think they just wanted satisfaction. They even told my wife, 'Check who I am,' using those exact words."
Nat: "The threats started around early May."
Khet: "While working with them, they knew some of my contacts. Some senior people called to check on this, which we understood. After explaining, they agreed it was correct. But the brokers could contact anyone, which we saw as intimidation."
Nat: "Other respected seniors also contacted a third party to communicate with us. The threats lasted a while. At first, we laughed it off, wondering what was wrong with them."
Khet: "We wondered if they were crazy. The truth was unclear. Later, we learned they weren't company staff, shareholders, or involved with the company at all. Simply put, they wanted a commission but resorted to habitual threats from day one, even wearing uniforms of certain agencies to intimidate."
Is this person really a broker?
Nat: "We only learned later. We always thought he was company staff and even joked about talking to a ghost due to conflicting information. The company itself was shocked and saddened by the news. Art Toy still invited us to continue doing business and thanked us for the opportunity."
"In reality, this is a dispute between two contracting companies. Khet Thanthap himself is not involved. But because people know us, we were dragged into this. Nowadays, anyone can post false accusations on social media and internet pages."
Khet: "We will clarify the facts later, but people have already judged me from the first post."
How did this broker come about?
Nat: "I was contacted by the rights committee, who said this person wanted to produce merchandise, so they referred him to us. We manage the process. Also, claims on the show that leftover stock was donated are false—we never accept donated items. Some products sold out; others remain varying by producer. All returns were sent back; the company has no storage or warehouse."
What about the claim of distortion?
Nat: "I argued with the lawyer because I don't know the law well, but 'distort' implies fraud or default, which we did not do. We base discussions on facts acknowledged by all. Stock audits were conducted with officials present. If we complied with their demands, that would mean distorting the benefits for the country. The figures they pressured us to accept were incorrect. I never thought this would become news."
What legal action will be taken against the other party?
Lawyer: "We have filed a complaint with the police for defamation by advertising. The investigation is ongoing. We are also reviewing whether computer crime laws apply."
Khet: "Honestly, I never spoke with him personally or knew him."
Nat: "We only met at work events. Khet never chatted with him. Messages were sent to a third party, who relayed them to me. Khet only communicated as necessary."
Khet: "We refused to pay because they wouldn't accept the correct amounts, only the incorrect figures."
Nat: "We sent a confirmation letter of the figures for approval. Once accepted, we could pay."
Khet: "We manage the benefits properly and forward everything. We do not pocket money, so how could we embezzle?"
Is there an attempt to correct inaccurate figures?
Nat: "It's impossible to alter records. All production requests are reported to the committee. The 20,000 units are on record, but only 6,000 were produced, with 1,530 missing. They want us to pay for 6,000 units, about 600,000 baht, but after deducting the missing 1,530, the correct amount is about 200,000 baht—a 400,000 baht difference."
Khet: "Now you understand why I initially laughed at the fuss over this amount, which is small compared to other deals."
Nat: "The correct, audited stock numbers were settled with everyone except one party by March."
Khet: "I think the individual involved just wanted satisfaction. We must distinguish between the company and individuals. I believe the individual succeeded in their attempt."
How has this affected your business?
Nat: "That's why we're speaking today. Anyone who knows Khet or me can see we rarely post on social media, especially not sarcastic or negative posts. This situation feels very unfair to Khet."
"We have seen many such cases where anyone can post false accusations online. This is not right. Also, from a business perspective, only one side's story was told; we never spoke up. So we decided to clarify so everyone understands."
Khet: "We are not just actors; we are executives managing several companies and teams. False accusations harm us and are unfair. We take this opportunity to present the truth for everyone's peace of mind."
What outcome do you expect?
Nat: "The company matter is resolved between the contracting parties."
Lawyer: "We will let the investigation proceed and update the media on the results. Authorities are currently examining electronic evidence."
Nat: "Those who spread falsehoods must face legal consequences."
Nat: "We urge all media to investigate how the news originated and who leaked it, as some information was internal documents."
Khet: "Please help find the evidence of who leaked the news. We know the pages and sources. One person even appeared on a show anonymously blaming me, but he is not company staff. It's absurd. The interview is on YouTube for anyone to verify."
Is this situation causing stress?
Khet: "Honestly, I'm not stressed, just angry (laughs). I avoid trouble but dislike injustice. Introducing false data into computer systems is serious. If it happened to me, imagine how it affects others. I want to remind everyone."
Nat: "We are not emotionally tough, but we have resilience. If someone fragile faced this, it would be harmful, especially since the accusations are entirely false, from start to finish, with no clarity on their origin."
Khet: "The headlines come with ghost comments tagging me. Why do this? Watching too many dramas or series? We should stay grounded in reality."
Is everything settled with the contracting company?
Nat: "Both contracting companies have no issues. They recently signed acknowledgment documents with no problems."
Has the broker contacted you again?
Nat: "He still messages, demanding which amount we will pay. His commission would come from the other party, not us. I just recently learned he is not company staff—quite a revelation."
Khet: "Such broker professions do exist."
Nat: "He wants 600,000 baht, but we said no. Considering the missing 1,530 pieces, the correct amount is about 200,000 baht."
Khet: "We each have different views. I conduct business and public work straightforwardly. I don't know how the team works internally, nor do I want to get involved. This incident teaches everyone that silence isn't always best; we should defend our rights."
What message do you have for pages spreading misleading information?
Khet: "I don't dare address them. They violate ethics from the start, which is excessive. Everyone is responsible for their work, including pages. Especially for public figures, information can be verified with minimal effort. The monetary damage is minor compared to the reputation I've built over 30 years. Why should I suffer this? It's unjust."
Nat: "I ask media and pages to understand business and engagement. We run online businesses and want engagement too, but presentations should be balanced and give us a chance. Thank you for allowing us to share our truthful side. Facts are always more interesting than fiction."
Khet: "Thank you for letting us speak today. I feel much better and have calmed down."
Click to read
Entertainment NewsMore