Sign In
SEC News

SEC files criminal complaints against 25 former IEC executives and associates for fraudulent acts and exploitation of the company?s interest



Tuesday 31 October 2017 | No. 104 / 2017



Bangkok, 31 October 2017 ? The SEC has filed criminal complaints against former directors and executives of The International Engineering Public Company Limited (IEC) and their associates, totaling 25 persons, with the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) for jointly committing fraudulent acts, misappropriating the company's assets and seeking unlawful gains, which has caused damage to IEC. Their misconduct also included arranging or allowing fabrication of accounting records inconsistent with the facts to deceive other persons.

The 25 persons charged with the criminal complaints are as follows:

(1) Mr. Bhusana Premanode, (2) Mr. Chanchai Khemwichien, (3) Ms. Ploykaew Pritsawong, (4) Mr. Marupong Sirica, (5) Mr. Chayakorn Akaramas, (6) Mr. Sunan Srijaipracharoen, (7) Mr. Saran Lertcharoenwongsa, (8) Mr. Suthin Jaithum, (9) Ms. Charuwan Phusanaphibankhup, (10) Mr. Suthat Suklert, (11) Ms. Gorawan Sunprasert, (12) Mr. Niwat Maneim, (13) Mr. Suthin  Promthong, (14) North Environment Company Limited (NE), (15) Mr. Sunthon Srimai, (16) Energy System Engineering and Service Company Limited (ESES), (17) Mr. Nanthawat Phudit-aiyarasak, (18) Bann Tongkum Company Limited, (19) Mr. Somchai Pothi, (20) Petchpiya Group Company Limited, (21) Mr. Tanaphat Petchkwan, (22) Mrs. Kanyaphak Petchkwan, (23) Thai-Chin Engineering & Construction Company Limited, (24) Mr. Ruttanatorn Chinkrajangkit, and (25) Mrs. Yadapat Chinkrajangkit. 

The SEC investigation of the evidence has revealed that during September 2014 ? August 2016 the aforesaid persons jointly acted or conspired with or allowed or rendered assistance and support for directors, executives or persons responsible for the operation of IEC to perform duties dishonestly, misappropriate the company's assets and seek wrongful gains, causing damage to IEC. In addition, they arranged or allowed preparation of the company's accounting records to be inaccurate and inconsistent with the facts to deceive other persons regarding purchases of IEC subsidiaries? shares, construction contracts, machinery procurement and installation contracts, as well as misuse of NE and ESES whose controlling person was Bhusana as a channel for committing fraudulent acts in many occasions. The SEC criminal complaints against these persons involved nine cases with the initial total damages of more than 200 million baht. The transactions related to the cases are summarized as follows: 

 

Case 1: Committing a fraud by misappropriating IEC assets through a purchase transaction of IEC Sakaeo 1 Co., Ltd. (SK1) shares at the amount of 345 million baht. Suthin and Charuwan sold the shares and received 300 million baht from the sale; the margin of approximately 45 million baht was given to Bhusana.   

Case 2: Arranging for falsification of the IEC financial statements; Bhusana, Chanchai and Saran made up fake documents and partially paid for the debt owed by Suthat, who had agreed to take on the debt for Suthin and Charuwan, to mislead the company's auditor into believing that the debtor owing the outstanding balance of fuel charge worth 53.62 million baht was capable of debt repayment to the company before the auditor signed off the disclosure of the annual financial statements for the year 2015 without allowance for a doubtful account of the outstanding debt. 

Case 3: Performing duties dishonestly and seeking wrongful gains, which caused damage to IEC, through a purchase transaction of SK1 shares at the amount of 100 million baht. This was done after SK1 had been placed in absolute receivership by the Central Bankruptcy Court's order. Bhusana knew of the fact but still wanted IEC to buy SK1 shares from Suthin and Charuwan, who were his debtors, in order for them to repay him with the money received from the share sale.

Case 4: Performing duties dishonestly and seeking wrongful gains, which caused damage to IEC, in the case where IEC did not exercise the right to purchase shares of Kokcharoen Green Energy Company Limited (KE) at the amount of 45 million baht. Instead, Bhusana offered to buy KE shares directly from the seller at the price of 20 million baht. Later, he arranged for his associates to sell the shares to a third party at the significantly higher price of 70 million baht, which created an unlawful benefit for Bhusana. Ploykaew, Gorawan and Nanthawat, who were ESES directors, assisted and supported the execution of such trading transactions. 

Case 5: Committing a fraud by misappropriating money of Nongree Power Plants Company Limited (a 100-percent subsidiary of IEC) through a contract with ESES for the construction of a building and the installation of electricity-generating machinery at the exaggerated price of 58 million baht. Nongree Power Plants paid for the first instalment of 12.48 million baht to ESES.

Case 6: Committing a fraud by misappropriating money of IEC through the selling transactions of thermoplastic of an IEC project in Rayong province. In so doing, Bhusana, Marupong and Chayakorn jointly sold the thermoplastic to third parties before the launch date of commercial operation. Instead of making the payment for the thermoplastic to IEC, the buyers transferred the total payment of approximately 2.95 million baht into the accounts of Niwat, Suthin and NE. Sunthon, who was an NE director, was involved in the arrangement.

Case 7: Committing a fraud by misappropriating money of IEC through the transactions related to the outsourcing contract with Bann Tongkum where Somchai was a director. The 15.09-million-baht contract was for the construction of a wastewater treatment system and a water purifier system of an IEC project in Rayong province. Bhusana and Marupong had signed in acceptance of the complete construction and approved the full payment when in fact the construction was incomplete. 
Case 8: Committing a fraud by misappropriating money of IEC through the transactions related to the 10.70 million baht purchasing contract of waste trommel screen machines of an IEC project in Had Yai District, Songkla Province. The contract was made with Petchpiya Group where Tanaphat and Kanyaphak were directors. Bhusana, Marupong and Sunan signed in acceptance of the machines and approved the full payment by IEC when in fact the machines could not be found. 

Case 9: Committing a fraud by misappropriating money of IEC through the transactions related to the outsourcing contract with Thai-Chin Engineering & Construction where Ruttanatorn and Yadapat were directors. The 10.50-million-baht contract was for the construction of a contaminated plastic distilling plant of an IEC project in Yad Yai District, Songkla Province. Bhusana and Marupong signed in acceptance of the complete construction and approved the full payment by IEC even though the construction was in breach of the contract.

The transactions as detailed above are liable to the offences under Paragraph 2 of Section 281/2, Section 307, Section 308, Section 311, Section 312 and Section 315 of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in conjunction with Section 83, Section 86, Section 91, Section 352, Section 353 and Section 354 of the Penal Code. Each case may be subject to imprisonment from five to 10 years and a fine from 500,000 baht to 1 million baht. The SEC has therefore filed the complaints with the DSI for further legal proceedings. 

In addition, the 25 persons charged with the criminal complaints are liable to having untrustworthy characteristics as director or executive of any listed company on the Stock Exchange and are banned from holding such positions while the complaint procedure is underway. 

In any case, filing a criminal complaint commences the criminal justice administration whereby the consideration whether a defendant is guilty is under the DSI's investigation, the public attorney's prosecution, and the court's jurisdiction, respectively. 

----------------------------



Information contained in this news release is as of the aforementioned release date. For those who wish to see current status of the matter,
please go to compliant filed with inquiry officer