Local civil service exam fraud reveals suspicious identity impersonation networks, with embedded brokers nationwide selling operational-level positions for 500,000 to 700,000 baht each. Transactions are conducted in cash or via loan contracts.
The 2025 competitive exam for local administrative organization (LAO) recruitment is under major investigation after the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Central Investigation Police, and Department of Local Administration Promotion uncovered cheating networks. This led to expanded inquiries including visits to the printing house in Pak Khlong Bang Pla Kod Subdistrict, Phra Samut Chedi District, Samut Prakan Province, which prints exam papers, and the release of audio clips revealing negotiations and sales of positions, mentioning sales involving about one thousand individuals.
Corruption in local government exams is not a new issue but has long been known within circles trading positions from operational to managerial levels. Thairath Online's special report consulted sources familiar with local exams who confirmed that cheating schemes have existed for many years and evolved with changing times and technology. Since local administrations began conducting their own exams after 1997, these fraud networks have grown increasingly sophisticated and nationwide.
When asked about the reported involvement of over a thousand people in buying and selling exam passes, sources said this number is unsurprising. The main vulnerability appears to stem from the Department of Local Administration Promotion. Rumors about exam leaks at a certain university are less critical as that university strongly asserts its integrity.
The most suspicious aspect of local exam fraud lies in the result announcement process, possibly involving name manipulation aligned with sold quotas. Intriguingly, brokers are distributed across northern, northeastern, southern regions, and nationwide. The purchased candidate lists are sent centrally, where names of successful candidates are replaced during announcements. This indicates the fraud does not involve answer sheet forgery.
Irregularities are evident in the exam score viewing process; unlike past years when scores were accessible online, this time the process was convoluted and lacked proper transparency. This suggests name substitution schemes involving state officials, particularly those embedded in the Department of Local Administration Promotion across all regions.
If the fraud involved only tampering with answer sheets, there would be no need to individually alter names during result announcements. This case likely involves high-level authorities, as lower-level personnel would not dare act without top-level approval. It remains to be seen whether investigations will reach these senior figures.
Available data suggests the masterminds hold national-level political positions and belong to powerful local networks that interfere by placing loyal individuals to create corruption opportunities.
Regarding bribery in local exam fraud, sources reported that each area has brokers known to guarantee exam success. Some agreements are verbal with cash payments, others involve loan contracts. Brokers collect candidate names to forward to central networks. These brokers are well known within the community, and most are government officials.
Bribery amounts for local civil service operational positions (levels C1-C3) range from 500,000 to 700,000 baht, with some positions in certain areas costing up to one million baht, especially senior expert roles or promotions.
Brokers range from local villagers who seek clients; this practice has existed since the civil service exam system began. Each exam cycle, these brokers earn vast sums.
Most payments for local exam fraud are in cash. Additionally, the exam occurs infrequently but opens many positions at once, increasing competition and the number of clients willing to pay for guaranteed success.
However, some 'ghost brokers' deceive candidates by promising success upon payment but fail to deliver results. This scam is widespread, and perpetrators remain at large because victims hesitate to file complaints due to the illegality of their own actions.
In this case, disqualifying all successful candidates is not advisable. Each case should be reviewed individually to avoid unjustly penalizing honest candidates who earned their positions fairly.