Court accepts Ben Smith’s defamation case against Rangsiman

On 12 January 2026, Witoon Kengngan, a lawyer authorised by Ben Smith, a well-known businessman of South African–Cambodian nationality, published a video clip on his personal Facebook account stating that the Criminal Court had ordered the acceptance of the complaint in the case where Ben Smith, as plaintiff, filed a case against Rangsiman Rome from the People’s Party, on a charge of defamation.

The case arose from Rangsiman Rome’s speech in a House of Representatives meeting, in which he mentioned and named Ben Smith, accusing him of being connected to or involved with a cross-border scammer gang network, and using wording characterising him as a “mammoth-level scammer”. Ben Smith’s side considered this to be an allegation without facts, causing severe damage to his reputation and business image.

Witoon said that after the speech, Ben Smith assigned his legal team to gather evidence and file a defamation case with the Criminal Court, because he believed the speech was not within the scope of good-faith scrutiny, but was an act of falsely accusing the plaintiff to the public.

The Criminal Court considered the complaint and issued an order accepting the case for trial. Under legal procedure, this means the court views the case as having enough merit to proceed to examination and further adjudication.

“The fact that the court has accepted the case shows that the court sees there is merit that Rangsiman may have committed defamation, may have truly falsely accused him. This is not a case filed without merit as some parties try to claim,” Witoon said.

Witoon also warned politicians of all parties that campaigning or political debate can be done, but they should not use Ben Smith’s name as a political tool to attack any side, because it causes real damage.

“Ben Smith is not a political person, but he has been dragged into it and has suffered damage. Therefore, if there is still defamation or repeated allegations again, we confirm we will take legal action in every case, with no settlement,” Witoon said.

Source: Witoon Kengngan, lawyer authorised by Ben Smith.

As for the reason the court accepted the case, there are reports that the court considered that, when examining the wording in documents marked Chor.4 to Chor.11 and the physical evidence marked WorJor.1, which involved debating and posting text, photos and video clips on the Facebook application, the general public could access the defendant’s text, photos and video clips.

When the public or third persons saw the wording, it might cause the public or third persons to understand that the plaintiff behaved as a person or someone with a role in a group of people who used tricks to deceive others in order to obtain property or other benefits unlawfully, and behaved in transferring, receiving transfer of, or changing the form of property connected with wrongdoing, which is the offence of money laundering and operating an illegal business.

The defendant’s speech and actions as stated in the complaint have the character of imputing the plaintiff to third persons by advertisement in a manner that causes the plaintiff to lose reputation, be insulted, or be hated. Even though the defendant spoke and posted text, photos and video clips while performing duties as an MP, the words he spoke in the meeting appeared outside the parliament area through radio broadcasting or television broadcasting.

And the speaking of such words has the character of a criminal offence and a civil rights violation of another person. The plaintiff is therefore an external person, not a member of parliament, and did not have an opportunity to clarify or rebut the defendant. Therefore, he does not receive the privilege protection under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017), Section 124.

As for the defendant’s statement that his actions are exempt from offence, or exempt from punishment, under that provision, it must be an expression of opinion or statement made in good faith. But the defendant’s speech was made in a parliamentary meeting on the agenda of the government’s policy statement.

Although the defendant, as an MP, has the right to debate and ask about the approach to implementing policy and the content relates to that policy, when the defendant’s actions have the character of imputing the plaintiff, while there was still no clear evidence and the plaintiff’s wrongdoing had not been proven at that time — that the plaintiff was a joint principal offender as a scammer, jointly laundered money and operated an illegal business — and it was unrelated to government policy, at this stage the court sees that the plaintiff’s case has merit under Section 328 of the Criminal Code, and therefore accepts the case for trial.

The court set an appointment for both parties on 23 February 2026 at 9.00am.