Police send Bangkok fire case against owner to prosecutors

The police appear to be focusing criminal responsibility on those directly involved in operating and managing the venue.

But if other investors or partners are not prosecuted, the obvious question is: where does Thai law draw the line between a passive investor and someone who bears responsibility for how a business is run?

Thai law does not automatically shield investors, nor does it simply make the “face” of a business criminally liable. However, prosecutors generally need to establish an individual's own involvement, actions, knowledge or omissions.

That can create an accountability gap. Those who finance and profit from a business may potentially avoid personal criminal liability if they remain sufficiently removed from its day-to-day operation.

The real question, therefore, is not simply whether the operator is prosecuted, but whether everyone who exercised meaningful control or responsibility for the business is properly investigated and held accountable where their actions or omissions contributed to the disaster.

10 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

The police appear to be focusing criminal responsibility on those directly involved in operating and managing the venue.

But if other investors or partners are not prosecuted, the obvious question is: where does Thai law draw the line between a passive investor and someone who bears responsibility for how a business is run?

Thai law does not automatically shield investors, nor does it simply make the “face” of a business criminally liable. However, prosecutors generally need to establish an individual's own involvement, actions, knowledge or omissions.

That can create an accountability gap. Those who finance and profit from a business may potentially avoid personal criminal liability if they remain sufficiently removed from its day-to-day operation.

The real question, therefore, is not simply whether the operator is prosecuted, but whether everyone who exercised meaningful control or responsibility for the business is properly investigated and held accountable where their actions or omissions contributed to the disaster.

Where the line is drawn is a moveable feast I suspect .....most likely by design......Who knows who? Who has the funds to make problems go away. Who has the right friends to ensure protection?

2 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

The police appear to be focusing criminal responsibility on those directly involved in operating and managing the venue.

There are 4 charges listed above all involving criminal negligence. There may be other criminal charges applicable to passive investors but they likely will not be charged with criminal 'negligence'.

3 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

The police appear to be focusing criminal responsibility on those directly involved in operating and managing the venue.

But if other investors or partners are not prosecuted, the obvious question is: where does Thai law draw the line between a passive investor and someone who bears responsibility for how a business is run?

Thai law does not automatically shield investors, nor does it simply make the “face” of a business criminally liable. However, prosecutors generally need to establish an individual's own involvement, actions, knowledge or omissions.

That can create an accountability gap. Those who finance and profit from a business may potentially avoid personal criminal liability if they remain sufficiently removed from its day-to-day operation.

The real question, therefore, is not simply whether the operator is prosecuted, but whether everyone who exercised meaningful control or responsibility for the business is properly investigated and held accountable where their actions or omissions contributed to the disaster.

And I wonder what charges might be laid against those accountable for the various inspections. If even one of those had been professionally carried out then that may have helped to avoid this loss of life.

24 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

And I wonder what charges might be laid against those accountable for the various inspections.

Since it was NOT a registered "entertainment" venue there would not have been any inspections!

From the OP;

The investigation also alleges that the venue was operating as an entertainment establishment without permission from the authorities.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by scottiejohn

34 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

And I wonder what charges might be laid against those accountable for the various inspections. If even one of those had been professionally carried out then that may have helped to avoid this loss of life.

Electrical system under scrutiny

Updated Jul 17, 2026 -- Information supplied by the Metropolitan Electricity Authority has become a central part of the investigation.

The venue originally applied for a 30/100 electricity supply but later consumed more power and sought an upgrade. However, the police said the business repeatedly told electricity officials that it was not ready when officials attempted to inspect the premises.

Investigators suspect that electrical work might subsequently have been carried out without an official inspection, potentially causing the system to become overloaded before a short circuit started the fire.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/bangkok-bar-fire-victims-died-of-cyanide-poisoning-within-minutes-autopsies-show