A member of one of Thailand’s wealthiest brewing families, Siranudh “Psi” Scott, is facing a lawsuit from his mother in a dispute that has drawn attention to Thailand’s “ungrateful child” law. The case involves allegations, family conflict, and a claim to recover valuable land assets, with the pair due to appear in court on 8 July after mediation failed.

Get today's headlines by email

Siranudh Scott, a fourth-generation member of the billionaire family behind the Singha beer empire, is being sued by his mother, Chiranuj Bhirombhakdi. The dispute escalated after he made public allegations in May that he had been sexually abused by his older brother and a babysitter. Following these claims, his mother argued that he damaged the family’s reputation and is seeking to reclaim land worth millions of dollars that had been gifted to him by his late grandfather.

The legal action is based on Thailand’s “ungrateful child law”, a 1908 provision that allows parents to revoke gifts if children are deemed neglectful, abusive, or responsible for serious reputational harm. The law is intended to protect parents from neglectful children and reflects the strong emphasis on family obligation and hierarchy in Thai society. In this case, it has brought renewed scrutiny to how the law is applied in disputes involving wealth and reputation.

Siranudh has publicly criticised the legislation, saying it reflects outdated expectations of obedience within families. “Looking at the fine print, this law is an attempt to kind of silence any damage done to a family name. Anything remotely damaging to the name is considered disobedient possibly by the law,” he told AFP. He added, “It has really no place in a liberal society that places importance on the welfare of children.”

His mother filed the lawsuit in February, and legal representatives have said the court is seeking an amicable resolution aimed at reuniting the family. The Bhirombhakdi family is ranked as Thailand’s 15th richest by Forbes, with an estimated net worth of $1.75 billion. Most cases under the filial piety provision are typically resolved through mediation, particularly within wealthy families, according to legal experts.

The Daily Mall reported that anthropology professor Jiraporn Laocharoenwong of Chulalongkorn University said the Thai term for ingratitude carries a stronger moral meaning than in English, referring to a breach of care and obligation rather than simple ungratefulness. Lawyers also note that children have limited legal routes to sue parents under Thai custom except in criminal matters. The court hearing is scheduled for 8 July after two rounds of mediation failed.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now Dailymail 27 June 2026

View full article

This would make a good TV soap.

Wealthy HiSo woman in Thailand have the most power in the family. More so concerning male children.

If it was his grandfather that gifted his grandson the land, the mum (his daughter?) surely has 0 rights on the land as it wasn't his parents that gifted him the land according to the OP & this "ungrateful child" Thai law

You gotta love it when billionaire go after each other at the family level.

I think the table conversation at the family New Year dinner this year will be a little strained perhaps?

Quote

"seeking to reclaim land worth millions of dollars that had been gifted to him by his late grandfather."

Not legal advice but my understanding is only way revocation may occur if the grandson causes the demise of his grandfather. From the Internet very strict and specific things need to be accomplished to justify a favorable ruling for the mother.

Always a chance with very powerful Lawyers, Influence and pressure that the judge could side with the mother.

5 hours ago, jacko45k said:

This would make a good TV soap.

Would you dare to do that with the Thai defamation laws and an angry wealthy mother — however, I can already sense a new exiting computer game called "Angry Mothers"...😄

The legal action is based on Thailand’s “ungrateful child law”, a 1908 provision that allows parents to revoke gifts if children are deemed neglectful, abusive, or responsible for serious reputational harm.

So a law developed by the rich, to protect the rich......sounds about right.

It won't cause then to lose a lot as they are rich without that land.

Rich families get what they put in. Teach a child to be selfish and don't be surprised if they act that way with everyone.

"...his mother argued that he damaged the family’s reputation..."

I would argue that if his allegations are true, then his older brother is the one responsible for the damage to the family's reputation!

2 hours ago, phil2407 said:

If it was his grandfather that gifted his grandson the land, the mum (his daughter?) surely has 0 rights on the land as it wasn't his parents that gifted him the land according to the OP & this "ungrateful child" Thai law

"...according to ... this "ungrateful child" Thai law"

Which section of that law specifically covers that aspect?

You would think that the son being sued would keep his gob shut and just enjoy the huge wealth and lifestyle that he doubtless enjoys.

Presumably he would inherit even more from his mother if he had done so.

If he has any sense he should put all his assets into a nominee shareholder company!😂😂😂

56 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

The legal action is based on Thailand’s “ungrateful child law”, a 1908 provision that allows parents to revoke gifts if children are deemed neglectful, abusive, or responsible for serious reputational harm.

So a law developed by the rich, to protect the rich......sounds about right.

Sorry just need to correct that last line.....it was obviously a law developed by poor Isaan framers without two satangs to rub together, to punish their even poorer, ungrateful children when they eventually inherit a shed in the middle of nowhere.

1 hour ago, J Branche said:

Quote

"seeking to reclaim land worth millions of dollars that had been gifted to him by his late grandfather."

Not legal advice but my understanding is only way revocation may occur if the grandson causes the demise of his grandfather. From the Internet very strict and specific things need to be accomplished to justify a favorable ruling for the mother.

Always a chance with very powerful Lawyers, Influence and pressure that the judge could side with the mother.

If the Grandfather is deceased and the mother is his daughter and there were no older male heirs, then she would be his successor, thus probably now having the legal standing to invoke the law.

Case of face. Does anyone know the term for ungrateful written into the law--I can't find it.

This law was written in a period when rich men had many wives and gigs, all of whom bore him children. Thailand is matriarchical and such a law would make sense to protect the mothers.

However, in this case, one would think Queen B*tch would be more interested in disowning elder brother than worrying about her family reputation.

Hell hath no fury like a Thai losing face.

This can surly only damage the family reputation further and bring attention back to the sons allegations.

2 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Sorry just need to correct that last line.....it was obviously a law developed by poor Isaan framers without two satangs to rub together, to punish their even poorer, ungrateful children when they eventually inherit a shed in the middle of nowhere.

Trying to find the humor in a class / caste system where an entire "race" is kept dirt poor with the heel of the Hi-So Oligarchs firmly on their throats. Can you please tell me why this is funny?

6 minutes ago, JustinTyme said:

Trying to find the humor in a class / caste system where an entire "race" is kept dirt poor with the heel of the Hi-So Oligarchs firmly on their throats. Can you please tell me why this is funny?

I could, but if you don't get, I suspect you never will.

10 hours ago, jacko45k said:

This would make a good TV soap.

It could be a mini-series. Succession Thailand

The mother is worried about the family’s reputation? She hasn’t heard about the Streisand effect?

Quite the family this is.

5 hours ago, Issanraider said:

You would think that the son being sued would keep his gob shut and just enjoy the huge wealth and lifestyle that he doubtless enjoys.

Presumably he would inherit even more from his mother if he had done so.

If he has any sense he should put all his assets into a nominee shareholder company!😂😂😂

“keep his gob shut” ???

I guess you were never raped by your brother.

On 6/27/2026 at 3:48 PM, MIke B Bad said:

I could, but if you don't get, I suspect you never will.

You might want to Google "rhetorical question." I could explain it to you, but I suspect you would never understand it.

11 hours ago, JustinTyme said:

You might want to Google "rhetorical question." I could explain it to you, but I suspect you would never understand it.

You think............"Can you please tell me why this is funny?"............is rhetorical?......5555

9 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

You think............"Can you please tell me why this is funny?"............is rhetorical?......5555

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech formatted as a question but asked to make a point, emphasize an idea, or provoke thought, rather than to secure an answer. Because the answer is often self-evident or implied, no reply is expected. I think that to the vast majority of educated, civilized, and thoughtful people, the question becomes a rhetorical device because to them, it is obvious that the suffering of an entire class of people exploited by a kleptocracy is in no way, shape, or form ... "funny." That being said, I do acknowledge that there is also a much, much smaller group of people, (or group of small people ... both apply) ... who feel superior and without much thought, just behave like schoolyard bullies. I would put you in that petite group who eventually get their "Karma is a *itch" ticket stamped further on down the line. Enjoy the ride "Oh Great One!" I think you are a person (troll) who spends a lot of time posting on this site, and therefore to keep engaging with you ... sort of "feeds your negative vibe" ... so if I don't reply to your next "brilliant" post ... that is a one of the reasons. Have a lovely July!

1 hour ago, JustinTyme said:

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech formatted as a question but asked to make a point, emphasize an idea, or provoke thought, rather than to secure an answer. Because the answer is often self-evident or implied, no reply is expected. I think that to the vast majority of educated, civilized, and thoughtful people, the question becomes a rhetorical device because to them, it is obvious that the suffering of an entire class of people exploited by a kleptocracy is in no way, shape, or form ... "funny." That being said, I do acknowledge that there is also a much, much smaller group of people, (or group of small people ... both apply) ... who feel superior and without much thought, just behave like schoolyard bullies. I would put you in that petite group who eventually get their "Karma is a *itch" ticket stamped further on down the line. Enjoy the ride "Oh Great One!" I think you are a person (troll) who spends a lot of time posting on this site, and therefore to keep engaging with you ... sort of "feeds your negative vibe" ... so if I don't reply to your next "brilliant" post ... that is a one of the reasons. Have a lovely July!

Snooze fest....get a life.

Mother's proposed legal action against one of her sons has now caused this now to be reported internationally, as seen on an international TV News tonight