Bangkok: Social media platforms are witnessing a heated exchange between Rakchanok Srinork, a Bangkok MP for the Prachachon Party, and Pai Lik, an MP for Kamphaeng Phet from the Kla Dham Party. The controversy revolves around the alleged involvement of Pai Lik in the “Boy Unity” case, which has sparked public interest and debate.
According to Thai News Agency, Rakchanok Srinork raised concerns on her Facebook page about the implications of Supreme Court Judgment No. 5865/2567, in which Pai Lik is named as the first defendant. The judgment highlighted a financial matter of 550,000 baht, which was not declared in the asset filings with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). However, Rakchanok emphasized that the core issue extends beyond the financial discrepancy, pointing to a business relationship involving “Boy Unity.”
The case involves allegations that the plaintiff invested in a business associated with “Boy Unity,” using Pai Lik as a representative. This business reportedly involved importing and pawning luxury cars. “Boy Unity” later faced legal action for illegal car importation, which required a 2 million baht bail. During this period, Pai Lik allegedly solicited funds from the plaintiff, leading to unresolved financial transactions.
Further complicating the narrative, “Boy Unity” was convicted of underreporting the value of luxury car imports, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence and a substantial financial penalty. Rakchanok questioned the depth of Pai Lik’s involvement and his relationship with “Boy Unity.”
In response, Pai Lik addressed the public on Facebook, asserting that the circulated accusations misrepresent the legal facts. He challenged Rakchanok to substantiate her claims with legal evidence. Pai Lik clarified that the 550,000 baht case is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and refuted any implication of drug-related involvement.
Pai Lik questioned Rakchanok’s interpretation of the court’s judgment and requested legal proof of his alleged involvement in illegal vehicle importation. He emphasized that no court has linked him to such activities. Pai Lik also defended his asset declarations, stating they were filed in compliance with NACC regulations, and challenged Rakchanok to specify any alleged omissions.
Regarding past business operations, Pai Lik asserted his adherence to legal requirements and licenses, inviting Rakchanok to identify any legal violations. He concluded by demanding that Rakchanok provide concrete legal evidence for her accusations to ensure accurate public information. In this ongoing dispute, both parties maintain their positions, urging transparency and accountability in the public discourse.