"Rome" slams government double standard! Shielding Bhumjaithai MP over SHFL gambling website ties, pressing AMLO-DES-Cyber Police to expand asset seizure, declaring allies remain dead silent

Today (Oct 19, 2026) at 1:00 PM at the People's Party headquarters, Mr. Rangsiman Rome, People's Party MP in his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Law, Justice, and Human Rights, spoke regarding allegations that the husband of Ms. Suchada Tsang Thanaset, Bhumjaithai Party MP, holds shares in a gambling website. He pointed out that if this were a no-confidence debate, it would not be applicable since Ms. Suchada is not a minister, viewing this issue as larger than a single MP's involvement. Credit must be given to Mr. Sirichoke Sopha, former Democrat Party MP, who exposed data on the SHFL (Shuffle) token approved by the SEC. This highlighted that online gambling websites persist partly because authorized state agencies themselves pose problems—whether the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (DES), the Central Investigation Bureau, Cyber Police, or the SEC. Therefore, as House Law Committee Chair, he is not focusing solely on prosecuting Ms. Suchada, but is questioning whether various state agencies are performing their duties lawfully, because failure to do so equals misconduct in office. This issue demonstrates that the system contains individuals no different from criminals using state power to back criminals.

Mr. Rangsiman affirmed that those criticizing the lack of filing criminal complaints misunderstand the process, as this offense constitutes a crime against the state. The investigative side is not merely looking at prosecuting a single MP, but examining whether powerholders are extending a helping hand, which is a larger issue requiring scrutiny across the entire system. He is using the House Law Committee mechanism under constitutional provisions to ensure state agencies operate correctly.

Mr. Rangsiman continued that regarding the case of "MP Idea," other websites were blocked while MP Idea's website was exempted, despite her own admission that her husband holds a 1% stake, leaving no need to prove whether it is the same person. Thus, agencies like the DSI must be asked why they are not investigating—is it because she does not belong to the Orange Party, or does it constitute misconduct, conflict of interest, or fear of implicating senior figures in the country? Meanwhile, where is the Cyber Police, established specifically to suppress gambling websites? Although claims are made that the SHFL website is legal in Curaçao, its target includes Thai nationals, with actual Thai players participating. Even the Central Investigation Bureau, starting from a 40-million-baht case, could expand its investigation but failed to do so. Furthermore, Mr. Chaichanok Chidchob, Minister of Digital Economy and Society, who previously advertised suppressing 1 million websites, has gone quiet and shown no interest in cracking down on SHFL, despite it being a golden opportunity to expand into asset seizures, similar to how AMLO should take proactive action as it previously did in the case of Mr. Chonmaphat Naksua, Songkhla MP from the Kla Dharma Party.

Regarding criminal prosecution against Ms. Suchada, although lack of progress initially seems to sever legal risks, statutory provisions on shareholding must be examined, while spousal accountability follows evidence. Nevertheless, during her tenure as Secretary to the DES Minister, scrutiny is needed on what authority was used to shield the website, along with financial trails if payments of 1–2 million baht were transferred to various individuals without reasonable justification. He affirmed that Ms. Suchada and her husband remain innocent until proven guilty by court judgment.

When asked about ethical standards for political officeholders, Mr. Rangsiman viewed that prior to criminal cases, civil asset forfeiture regarding unusual wealth remains applicable, which AMLO can consider, though no movement has been seen yet, urging that the matter not be truncated. On ethical issues, the People's Party holds concerns but does not wish to see lawfare used to target individuals. Thus, legal mechanisms must serve as the primary recourse.

When asked if financial trails could lead to the dissolution of the Bhumjaithai Party, Mr. Rangsiman stated he lacks detailed knowledge of Bhumjaithai's funding sources, but preliminary steps require reviewing other legal aspects. Regarding party dissolution, everyone understands the People's Party's stance, including Ms. Rukchanok Srinork, People's Party MP, who posted her disagreement with party dissolution. Details regarding donations must be examined to determine if they stem from gambling websites and whether the party was aware. He holds that political parties should not be dissolved through these mechanisms unless established with illicit intent from the outset. Therefore, he is not looking toward party dissolution, but rather desires to see legal and political accountability from Mr. Chaichanok as well as Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul, Prime Minister and Minister of Interior.

Regarding comparisons drawn with the People's Party Phuket MP or Mr. Pawoot Pongvitayapanu, People's Party party-list MP, concerning nominee holdings and failure to declare assets to the NACC, Mr. Rangsiman quoted Mr. Anutin's phrase "ignore names, judge behavior," adding that Mr. Anutin might also look at political party colors. Ms. Suchada's case is severe because the website can be used for money laundering, yet the government remains silent, whereas People's Party MPs were brought into due process rapidly. He has no objection to proceedings against People's Party MPs if evidence exists, but demands the same standard be applied to Ms. Suchada and all politicians equally, rather than turning a blind eye when allies of the same political color are involved, expressing concern that the public will view the government as protecting its own faction.

Photo : Weeraphat Ratsameerueangrong