China Railway Boss Arrested in Thailand as Building Collapse Probe Widens

 

A director of China Railway No. 10 (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has been arrested and detained by Thailand's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) as part of a widening investigation into a collapsed building project.

 

Chuanling Zhang, a Chinese national, was taken into custody and subsequently remanded in custody by the Criminal Court.

 

The arrest follows a joint operation by senior law enforcement officials, including Justice Minister Pol Col Tawee Sodsong and DSI Director-General Pol Lt Col Yutthana Praedam.

 

Zhang faces allegations under the Foreign Business Act, accused of conducting business activities prohibited to foreign nationals or requiring prior authorisation, with the company allegedly complicit in these actions.

 

He was apprehended at a hotel in the Ratchadaphisek area of Bangkok and brought to the DSI headquarters for questioning on Saturday.

 

During initial inquiries, Zhang acknowledged knowing Binling Wu but distinguished his position, portraying Wu as an external figure rather than a representative of the Chinese government or a state-owned enterprise, unlike himself.

 

DSI investigators have reportedly found that Wu holds shares in several companies, all of which utilise the same group of Thai individuals as directors.

 

While no direct link between Wu and China Railway Co., Ltd. has been established, the connections among these three Thai directors are under scrutiny, with authorities gathering evidence to ascertain their potential involvement in any wrongdoing.
 

 

 

Crucially, DSI investigation reports also indicate that the initial director of China Railway No. 10 (Thailand) Co., Ltd. was not Zhang but Dong Xia.

 

In the latest developments on Monday, Pol Capt Surawut Rangsai, deputy director-general of the DSI, and Pol Maj Woranan Srilam, the DSI spokesperson, confirmed that  Zhang, who holds a 49% stake in China Railway No. 10 (Thailand) Co., Ltd. – the firm behind the collapsed State Audit Office building – was presented to the Criminal Court for his initial detention hearing.

 

Upon arrival at court, Zhang remained impassive and declined to comment on whether he had instructed three Thai individuals to act as nominee directors to establish the company.

 

Following extensive questioning, which remains ongoing due to the case's broad implications and the suspect's foreign nationality, raising concerns about potential flight risk, the court will now decide on the matter of bail.

 

DSI spokesperson Pol Maj Woranan revealed that the suspect had denied the allegations, maintaining he was a legitimate representative of a Chinese state-owned enterprise sent to invest in Thailand on behalf of the Chinese government, holding a 49% stake in the company.

 

He claimed to lack specific details regarding the Thai shareholders, focusing his statements on his own involvement. However, he admitted to knowing the three Thai directors but declined to comment on whether they were hired as nominees. Further details were withheld as they form part of the ongoing investigation.
 

 

 

Crucially, the questioning has unearthed connections that investigators are urgently pursuing, including allegations that the Thai directors borrowed a substantial sum of 2 billion baht from a Chinese individual, with the source of these funds now under scrutiny. 

 

The DSI is currently tracing the financial movements of the three Thai directors, noting that their apparent financial standing does not align with their involvement in such significant business dealings or specialised professional roles.

 

The DSI is actively seeking to apprehend the three Thai directors, with leads suggesting they remain in Thailand.

 

While the initial aim was simply to gather information from them to complete the overall picture, their failure to come forward and the accumulation of sufficient evidence has led the DSI to obtain arrest warrants to compel their cooperation.

 

The DSI emphasised its commitment to due process, stating that while initial evidence from complainants justified the arrest warrants, they will now also consider the accounts and evidence presented by the accused to determine whether the allegations can be refuted.