Beauty queen Boom Panadda is at the centre of a widening probe into charity funds involving up to ฿1bn in transactions. Police examine ฿45m paid to a contractor, a Phuket villa and disputed military land. She denies wrongdoing as criminal action looms next week.
Thai celebrity and former Miss Thailand Panadda Wongphudee, known as Boom Panadda, faces a major police probe into charity transactions approaching ฿1 billion. On Monday, November 2, police signalled possible criminal action within a week. Meanwhile, Deputy Minister of the Interior Polpeera Suwannachawi ordered a financial investigation, warning her foundation could lose its registration. At the heart of the scandal are ฿45 million in disputed contractor payments, a Phuket luxury villa and her husband, businessman Athip Anantawan. He admits deceiving her, while she denies wrongdoing and has taken her complaint to police. Separately, officials are investigating suspected military land encroachment. The foundation has suspended donations and Boom’s leadership duties. Police are examining fraud and money laundering claims, with key findings expected by November 9.
Thai police are preparing for possible criminal proceedings in a widening scandal engulfing celebrity and former beauty queen Panadda Wongphudee. Known nationally as Boom Panadda, she faces mounting scrutiny over charitable donations and disputed financial transfers.
On Monday, November 2, senior police signalled that decisive developments could follow within a week. At the same time, Deputy Minister of the Interior Polpeera Suwannachawi ordered an investigation into her charitable foundation.
He warned that its registration could be revoked if financial misconduct was established. The affair also involves her husband, a luxury villa project and suspected encroachment on military land.
Police probe nearly ฿1 billion in foundation transactions as Boom Panadda files complaint against husband
At the centre of the scandal is the Good Deeds Foundation, an organisation closely associated with Boom’s public reputation. Police are examining financial transactions potentially involving hundreds of millions of baht.
Preliminary reports have placed the figure as high as ฿1 billion. However, investigators have not established that this represents missing donations or criminal losses. Officers must determine how the money was collected, who controlled it and where it went. Crucially, they must distinguish legitimate charitable expenditure from any unauthorised transfers.
On Tuesday morning, November 3, Boom and her lawyer, Eksit Srisang, arrived at the Crime Suppression Division. They appeared at approximately 9.30 am to pursue a complaint against her husband and others.
The proceedings concern disputed transactions connected with a luxury pool villa development in Phuket. Boom maintains that her husband deceived her and concealed important financial arrangements. Meanwhile, police are investigating the foundation itself, including transactions linked to the same construction contractor.
Separately, online commentator Boonyanuch Saengsri, known as Oil Sri, was expected at the Prime Minister’s Office at 10.30 am. She was seeking further scrutiny of the foundation’s financial dealings.
Public fraud complaint triggers police inquiry as former Miss Thailand faces scrutiny over charity funds
Previously, she lodged a police complaint alleging possible public fraud, computer crime and money laundering. Her allegations triggered an investigation by the Central Investigation Bureau. Nevertheless, police have not established whether any of those offences occurred.
The affair has attracted enormous attention because Boom is one of Thailand’s most recognisable public personalities.
The 50-year-old former beauty queen won Miss Thailand in 2000. Subsequently, she established a successful career as an actress, television presenter and prominent media figure. She also holds a doctorate in business administration and has worked as a university lecturer. Her public profile extends far beyond entertainment.
Over the past decade, Boom developed a substantial reputation through charitable work and emergency assistance. Her activities included helping vulnerable people, organising relief operations and supporting those facing hardship.
Moreover, she became closely associated with fundraising campaigns involving celebrities and ordinary citizens. Her name became a prominent part of the foundation’s identity. Donations flowed into an organisation whose activities were closely associated with her public standing.
Boom’s border role and charity profile put her foundation’s finances under intense police examination
In 2025, Boom was appointed spokeswoman for Thailand’s Ad Hoc Centre for the Thailand-Cambodia Border Situation. The appointment placed her in a prominent position during heightened tensions between the neighbouring countries.
It also extended her public profile into sensitive national affairs. Consequently, the financial investigation involves a celebrity recognised well beyond television and charitable fundraising.
Her Good Deeds organisation began activities around 2019. However, the foundation was formally registered only in 2024. Its fundraising attracted contributions from celebrities, public figures and ordinary citizens.
Investigators are therefore examining financial activity both before and after formal registration. They must establish which transactions involved personal accounts and which belonged to the foundation. Furthermore, they must determine whether money collected for particular purposes was spent accordingly.
The scandal first developed around October 22. Questions emerged over approximately 100 rai of government land in Nakhon Nayok province. The land, equivalent to roughly 16 hectares, was reportedly connected with Boom’s husband, businessman Athip Anantawan, known as Got.
Government land dispute in Nakhon Nayok prompts investigation into officials and military property
The CSI LA Facebook page publicised concerns about the property. Soon afterwards, authorities began examining claims of unauthorised occupation and possible involvement by local government officials.
The disputed land is state property administered by the Ministry of Finance. Permission for its use had been granted to the Ministry of Defence. The controversy therefore raised questions about occupation of military-designated land and possible assistance from government personnel.
Investigators are examining whether officials facilitated or overlooked any improper occupation. In parallel, separate inquiries are examining the roles of senior officials and local administrative leaders.
On October 27, Boom addressed the controversy at a press conference. She denied involvement in her husband’s disputed land dealings. She also announced her intention to divorce him. During the appearance, she described serious marital and financial problems. These included her claim that more than ฿7 million had disappeared from a safe. Her statements placed the breakdown of her marriage directly alongside the developing land investigation.
Police examine ฿45 million in contractor payments as Phuket villa controversy widens beyond land row
Yet the controversy quickly moved beyond the land dispute and her personal relationship. Attention turned towards financial transactions involving the foundation and a construction contractor. The contractor, identified as Chang Ae, was connected with building work in Pathum Thani and Phuket. Questions then emerged over whether foundation money had been transferred into private construction arrangements.
Reports identified approximately ฿45 million transferred from accounts associated with the foundation to the contractor. The payments became a central issue in the investigation. Questions arose over whether money intended for charitable construction had been redirected towards private projects.
In addition, the contractor described financial arrangements involving Boom’s husband. Those statements intensified scrutiny of the foundation’s accounts and the destination of money paid for construction.
According to the contractor’s account, Athip instructed him to transfer several million baht into a personal account. That claim raised further questions about the destination of money originally paid for construction work.
Investigators must establish whether the transfers were authorised. They must also determine who instructed the contractor and whether the payments matched legitimate construction expenditure. The transactions have become central to the competing explanations offered by those involved.
Boom denies knowing about Phuket pool villa as contractor challenges her account of disputed payments
Boom insists that payments associated with the foundation concerned legitimate construction work at Khlong 8 in Pathum Thani. She maintains that she did not knowingly finance the disputed Phuket pool villa development.
She has also raised concerns about documents allegedly bearing forged signatures. Her explanation is that her husband concealed important information about the arrangements. Even so, investigators must establish how the payments were authorised and recorded.
Athip has publicly admitted deceiving her about the construction project. By contrast, the contractor has presented a different account concerning Boom’s knowledge of the Phuket development. Police must therefore examine conflicting statements alongside financial records, contracts and payment instructions.
The investigation must establish the origin, purpose and destination of each disputed transfer. It must also determine whether any foundation money ultimately financed private construction.
On Monday, November 2, Boom addressed the controversy during an appearance on the television programme Hone Krasae. She acknowledged knowing about a private residence being constructed in Phuket.
Beauty queen admits ฿900,000 Phuket house payment and pursues police complaint against her husband
However, she denied knowing about the disputed pool villa arrangements. She also confirmed transferring ฿900,000 towards what she understood to be a private residence. That admission added another financial transaction to the growing controversy.
Boom distinguished that payment from the larger transactions under investigation. She maintained that she had trusted her husband and had not understood the full financial arrangements.
At the same time, questions continued over the contractor’s account and the movement of money between accounts. Her explanation did not resolve the separate questions surrounding foundation expenditure.
Asked why she had not immediately filed a police complaint against Athip, Boom said her lawyer was gathering evidence. She insisted that legal action would follow. The Thai celebrity also pledged to cooperate with investigators and said she would not evade the police process. She acknowledged having placed considerable trust in her husband. By Tuesday morning, she had arrived at the Crime Suppression Division with her lawyer to pursue the matter.
The Good Deeds Foundation had already taken action following the growing controversy. On October 29, it announced that Boom would temporarily cease performing her duties as chairwoman.
Foundation removes Boom from chairwoman’s duties, suspends donations and faces permit queries
Deputy chairwoman Pornphan Phumarin was appointed acting chairwoman. As a result, Boom was removed from active leadership while financial questions remained unresolved. Responsibility for the foundation’s immediate management passed to another senior official.
The foundation also suspended donations through all channels. The decision followed mounting questions over its financial transactions and construction projects. Its management acknowledged concerns surrounding contractor payments.
However, it maintained that some construction work had been completed and facilities were already operating. The organisation now faced simultaneous scrutiny of its finances, management and building projects.
Further difficulties emerged on Monday when authorities examined the foundation’s construction site in Pathum Thani. Reports indicated that several buildings or alterations did not match submitted construction permissions. Consequently, work was ordered suspended pending additional checks.
The construction issue created another regulatory problem for the organisation. Police were also examining whether payments complied with the foundation’s registered purposes and internal financial rules.
Central Investigation Bureau examines fraud and laundering claims against Boom and her charity
On Monday, Police Lieutenant General Natthasak Chaowanasai, Commissioner of the Central Investigation Bureau, outlined the criminal investigation. He confirmed that officers were examining information supplied by Boonyanuch Saengsri.
She operates the Facebook page Oil Sri and the Gang. Her complaint names Boom and the foundation in connection with suspected public fraud and other offences. The commissioner said investigators had been instructed to examine several issues raised by her allegations.
Investigators are examining possible violations of the Computer Crime Act and money laundering legislation. However, Natthasak stressed that police must first establish whether criminal offences occurred.
He said investigators were examining several separate financial questions. These included the foundation’s internal rules, spending authority and possible diversion of donations. The inquiry also covers transactions involving individuals connected with the organisation.
The police commissioner said officers must determine whether donations were spent according to their stated purposes. They must also examine the foundation’s rules governing expenditure and financial approval. Notably, particular attention is being paid to the chairwoman’s authority to authorise payments.
Police are checking whether individual transactions exceeded permitted spending limits. The findings will establish whether expenditure followed the foundation’s formal procedures.
Police scrutinise board approvals and spending limits as investigators trace foundation construction funds
Where board approval was required, investigators must establish whether that approval was obtained. Natthasak explained that expenditure beyond authorised limits could require further investigation.
Officers would examine whether transactions were properly presented to the foundation’s board. They would also check compliance with regulations administered by the Ministry of Interior. The inquiry therefore covers both financial transactions and the decisions authorising them.
The investigation extends beyond the amount of money transferred. Investigators must establish whether payments followed the foundation’s approved procedures. They must also determine whether management decisions complied with the organisation’s registered objectives.
Any expenditure outside those arrangements would require further examination. Moreover, police must determine whether improper transactions, if established, involved criminal conduct.
On another front, the money laundering investigation involves a separate examination of financial movements. Police are looking at whether assets were transferred, altered or passed to other individuals or organisations.
Money laundering inquiry follows transfers as police verify reports of nearly ฿1 billion in transactions
Such transactions would require assessment against the relevant criminal legislation. However, the existence of transfers alone does not establish money laundering. Investigators must first determine whether the evidence supports the suspected offences.
Natthasak also addressed the enormous amounts circulating in media reports. He said preliminary information suggested donations and related transactions ranging from ฿100 million to nearly ฿1 billion.
Nevertheless, those figures required detailed verification against financial records. Police have not established that the entire amount represents charitable donations or financial losses. The commissioner stressed that investigators needed to examine the transactions individually.
Investigators are examining activities dating back to approximately 2019. This includes transactions involving individuals before the foundation’s formal registration in 2024. As such, the inquiry covers a longer period than the organisation’s registered existence. Officers must distinguish earlier personal fundraising from subsequent foundation operations. They must also establish whether financial arrangements changed after registration.
Investigators trace fundraising back to 2019 and examine whether small donors were deceived by appeals
Police must also examine how money entered the accounts and where it subsequently went. The inquiry includes personal finances, donations received and foundation management decisions. Investigators are reviewing the information supplied by the original complainant.
Natthasak said additional evidence would be examined during a meeting later on Monday. The findings would guide subsequent decisions on the investigation.
The commissioner also explained how individual donors could become complainants in a public fraud case. Boonyanuch reportedly donated ฿1,000. However, Natthasak said the size of a contribution would not determine whether someone qualified as a victim. Instead, investigators would examine whether donors had been deceived when transferring money.
If public fraud were established, anyone deceived into donating money could potentially be recognised as a victim. That could include contributions of ฿5, ฿10, ฿1,000 or considerably larger amounts.
Yet police must first prove that deception occurred. The amount donated would not independently establish whether a criminal offence had been committed. The inquiry could consequently involve contributors who transferred relatively small sums.
Natthasak also rejected suggestions that responsibility could automatically be confined to one individual. He said investigators would pursue anyone implicated by the evidence. The number of suspects would depend on the findings.
Police reject single-person responsibility as November 9 deadline approaches for possible legal action
Furthermore, police would examine each person’s involvement rather than accept an arrangement placing responsibility on one individual. The commissioner made clear that evidence would determine who faced proceedings.
Asked whether summonses or arrest warrants could follow this week or next, Natthasak declined to give a firm commitment. Decisions would depend on the evidence, possible offences and value of any established losses.
Even so, he indicated that greater clarity should emerge by Monday, November 9. That date has become an important deadline in the developing investigation. Police could then determine whether further compulsory legal measures were justified.
Police were scheduled to review additional evidence during a meeting later on November 2. Investigators have also invited people holding relevant information to come forward. Reports indicate that several celebrities and media personalities could be approached as witnesses or complainants. Their evidence could help establish how fundraising campaigns operated and what contributors understood about the donations.
Among those mentioned are television presenter Num Kanchai and news presenter Phut Apiwan. Actresses Bella Ranee and Chompoo Araya A. Hargate have also been named in reports.
Celebrity witnesses may be called as police demand evidence and promise fair treatment for all parties
Their possible involvement reflects the foundation’s extensive connections within Thailand’s entertainment industry. However, being approached as a witness does not establish involvement in wrongdoing. Police are seeking information relevant to fundraising and the foundation’s activities.
Natthasak insisted that proceedings must remain fair to all parties. That included the complainants, Boom and the foundation. He said investigators would examine personal finances, donations and management decisions before determining whether charges were justified.
In particular, he maintained that every stage of the investigation would depend on evidence. No decision on criminal responsibility had been announced.
In parallel, Deputy Minister of the Interior Polpeera Suwannachawi announced a separate government investigation on Monday. He said he had instructed the Director-General of the Department of Provincial Administration to examine the foundation’s finances. The order brought another government agency directly into the controversy. It also placed the foundation’s registration under official scrutiny.
Interior Ministry examines donations, tax records and private transfers as foundation faces licence loss
The review covers the source of donations, other income and tax records. Officials are also examining whether foundation money was transferred to private organisations. They are checking whether money subsequently returned through other accounts.
Polpeera said such transactions would require detailed explanations. He indicated that Boom would need to clarify the financial movements highlighted in media reports.
He expected the department’s preliminary findings on Tuesday, November 3. The deputy minister warned that serious violations could result in the foundation losing its registration. However, any action would depend on evidence gathered by the responsible authorities. He said the department was examining its powers to proceed against any established wrongdoing. The warning placed the foundation’s continued registration directly in question.
Polpeera emphasised that the Ministry of Interior supervises the registration and regulation of foundations. Accordingly, officials must examine whether organisations operate within their declared purposes.
The investigation could also lead to scrutiny of other foundations accepting public donations. He said irregularities identified through those examinations would require action. The ministry’s review therefore extends beyond the immediate police complaint.
Deputy minister orders separate land inquiry into possible involvement of senior and local officials
The deputy minister separately addressed the Nakhon Nayok land dispute involving Boom’s husband. He confirmed that the disputed area was state property under the Ministry of Finance.
Permission for its use had been granted to the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, either ministry could lodge a formal complaint over suspected encroachment. The matter remains under separate administrative investigation.
Polpeera also confirmed an investigation into possible involvement by an Interior Ministry official at C8 level. The ministry’s permanent secretary had already established an investigative committee. Provincial authorities formed another committee examining possible involvement by village headmen and subdistrict chiefs. Investigators are examining whether officials played any role in the disputed occupation.
These inquiries concern potential official misconduct surrounding the land. They remain separate from the investigation into charitable donations. Nonetheless, both controversies involve Boom’s husband and have developed during the same period.
Authorities are examining different transactions and administrative decisions involving people connected with the couple. The findings will determine whether further proceedings are warranted.
Anti-money laundering petition seeks asset freezes while land investigators summon four individuals
In another development, activist Sontiya Sawasdee approached the Anti-Money Laundering Office on Monday. He requested an examination of the foundation’s financial dealings and consideration of asset freezes.
His petition covered accounts associated with the foundation, its management, Boom and her husband. The request added another potential avenue of official investigation.
Sontiya argued that potentially relevant assets should be protected against transfer during the investigation. However, his petition did not establish wrongdoing. Nor did it confirm that assets had been seized.
Any such action would require consideration by the responsible authorities. The Anti-Money Laundering Office must determine whether the information warrants further measures.
Police investigating the Nakhon Nayok land dispute have also summoned four individuals. Boom has been invited to provide information as a witness. Meanwhile, November 12 has emerged as another relevant date in those proceedings.
The land investigation continues alongside the separate inquiries into charitable finances. Officials are examining possible misconduct involving both private individuals and government personnel.
Police compare conflicting villa accounts with bank records as charity and land investigations advance
The immediate focus remains on the foundation’s financial records and disputed construction payments. Investigators must determine who authorised transfers, whether approvals were obtained and where the money ultimately went.
They must also establish whether any donations were diverted from their intended purposes. The inquiry must distinguish private transactions from money held by the foundation.
Boom denies knowingly participating in improper arrangements. Her husband has admitted deceiving her about the Phuket project. By contrast, the contractor has presented a conflicting account. Police must now examine those explanations against bank records, construction payments and the foundation’s financial procedures. The evidence will determine whether any transactions crossed the threshold into criminal conduct.
By Tuesday morning, November 3, the investigations were proceeding on several fronts. Boom was pursuing a complaint against her husband. Police were examining possible criminal offences involving the foundation.
Meanwhile, the Interior Ministry was reviewing its financial compliance and registration. Separately, officials were investigating suspected encroachment on state land and possible involvement by government personnel.
Police target November 9 for clearer findings as Boom Foundation faces possible charges and deregistration
The Central Investigation Bureau expects greater clarity by November 9. The Interior Ministry was due to receive preliminary financial findings on Tuesday.
The land investigation continues towards further proceedings involving summoned individuals and witnesses. However, police have not established criminal guilt against Boom or determined the full extent of any financial losses.
Thai actress demands action against former police officer for stalking and sexual harassment at home
Netflix hit show ‘The Evil Lawyer’ shows audiences the dark side of Thai law except it’s even darker in real life
Investigators are examining transactions potentially approaching ฿1 billion, alongside disputed construction payments involving approximately ฿45 million. The findings will determine whether police pursue charges, issue summonses or seek arrest warrants.
They will also influence whether the Good Deeds Foundation retains its registration. With several investigations advancing simultaneously, the next decisions rest with police, financial investigators and the Interior Ministry.
Join the Thai News forum, follow Thai Examiner on Facebook here
Receive all our stories as they come out on Telegram here
Follow Thai Examiner here
Further reading:
Thai actress demands action against former police officer for stalking and sexual harassment at home
Crackdown on expats working illegally deepens. Italian on Koh Phangan is arrested for woodwork
Crackdown aimed at upending foreign business trade moves from Koh Phangan to Phuket. Four arrested
Crackdown to wipe out foreign business abuses and ownership on Koh Phangan & Koh Samui intensifies
Arrogant Lebanese man held on Koh Phangan for illegal bike rental racket after being deported before
