Thai Criminal Court Accepts Foreign Tycoon’s Defamation Case Against MP

Even in a news cycle crowded with power-plays, few court rulings ripple as far as one that questions the boundary between parliamentary speech and personal reputation. Thailand’s Criminal Court has agreed to hear a high-stakes defamation suit pitting a little-known but well-connected foreign tycoon against a headline-grabbing opposition MP. The decision hints at wider consequences for how lawmakers debate—and how swiftly private actors will retaliate when they feel maligned.

Why this matters now

• Criminal Court accepts defamation complaint; trial will proceed

• Plaintiff Ben Smith demands ฿100 M in damages

• Defendant Rangsiman Rome claims parliamentary privilege

• Case rekindles debate on Section 328 and SLAPP concerns

Court’s Early Nod and What It Signals

The Criminal Court’s 12 January order to “accept for consideration” is not a final verdict, yet in Thai practice it is a strong indicator that judges see prima-facie substance. Acceptance means a full evidentiary hearing will follow; if the filing were frivolous, the bench could have dismissed it at the gate. Legal observers point out that only about 1 in 3 private defamation complaints survive this first filter, so Smith’s team has already cleared a significant hurdle.

The Speech that Sparked the Clash

During a House debate on 30 September 2025, list MP Rangsiman Rome named South African-Cambodian investor Ben Smith as a node in an alleged cross-border call-centre and scam syndicate, punctuating the claim with the phrase “mammoth-scale scammer.” The session was broadcast on both television and social media, giving the words a life far beyond the chamber. Smith’s lawyers argue the remarks were “not policy oversight but a public smear”, while Rome counters that scrutiny of influential figures is core to his legislative duty.

Who Exactly Is Ben Smith?

The plaintiff, born Benjamin Mauer Berger, has stitched together a résumé that spans Cape Town brokerage floors, Cambodian advisory posts, and Thai investment circles. Reports link him to luxury assets—from super-yachts to private jets—and to political heavyweights in Phnom Penh and Bangkok. Detractors allege prior brushes with stock-market manipulation and online fraud, yet Smith maintains that no Thai authority has ever convicted or even charged him. He now seeks to erase what he calls a “character assassination campaign” that, according to his camp, has already cost him multi-billion-baht crypto and real-estate projects.

Parliamentary Privilege on the Hot Seat

Section 124 of Thailand’s Constitution shields MPs for words spoken inside the chamber, but that cover thins once the speech travels via TV, radio, or Facebook feeds. By invoking Section 328 of the Criminal Code—which raises penalties when defamation is “advertised”—the court signalled that Rome’s remarks may have stepped outside safe harbor. Lawyers caution that successful prosecution could chill aggressive parliamentary oversight, reinforcing fears of SLAPP-style litigation designed to silence dissent. Previous cases, including a 2027 conviction of MP Jirat Thongsuwan for comments about a former air-force chief, show that courts are willing to jail—or at least fine—legislators who overstep.

Business, Politics, and the Thai Risk Calculation

For foreign investors eyeing Thailand, the suit underscores a recurring theme: political rhetoric can quickly spill into the courtroom. The Kingdom’s defamation laws, among the region’s toughest, allow private actors to seek criminal sanctions in addition to civil damages. Analysts note that high-profile cases often become proxy battles over transparency, patronage networks, and national image. Conversely, civil-society groups worry that corporate plaintiffs leverage the threat of jail time to stifle public-interest inquiries.

What Happens Next?

Both parties must appear for case-management on 23 February 2026 at 09:00. If mediation fails—and Smith’s counsel insists “no settlement”—the trial could stretch well into 2027. Potential outcomes range from full acquittal to a two-year prison term and a six-figure fine for the defendant, not to mention the requested ฿100 M compensation. Because Rome remains an MP, any conviction may also trigger ethical reviews by the House and the Election Commission.

Key Takeaways for Readers in Thailand

Parliamentary debates are not bullet-proof; nationwide broadcasts erode immunity.

Defamation under Section 328 can carry jail time, not merely a fine.

High-net-worth foreigners increasingly use Thai courts to protect reputations.

Legislators must balance robust oversight with rock-solid evidence.

The February hearing will set the tempo for future speech-versus-reputation battles.