NACC launches probe into Srettha cabinet over 35bn budget reallocation for 10,000-baht handout, clears MPs’ fund charge

On October 31, 2025, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) released an update on complaints and ongoing inquiries involving former prime ministers Srettha Thavisin along with several others.

The case concerns allegations that Srettha, while serving as prime minister, and his associates jointly amended and reduced allocations in the 2025 national budget, specifically funds earmarked for the repayment of public debt, loan interest, and legally mandated expenditures — redirecting these funds for other purposes.

According to the NACC investigation, the first allegation accuses Srettha and his cabinet of cutting or reducing the expenditure budgets of five state-owned specialised financial institutions (SFIs), amounting to 35 billion baht in total. These funds, considered repayments and legal commitments under the Constitution, were allegedly diverted to the central budget for use in the government’s economic stimulus programme — the 10,000-baht digital wallet scheme.

The SFIs involved were:

1. Small and Medium Enterprise Development Bank of Thailand (SME D Bank)
2. Export–Import Bank of Thailand (EXIM Bank)
3. Government Savings Bank (GSB)
4. Government Housing Bank (GH Bank)
5. Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC)

The report stated that the adjustments were made internally following discussions between the Fiscal Policy Office (FPO) and the Budget Bureau, rather than being proposed or approved through the House of Representatives or the parliamentary budget committee, as required by law.

The NACC said the reallocation of 35 billion baht did not originate from any parliamentary amendment process, but from executive intervention, which may constitute a violation of Article 144(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution, prohibiting unauthorised budget alterations for political purposes.

Therefore, since there was no amendment proposed by MPs or the parliamentary budget committee, a key element required for a constitutional violation, the case lacks grounds for prosecution under Section 144, paragraph one (3) of the Constitution. The alleged offence of violating or failing to comply with constitutional provisions was thus deemed unfounded.

Moreover, the Constitutional Court had previously ruled that any petition submitted under Section 144, paragraph three must be filed while the annual budget bill is still under parliamentary consideration. Once the bill has passed and become law, it no longer meets the criteria for referral to the Constitutional Court. Consequently, the NACC decided not to refer the case to the Court and resolved to terminate the confidential inquiry in accordance with the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption, B.E. 2561 (2018).

However, the investigation established factual evidence that Srettha Thavisin, as prime minister, and his cabinet had issued policy directives or resolutions ordering the Budget Bureau and the Fiscal Policy Office (FPO) to instruct the five state-owned specialised financial institutions (SFIs) to review and reduce their own expenditure budgets. The aim was to redirect those funds to finance the government’s economic stimulus project.

Subsequently, during a cabinet meeting on August 13, 2024, the Council of Ministers formally approved the SFIs’ proposal to revise the 2025 fiscal-year expenditure budget, reducing allocations by a combined 35 billion baht. The funds were transferred to the central budget to support the government’s 10,000-baht economic stimulus scheme. The parliamentary budget committee and the House of Representatives later approved the change by majority vote, even though the SFI allocations were legally classified as financial liabilities intended to compensate operational costs, financial losses, and public-service obligations.

Under Section 28 of the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act, B.E. 2561 (2018) and Section 28 of the State Enterprise Governance and Administration Development Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), such liabilities require the government to provide compensation as soon as practicable, in line with Section 20(5) of the Fiscal Discipline Act.

Instead, the Srettha administration reduced or altered the budgets of the five SFIs without allocating compensatory funding in the 2025 fiscal year. As a result, Srettha, his cabinet, and the state officials involved in initiating or approving the 35-billion-baht reallocation were found to have jointly acted — or failed to act — unlawfully, in breach of Sections 9 and 20(5) of the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act, B.E. 2561 (2018).

The investigation found indications that the reallocated 35-billion-baht budget was intended for the 10,000-baht digital-wallet scheme — a flagship Pheu Thai Party campaign policy — with the purpose of gaining political popularity. Such actions could cause damage to the national fiscal and financial system, and may constitute offences under Section 157 of the Criminal Code and Section 172 of the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018).

Accordingly, the NACC unanimously resolved to formally accept the case for inquiry under the 2018 Anti-Corruption Act and to investigate the following individuals:

1. Srettha Thavisin, in his capacity as prime minister at the time.
2. Cabinet members of Srettha’s administration who participated in the August 13, 2024 meeting approving the budget reduction and reallocation for fiscal year 2025.
3. Pornchai Thiraveja, Director-General of the Fiscal Policy Office, and Koranin Kanchanomai, Deputy Director of the Budget Bureau, as officials involved in proposing the budget reduction of the five state-owned specialised financial institutions (SFIs) totalling 35 billion baht.

Second allegation:
The NACC also received a complaint accusing Srettha Thavisin and his associates of jointly amending the 2025 budget to increase the allocation for the Fund for Former Members of Parliament, managed by the Secretariat of the House of Representatives, by 1,256,710,300 baht. The alleged conduct would constitute direct or indirect involvement in the national budget in breach of Section 144, paragraph 2, of the Constitution.

According to the inquiry, on October 30 2023, the General Affairs Division, Central Administration Bureau — the office responsible for preparing the detailed budget request for the Fund for Former Members of Parliament — submitted a memorandum seeking an allocation of 220,184,400 baht for fiscal year 2025. The proposal, endorsed by the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, was forwarded to the Policy and Planning Office for analysis and integration into the overall budget proposal.

The requested amount included expenses related to medical treatment, funeral or disability benefits, pension allowances, children’s education grants, and fund administration costs.

After the cabinet approved the draft Budget Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2025 and the bill was submitted to the House of Representatives, it was found that on May 9, 2024, the Policy and Planning Office issued a memorandum instructing internal departments of the Secretariat of the House of Representatives to consider submitting proposals to amend or increase budget allocations for projects that had received insufficient funding, or where additional funds were required to comply with legal obligations of the Secretariat.

Subsequently, on May 29, 2024, the General Affairs Division, Central Administration Bureau, proposed a request for an additional allocation of 324,130,810 baht to cover expenses of the Fund for Former Members of Parliament.

At that time, the fund’s regulations had been amended, expanding the scope of benefits for former MPs — including higher entitlements for pension payments, medical treatment, death and disability compensation — thus necessitating a request for supplementary funding. The Secretariat of the House of Representatives submitted the proposal to the chairman of the parliamentary budget committee on July 26, 2025.

However, during the committee’s deliberation on the fiscal year 2025 budget bill, the parliamentary budget committee resolved not to approve the requested increase for the revolving fund covering former MPs’ welfare expenses. This finding is consistent with the official House of Representatives meeting report, which contains no record of any amendment increasing the fund’s budget.

Furthermore, a review of the fiscal year 2025 Budget Appropriation Act (White Book with Red Stripe) — specifically Section 39(25), Category 6: Revolving Funds — confirmed that the Secretariat of the House received 220,184,400 baht for the fund, exactly matching the amount in the enacted budget law.

Therefore, there was no amendment or increase to the fund’s allocation as alleged.

The NACC thus resolved that there was insufficient evidence or witness testimony to support the accusation that Srettha Thavisin and others jointly amended the budget to increase the fund for former MPs by 1,256,710,300 baht. The allegation was dismissed and the confidential inquiry was terminated.