The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) issued a detailed 5-page statement regarding Saksayam Chidchob. The NACC's resolution does not conflict or contradict the Constitutional Court's ruling. No evidence was found that the Minister of Transport used his authority to interfere or confer benefits. The issue concerning ethical standards remains under investigation.
23 Apr 2026 GMT+7 Mr. Surapong Intarathaworn, Secretary-General of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) as spokesperson for the NACC Office, stated that in response to media reports concerning the NACC Committee's ruling on the case of Mr. Saksayam Chidchob, the NACC Office wishes to clarify the following facts.
1. Regarding the submission of asset and liability declarations to the NACC: Mr. Saksayam submitted such declarations six times while serving as a Member of Parliament (MP) and Minister of Transport, with details as follows.
(1) Upon assuming office as a Member of Parliament (1st term) on 25 May 2019, he submitted the declaration on 11 June 2019.
(2) Upon assuming office as Minister of Transport on 10 July 2019, he submitted the declaration as evidence on 27 September 2019.
(3) Upon leaving the position of Minister of Transport on 3 March 2023, he submitted the declaration on 25 November 2024, delayed by 573 days. This delay was due to the Constitutional Court's ruling No. 1/2567 on 17 January 2024, which terminated his ministerial status retroactively from the Court's suspension order dated 3 March 2023.
(4) Upon leaving the position as Member of Parliament (1st term) on 20 March 2023, he submitted the declaration on 18 April 2023.
(5) Upon assuming office as Member of Parliament (2nd term) on 4 July 2023, he submitted the declaration on 3 August 2023.
(6) Upon leaving the position as Member of Parliament (2nd term) on 17 January 2024, he submitted the declaration on 2 May 2024, delayed by 16 days.
In all six submissions by Mr. Saksayam, there was no record of investment shares in Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership in the asset and liability declarations.
On 17 January 2024, the Constitutional Court ruling No. 1/2567 found that Mr. Saksayam and Mr. S. had agreed to conduct transactions using Mr. Saksayam’s money under Mr. S.’s name. Ultimately, the money was used to purchase TMB-T-ES-DPlus and TMB-T-ES-IPlus mutual funds under Mr. S.’s name, which were then sold to pay for share rights to Mr. Saksayam. Thus, the amount of 119,500,000 baht remained Mr. Saksayam’s property.
Therefore, Mr. Saksayam retained his status as a partner or shareholder in Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership, with Mr. S. holding and managing the shares on his behalf. This constitutes shareholding by a minister held or managed by another person in any manner, which is prohibited under Section 187 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. Consequently, Mr. Saksayam’s ministerial status was terminated individually under Section 170, paragraph one (5) of the Constitution.
When submitting the asset and liability declaration to the NACC upon leaving the MP position (2nd term) on 17 January 2024, Mr. Saksayam submitted a letter explaining the absence of the investment shares in Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership. He stated that Mr. S. disputed ownership of the partnership shares and refused to comply with the Constitutional Court’s ruling, opposing the inclusion of these assets in the declaration. Mr. Saksayam filed a lawsuit against Mr. S. at Nonthaburi Provincial Court to enforce the Constitutional Court’s order, requesting the Court compel Mr. S. to transfer the share rights amounting to 119,500,000 baht back to Mr. Saksayam and to remove Mr. S. as unlimited partner and managing partner, replacing him with Mr. Saksayam.
On 5 June 2025, Mr. Saksayam and Mr. S. reached a settlement agreement at the First Appeals Court, whereby Mr. Saksayam no longer demanded Mr. S. transfer the 119,500,000 baht share rights and acknowledged Mr. S. as the purchaser and rightful shareholder holding unlimited partnership shares. Mr. S. remains the managing partner of Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership, as registered with the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce. Mr. Saksayam admitted selling the shares to Mr. S., who now holds the rights to manage and operate the partnership.
To resolve the dispute, Mr. S. agreed to purchase 19 plots of land from Mr. Saksayam totaling 323 rai and 373 square wah at an average price of 159,000 baht per rai, totaling 51,505,267.50 baht. Mr. S. agreed to pay by 4 July 2025, and Mr. Saksayam agreed to register the land transfer by 9 July 2025. Both parties waived any further claims or legal actions against each other, civil or criminal.
Subsequently, the First Appeals Court approved the settlement as lawful and dismissed the case accordingly. On 9 July 2025, Mr. Saksayam submitted a request to update his asset and liability declarations (all accounts) and submitted supporting documents to reflect the sale and transfer of land rights to Mr. S., in accordance with the settlement payment totaling 51,505,267.50 baht.
According to registration documents from the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce, Mr. Saksayam transferred investment shares in Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership worth 119,499,000 baht to Mr. S. on 26 January 2018 and registered the partnership change on 6 February 2018, before the Constitutional Court ruling on 17 January 2024 concerning Mr. Saksayam.
Mr. Saksayam and Mr. S. completed the purchase and payment of investment shares and registered the shareholding transfer before Mr. Saksayam submitted asset and liability declarations to the NACC in all positions. Later, when the Constitutional Court ruled that Mr. Saksayam’s ministerial status ended because he retained partnership shares held and managed by Mr. S.,
Mr. Saksayam complied with the Court’s ruling by requesting Mr. S. to transfer the investment share rights back to him and to resign as unlimited partner and managing partner of the partnership. Mr. S. ignored this, prompting Mr. Saksayam to file suit at Nonthaburi Provincial Court, leading to the aforementioned settlement and actions to comply with the Constitutional Court’s order to disclose investment share rights for legal follow-up.
Furthermore, after the share purchase and transfer on 6 February 2018, Mr. S. remained registered as managing partner without further amendments. There is no evidence or indication that Mr. Saksayam managed or was involved in the partnership’s operations after the share transfer. Mr. S., as the shareholder, continues to assert ownership and refuses to return the investment shares to Mr. Saksayam, forcing legal action until settlement. After legal procedures concluded, Mr. Saksayam updated his asset declarations with facts and documents concerning land sale and payment to the NACC.
These circumstances show that Mr. Saksayam believed he had legitimately transferred the shares, as the transfer was registered and he took no subsequent management role. Thus, he omitted the shares from his declarations. After the Constitutional Court ruling, he complied and updated the NACC on asset changes. The NACC reviewed the matter on 8 September 2025 and found the asset declarations accurate and genuine. The asset verification showed no irregularities, leading to a public disclosure per the Anti-Corruption Act (2018), Section 111.
Therefore, regarding Mr. Saksayam’s omission of investment shares in Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership in his asset declarations, it cannot be concluded that he intentionally submitted false information or concealed facts, nor that he intended to hide the source of assets or liabilities. This finding by the NACC differs from the Constitutional Court’s ruling on his ministerial status. The NACC considered the Constitutional Court’s decision in its resolution.
Hence, the NACC’s resolution does not conflict or contradict the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Moreover, the Constitutional Court’s ruling occurred after Mr. Saksayam had submitted his asset declarations to the NACC.
2. Regarding complaints against Mr. Saksayam when serving as Minister of Transport about having a vested interest in Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership, and retaining partnership status while allegedly using his authority to interfere with state officials to benefit the partnership and affiliated legal entities contracting with the Department of Highways and Department of Rural Roads under his supervision,
initial investigations collected evidence, including testimony from 25 witnesses and information from the Ministry of Transport, Department of Highways, Department of Rural Roads, Department of Business Development, Election Commission, Office of the Auditor General, and TMBThanachart Bank (Public) along with the Constitutional Court ruling No. 1/2567. It was found that the Court acknowledged Mr. Saksayam retained partnership status with Mr. S. holding and managing the partnership on his behalf. Questions remained whether this shareholding constituted a conflict between personal and public interests.
Since Mr. S. held shares and managed the partnership, contracting with the Department of Highways and Department of Rural Roads, there is no evidence that Mr. Saksayam directly used his ministerial authority or exercised any related power over the partnership’s contractual activities. No interference by Mr. Saksayam as Minister of Transport in procurement processes was found. Procurement approval authority rests with department heads, not the minister. There is no evidence Mr. Saksayam abused his ministerial power to benefit the partnership or colluded in price-fixing among private bidders for contracts with the Department of Highways or Department of Rural Roads.
Reviewing contracts between Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership and the Ministry of Transport before Mr. Saksayam assumed the ministerial role on 10 July 2019 and during his tenure until 3 March 2023, the partnership averaged 27 contracts annually, showing no abnormal increase compared to before his tenure. Witnesses confirmed that bidding with the Departments of Highways and Rural Roads from 2019 to 2023 followed standard competitive procedures through the government’s electronic procurement system (E-bidding), without ministerial involvement or illegal bidding activities.
Financial statements showed Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership began earning annual profits exceeding 10 million baht in 2016, after increasing capital registered in 2015 to expand operations. Assets rose from about 77 million baht in 2014 to about 147 million baht in 2015, five accounting years before Mr. Saksayam became Minister of Transport, thus unrelated to his official powers.
Additionally, inquiries with the Office of the Auditor General found no complaints alleging that Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership or other legal entities winning contracts with the Departments of Highways and Rural Roads from fiscal years 2019 to 2023 received procurement process interference or benefits from Mr. Saksayam while he was Minister of Transport. Evidence thus does not support allegations that Mr. Saksayam abused his official authority, interfered with procurement, or violated any laws.
3. Regarding serious violations or non-compliance with ethical standards, complaints on this issue remain under preliminary investigation. .