Bangkok police have submitted seven investigation files to prosecutors seeking charges against Suwicha Sailabat, 45, owner of the Na Lat Phrao premises, over the deadly fire at the entertainment venue.

The blaze, which killed 37 people, including those who later died while receiving hospital treatment, and left 77 people with burn injuries.

Police said Mr Suwicha is being pursued both personally and in connection with the business entity that owned the venue. He has not yet been questioned because he remains in intensive care at Paolo Kaset Hospital.

Police cite electrical alterations and blocked exits

At a press briefing at Phahonyothin Police Station at 1pm on 7 August, Pol Maj Gen Kiatkul Sonthanee, commander of Metropolitan Police Division 2, said investigators had sent their findings and recommendations to prosecutors.

Col Issara Na Phatthalung, the lead investigator, said police had taken statements from 211 people, including venue staff, customers, relatives of those who died, specialists and forensic officers.

Investigators concluded that the fire began with an electrical short circuit following alterations to the electrical system. Police said the resulting sparks spread to soundproofing materials.

They also found that the venue layout made escape difficult. Numerous tables were placed inside, while doors intended as fire exits had items placed in front of them, were locked, or otherwise did not meet legal requirements, according to police.

Charges include deaths, injuries and unlicensed operation

Police said the case concerns five major allegations: negligence causing a fire, punishable by up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to 140,000 baht; negligence causing death, carrying up to 10 years and a 200,000-baht fine; causing serious injury through negligence, with up to three years and a 60,000-baht fine; negligence causing bodily or mental harm, carrying up to one month and a 10,000-baht fine; and property damage.

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

Pol Maj Gen Kiatkul said the business had four or five partners, but investigators had found no evidence that they took part in its management. The seven case files were therefore submitted to prosecutors for consideration against Mr Suwicha.

The full investigation report is expected to be fully completed and released, once the charges against the owner are reviewed and accepted by prosecutors.

Pictures courtesy of Daily News

---

Related story

Fire-kills-at-least-27-in-Bangkok-pub

---

Join the discussion?

8 August 2026

View full article

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 August 8Aug 8 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

3 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

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.

Nothing? Is that what you are saying? No Police checks ever for underaged drinking or drugs? No inspection from the Ministry of the Interior or the BMA confirming that they are operating to the licence they had? No fire safety check? No Immigration checking that all staff are legal? No one from the Excise Department checking their booze licence and they are paying the correct taxes? These are just some off the top of my head. Any one of these could have helped to maybe avoid this tragedy. Maybe these agencies don’t have the visibility of the actual licence they have, that basic cooperation should be easy to fix of course.

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

It’s as if this establishment didn’t even exist. Probably lucky that the fire trucks could even find the place.