The Civil Court of Thailand has ruled that assets worth about 77 million baht be returned to lawyer Sittha “Tum” Biabangkerd and his wife, after they were accused of fraud and money laundering. The judgment comes following allegations by Jatuporn “Oil” Ubonlert, a Thai millionaire residing in France, who claimed Sittha swindled millions from her. The court found insufficient evidence to support the accusations, leading to the assets' return.

Get today's headlines by email

Jatuporn accused Sittha of mishandling funds after she entrusted him with legal matters, purportedly paying him 300,000 baht per month. She also engaged in a business venture with Sittha, involving a lottery platform in Thailand, to which she contributed about 71 million baht. When the venture showed no progress and Sittha refused to return the investment, suspicions arose regarding the finance's possible misuse for luxury items.

Sittha denied any malfeasance, asserting the money was a voluntary gift from Jatuporn, which included supporting his children’s overseas education. Despite his defense, Sittha and his wife Patidta were arrested in November 2024 under charges of fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) seized several assets linked to the couple, intending to forfeit them to the state.

The AMLO sought a court order to retain the seized items, which included properties, savings, and luxury goods. However, yesterday the court dismissed these claims due to a lack of definitive proof of fraud or money laundering. Following the decision, Jatuporn expressed concerns about the ruling and plans to engage in further legal proceedings.

Channel 8 has noted that the public prosecutor still possesses the option to appeal the court’s decision within 30 days. An appeal could potentially result in a temporary freeze of the assets while the case undergoes further review, reported The Thaiger.

Key Takeaways

• The Civil Court in Thailand ruled to return 77 million baht in assets to Sittha Biabangkerd.

• Jatuporn Ubonlert accused Sittha of fraud but the court found insufficient evidence.

• The public prosecutor may appeal within 30 days, potentially freezing assets.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · The Thaiger · 25 Feb 2026

View full article

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

She also engaged in a business venture with Sittha, involving a lottery platform in Thailand, to which she contributed about 71 million baht. When the venture showed no progress and Sittha refused to return the investment, suspicions arose regarding the finance's possible misuse for luxury items.

Sittha denied any malfeasance, asserting the money was a voluntary gift from Jatuporn, which included supporting his children’s overseas education.

Seems to be a lot missing from this story.

Why would she'gift' 71 million to a lawyer and support his children overseas?

How can anyone ever suggest a lawyer would ever be naughty?

Reminds me of the words of William Shakespeare in Henry VI when he wrote " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - such a terrible thing to write- I think his writings will not be popular - lol !!

2 hours ago, topt said:

Seems to be a lot missing from this story.

Why would she'gift' 71 million to a lawyer and support his children overseas?

Seems that the court, based on there being not any evidence of fraud and instructing the return of the assets, did not think there was a lot missing from the story.

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Seems that the court, based on there being not any evidence of fraud and instructing the return of the assets, did not think there was a lot missing from the story.

The court didn't say there wasn't ANY evidence. This is what they said.

However, yesterday the court dismissed these claims due to a lack of definitive proof of fraud or money laundering

1 hour ago, Legal Lifeline said:

Reminds me of the words of William Shakespeare in Henry VI when he wrote " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - such a terrible thing to write- I think his writings will not be popular - lol !!

You need to be reminded that the character's quote was made in a satirical and anarchic context. Far from being a literal call for violence, the line emphasisesd the essential role of lawyers as guardians of the rule of law and justice.

10 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

The court didn't say there wasn't ANY evidence. This is what they said.

However, yesterday the court dismissed these claims due to a lack of definitive proof of fraud or money

This is what the court said...

"The court found insufficient evidence to support the accusations, leading to the assets' return".

It would not be rational to speculate that, from that quote, there was some evidence to support the accusations.

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

This is what the court said...

"The court found insufficient evidence to support the accusations, leading to the assets' return". It would be irrational to suggest that, from that quote, that the was some evidence to support the accusations.

Thanks for confirming that your previous claim, that the court said there wasn't ANY evidence, was incorrect.

Insufficient has also a completely different meaning from NOT ANY.

And giving thumbs down to posts that beat you with your own pedant weapons, only shows what a silly poor attitude you have.

11 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Thanks for confirming that your previous claim, that the court said there wasn't ANY evidence, was incorrect

I didn't confirm that my comment was incorrect. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to convict them so it's fair to say that there wasn't any evidence to convict them.

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I didn't confirm that my comment was incorrect. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to convict them so it's fair to say that there wasn't any evidence to convict them.

Bye Lou.

22 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You need to be reminded that the character's quote was made in a satirical and anarchic context. Far from being a literal call for violence, the line emphasisesd the essential role of lawyers as guardians of the rule of law and justice.

You are of course correct- but as I recall from days of history lessons from long ago I think lawyers have always been less than popular

On 2/27/2026 at 11:27 AM, Legal Lifeline said:

You are of course correct- but as I recall from days of history lessons from long ago I think lawyers have always been less than popular

I am assuming from your name that you are in fact a lawyer. If so, I commend the somewhat self deprecating humor. 😃

On 2/28/2026 at 3:58 PM, Issan girl said:

I am assuming from your name that you are in fact a lawyer. If so, I commend the somewhat self deprecating humor. 😃

sadly it is true I am a lawyer- but despite that I am also human - I always was inspired by the foreword to the classic To kill a Mockingbird" that states "Even lawyers were children- I suppose"