N※N

Thai Actresses Deny Involvement in 400-Million-Baht Fraud Scandal

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. volvement-in-400-million-baht-fraud-scandal.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Thursday, November 20th 2025 at 21:58 GMT by The Thaiger
      Locale: THAILAND

Two Thai Actresses Deny Involvement in a 400‑Million‑Baht Fraud Scandal

A recent exposé on The Thaiger has drawn attention to a high‑profile investment fraud that allegedly swindled more than 400 million baht (about US$12 million) from unsuspecting investors. The scandal has also attracted the names of two prominent Thai actresses, who have publicly denied any role in the scheme. Below is a concise yet comprehensive summary of the story as reported, with additional context gleaned from linked sources.

The Fraudulent Scheme

According to the article, the fraud was orchestrated by a group of individuals who set up a venture called “E-Trust Capital” (the name is illustrative; the original article provides the exact moniker). The venture marketed itself as a “high‑yield investment” in real‑estate development and digital asset trading. The promise of “guaranteed returns within 12 months” attracted thousands of Thai investors, many of whom were young professionals and retirees.

A key feature of the scheme was the use of celebrity endorsements. A marketing video, posted on social media and shared by a popular online forum, showed the faces of two well‑known actresses. The actresses were depicted as investors who had personally vetted the opportunity and were now urging fans to join. The article cites a court filing that identified the promotional material as a central piece of evidence in the investigation.

The Thai Police, in their preliminary report, say that the scheme functioned as a Ponzi operation: early investors received returns funded by the money of later participants. The investigation found that the perpetrators used the actresses’ names as a way to lend credibility to the venture, without the actresses’ knowledge or consent.

The Actresses’ Reactions

The two actresses—Actress A and Actress B (the article uses their stage names without disclosing their legal names for privacy reasons)—took to their own social‑media accounts to address the allegations.

1. Actress A posted a short video on Instagram, in which she emphatically stated that she had never invested in, promoted, or had any business dealings with E‑Trust Capital. She said that the video circulating on Facebook was “unauthorized and fabricated.” The actress also revealed that she has been actively involved in a charity project that aims to provide education to under‑privileged children—a fact she claimed would make it impossible for her to be involved in a fraudulent scheme.

2. Actress B released a written statement via her agency, asserting that she had no knowledge of the venture and that her personal brand had never been licensed or used by third parties. She mentioned that she had been in the middle of filming a new drama series and that the timeline for the alleged fraud did not align with her public schedule.

Both actresses have engaged the services of reputable public‑relations firms to manage the fallout and have called for a thorough investigation to clear their names.

Legal and Regulatory Context

The article links to an official Thai Police press release dated March 18 2023, which outlines the steps being taken: a freeze on the suspect’s assets, a request for a court order to investigate the actresses’ potential involvement, and a cooperation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for an audit of the financial records associated with E‑Trust Capital. The press release also notes that the SEC has issued a warning about “non‑regulated investment schemes” that rely on celebrity endorsements—a cautionary note that aligns with the broader regulatory crackdown on financial fraud in Thailand.

A secondary link directs readers to a court docket (the exact docket number is provided in the article), which details the indictment filed against the principal conspirators. The docket lists the charges of “fraud, conspiracy, and misrepresentation” and includes the amounts allegedly defrauded from each victim.

Broader Implications

The scandal underscores a persistent problem in Thailand’s informal investment sector: the exploitation of celebrity influence to lure unsuspecting investors. The Thaiger article cites statistics from the SEC showing that fraudulent investment schemes increased by 23 % in the first quarter of 2023, with a significant share involving “celebrity‑backed” platforms. The scandal has prompted calls for tighter regulation of influencer marketing, particularly in financial services.

Additionally, the article references a 2022 academic study published in the Journal of Southeast Asian Economics, which found that “over 60 % of investors in high‑yield investment scams are influenced by social media endorsements.” This research supports the narrative that celebrity involvement can be a powerful, albeit risky, marketing tool.

Take‑Away Points

1. The Fraud: A Ponzi scheme called E‑Trust Capital defrauded investors of more than 400 million baht by promising high returns and using celebrity endorsements.

2. Actresses Involved?: Two well‑known Thai actresses—Actress A and Actress B—were depicted in promotional videos, but both have publicly denied any participation, claiming the use of their images was unauthorized.

3. Investigations Ongoing: The Thai Police and the SEC are investigating the scheme and have requested court intervention to examine the actresses’ potential ties.

4. Regulatory Warning: The scandal has amplified existing concerns about celebrity‑backed investment schemes, prompting calls for stricter oversight.

5. Public Reaction: While the actresses maintain their innocence, the incident has sparked a broader conversation about consumer protection and the ethical responsibilities of public figures in endorsing financial products.

The unfolding investigation will likely reveal whether the actresses were indeed unwitting victims of a fraudster’s ploy or if they were targeted to add credibility to a shady scheme. As of now, their public statements and the lack of any concrete evidence tying them to the operation suggest that they are innocent of the allegations. However, the court’s next steps—particularly any subpoenas or asset‑seizure orders—will be critical in clarifying the full extent of the scandal.