Thai maid’s 100 million baht inheritance comes under legal scrutiny
Though many believe Auntie Tim may lose her windfall, a senior public prosecutor says the French woman’s questionable business practices and her will are unrelated
Questions have arisen over whether the 100 million baht left to a Thai maid by her late employer could be lost, following suspicions that the French woman used Thai nominees to conduct a real-estate business on Koh Samui.
Some legal experts suggest that the assets to be inherited by Natthawalai “Auntie Tim” Pupongta from Sakhon Nakhon, could be seized by the state if it is proven that they were obtained through the illegal use of Thai nominees.
However, senior public prosecutor Proamate Intarachoomnoom clarified that the alleged nominee issue would not affect the validity of the will, and Natthawalai should inherit the assets as stipulated by the deceased’s wishes.
Catherine Delacote, a 59-year-old French businesswoman, was found dead on May 2 by the swimming pool at her Koh Samui villa. Police said she shot herself and left a suicide note saying she was dying of cancer.
In her will, Delacote said she was bequeathing her trusted maid of 17 years her luxury villa worth 30 million baht, two land plots worth 20 million and some ornaments and assets in a safe box and money in bank accounts worth another 50 million baht.
After Delacote’s generous will made the headlines, the president of the Samui Tourism Association filed a complaint questioning why a foreigner was allowed to engage in real estate business on the island.
Investigations by the Surat Thani provincial administration, in cooperation with the provincial army, revealed that Delacote had used two Thai nationals – Thongsai Katisuk, 50, and Ratchaprapha Soreda, 36 – as nominees to run two companies: GVNE Co Ltd, which leases luxury villas, and Maxikate Co Ltd, which provides IT consulting services.
Charges have been filed against the two Thai nationals, Delacote (posthumously) and the two companies for allegedly using nominees in business activities without permission, unlawful land occupation and providing false statements to the authorities.
While some legal experts argue that the assets could be seized if proven in court to have been gained through illegal nominee use, Poramate disagrees.
He said while Delacote could be fined and even retroactively convicted for operating a business without permission, her assets cannot be seized. He backed his comments by citing a previous court ruling where vendors were fined for selling pork without licences, but their shops were not confiscated.
