65% of all donations to foundation diverted, say police

The case involves a striking gap between charitable donations and alleged personal spending. Police said the Goodness Foundation received about 815 million baht from 2015 to the present. Investigators alleged that 527 million baht was used for personal benefit. The figures matter because they indicate the suspected misuse was not a small accounting error.

The money arrived through more than 3.2 million transactions from over one million donor accounts. Investigators said some funds supported foundation activities, but the proportion was less than 70%. They also identified transfers to the chairwoman’s husband, committee members and her father, alongside investments and luxury purchases.

The figures are initial investigation findings, not a court judgment. Panadda denied the charges but acknowledged handling the finances and using some money for other purposes. Her husband denied wrongdoing and said he acted on her instructions. Police are continuing to examine the alleged fraud and money laundering.

A charitable foundation is a legal organization established to support stated public-benefit activities. Donations are given for those purposes, so managers should use the money for approved programs, services and operating needs. The foundation’s funds are not normally personal income simply because a founder or chairperson controls the account.

In this case, Panadda solicited donations for charitable activities and later chaired the Goodness Foundation. Investigators said she controlled payment authorisations for three accounts. They alleged that money also paid credit-card bills, mutual funds, life insurance, luxury goods and property-related expenses. Those uses differ from ordinary charitable spending described in the appeals.

The distinction matters because donors rely on the organization’s stated purpose. The article reports that some donations did fund foundation activities, but the proportion was less than 70%. Police alleged that 527 million baht benefited individuals. Whether particular payments were unlawful remains for the legal process to determine.

The fundraising began online in November 2015. Panadda used an account in her personal name and said donations would support charitable activities. In 2017, she created the Goodness Foundation Facebook page, known locally as “Ongkorn Thamdee,” while continuing to use the original personal bank account.

After the foundation was registered in March 2022, it opened an account in its registered name. Donations continued through both that account and the old personal account. In 2025, a third personal account was opened as a supplementary account connected with plans for a new foundation building. Investigators said Panadda had authority over all three accounts.

The key control issue was payment approval. Police said relevant documents showed that Panadda retained control over payment authorisations. This arrangement allowed donations collected through different channels to remain under one person’s control. Investigators are examining whether that control enabled the alleged transfers and personal spending.

The suspicious spending covered several categories rather than one isolated payment. Police identified transfers to people connected with the foundation, investments, insurance, consumer purchases and property expenses. This matters because charitable donations are expected to serve the stated public purpose, while these payments appear connected to private benefit or unclear authority.

Specific examples included 99 million baht transferred to Atip, 36 million baht sent to foundation committee members and 4.6 million baht transferred to Panadda’s father. Investigators also cited 24 million baht in mutual funds, 10 million baht for life insurance and 19 million baht in credit-card payments. Mutual-fund withdrawals bought jewellery and luxury handbags worth 2.7 million baht.

Property-related expenses included 18 million baht paid to contractors building a pool villa in Phuket. Some money also covered housing and common-area maintenance. Police grouped these transactions among alleged personal-benefit spending. The article does not establish that every listed payment was finally unlawful; the investigation and court process remain ongoing.

Meeting minutes, annual reports and tax filings create a basic record of how a foundation is governed. They show what decisions were made, who approved them, how money was received and spent, and whether legal reporting duties were followed. Without those records, donors, regulators and investigators have less ability to check the organization.

Police said the foundation had no records of annual committee meetings or annual reports submitted to the registrar. Investigators also said it paid taxes only during its first two years. As a non-profit legal entity, it still had to report its financial status and declare donation income for tax purposes, even though it was not exempt from tax.

These omissions do not automatically prove that every payment was fraudulent. However, police said they were among the factors considered when assessing alleged fraudulent intent. In practice, missing documentation can make legitimate spending harder to verify and may point to weak oversight, especially alongside alleged personal transfers and investments.

Money laundering generally involves moving, receiving, using or disguising money connected to unlawful conduct so its origin or ownership is harder to trace. The alleged underlying offense and the later handling of funds are separate questions. A person may therefore be investigated for laundering even if evidence does not show that person carried out the original fraud.

In this case, police said they had found no evidence directly linking Atip to fraud. They nevertheless said his alleged involvement in transferring assets and receiving money could constitute money laundering. Investigators cited 99 million baht transferred to him as one suspicious category, although the article does not state that this amount alone proves a crime.

The distinction matters because authorities follow the money as well as the alleged solicitation. Atip denied all allegations and said he carried out transactions on his wife’s instructions. The court and investigators must determine what he knew, what he did and whether the alleged transactions meet the legal standard for laundering.

When charitable money is mixed with personal finances, donors cannot easily tell whether their contributions reached the promised activities. Beneficiaries may lose services, goods or support. The damage can extend beyond one organization because people may become more cautious about donating, including to charities that follow the rules.

The investigation illustrates the risk. Donations entered three accounts, including personal accounts, while police said Panadda controlled payment authorisations. Investigators alleged spending on credit cards, mutual funds, luxury goods, insurance and property-related costs. They also said only a portion of donations supported foundation activities, with that proportion below 70%.

The immediate consequences in this case include complaints, an investigation, arrest warrants and court proceedings. Panadda denied the charges, while Atip denied the allegations. Missing reports and tax filings may make accountability harder. Clear records, separate accounts and transparent explanations are therefore important for restoring confidence, although the article does not state what final remedies will follow.