“Parinya” criticizes the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for their statement that “Saksayam” did not intend to conceal asset declarations, calling it unconvincing. He cites the Constitutional Court’s ruling which has already decisively shown that “Saksayam” used nominees to hold shares instead. “Wiroj” expresses concern about unequal application of the law in Thai society.,
At 14:30 on 23 April 2026, the Newsroom program broadcast on Thairath TV featured Assoc. Prof. Parinya Devanaromitrakul from Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law and Mr. Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn, Deputy Leader of the People’s Party. They shared their views on the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s statement expressing the opinion that Mr. Saksayam Chidchob did not intend to conceal assets and liabilities in relation to his ownership of shares and a limited partnership in Buririchai Construction.
Assoc. Prof. Parinya stated that the NACC’s explanation that Mr. Saksayam did not intentionally conceal asset declarations is unconvincing, especially since the company was still located at the residence of the accused (Mr. Saksayam) at that time. He further referenced the Constitutional Court’s ruling that Mr. Saksayam is considered a nominee, as he once billed fuel expenses “following the gentleman.” The court has already ruled that Mr. Saksayam used nominees to hold shares on his behalf. However, Parinya expressed surprise that the NACC’s explanation included Mr. S’s refusal to accept the Constitutional Court’s ruling in their consideration, despite the court’s clear decision. Importantly, it involved shares valued at 119 million baht under dispute, which were settled for only 51 million baht. Assoc. Prof. Parinya also said,
“The more I read, the more suspicious I become.”
Furthermore, the NACC did not disclose how many government projects Buririchai Construction had secured before 2019, when Mr. Saksayam assumed the position of Minister of Transport. The explanation raises more doubts. They relied on a civil court order to adjust Mr. Saksayam’s current asset declaration. “I want to emphasize that the matter of hiding shares has already been ruled on by the Constitutional Court. I do not believe Mr. S had sufficient income to purchase such shares, which means he intentionally concealed assets in his declaration,” Parinya stated. He added that the key issue is that asset declarations are to be examined only during the tenure of office holders, not retroactively corrected. Therefore, the NACC’s explanation could set a precedent for other ministers using nominees to hold shares, implying such individuals have no intent to conceal assets.
This sets a bad precedent.
Meanwhile, Mr. Wiroj admitted that after reading the NACC’s explanation, he believes it was intentionally confusing to avoid answering questions. He questioned whether the agency is truly the NACC or acting as Mr. Saksayam’s lawyer, as their explanation worsens the situation. He asked whether they had questioned Mr. Saksayam about the source of funds used to purchase shares worth 119.5 million baht, and whether they had thoroughly investigated if Mr. S is genuinely the CEO accepted by other shareholders. He also questioned if there was an actual legal dispute between Mr. S and Mr. Saksayam or if the courts were used merely to benefit Mr. Saksayam. The Constitutional Court did not order Mr. S to return the shares but ruled that Mr. Saksayam used nominees to hold shares on his behalf. Therefore, the NACC’s decision sets a poor precedent for ministers who use nominees to hold shares. He expressed concern about Thai society facing unequal application of the law.