Mystery over shareholding filings solved after police interview the woman at the centre of the storm in the market

July 13, 2026

LATEST NEWS

Mystery over shareholding filings solved after police interview the woman at the centre of the storm in the market

Thailand’s biggest stock market mystery unravels after police discover a woman mistakenly reported more than ฿100bn in blue-chip shareholdings while trying to identify an old mutual fund, sparking panic, an SEC probe and Finance Ministry action.

What appeared to be one of Thailand’s biggest shareholding revelations has ended with an astonishing confession. A woman whose name briefly appeared to control more than ฿100 billion in shares told police she mistakenly filed the disclosures after misunderstanding SEC reporting rules while trying to identify a decade-old mutual fund investment. The explanation ended days of market speculation, prompted an SEC investigation and exposed irregularities before the filings were withdrawn.

Ms Supaporn Pimphong told police she mistakenly reported over ฿100bn in blue-chip shares after misunderstanding SEC rules while tracing an old mutual fund investment. (Source: Matichon)

The mystery surrounding Ms Supaporn Pimphong’s reported multi-billion-baht shareholdings has ended with an unexpected explanation. After questioning by the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECSD), she admitted submitting incorrect information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). She said she acted through ignorance while trying to identify a mutual fund purchased about 10 years ago.

Police later concluded the extraordinary disclosures resulted from misunderstanding rather than genuine ownership.

For several days, however, the case dominated discussion across Thailand’s capital markets. Regulatory filings appeared to show Ms Supaporn controlling more than ฿100 billion in shares across seven holdings in six listed companies.

False billion-baht share filings stunned markets as unknown investor suddenly emerged on paper

Consequently, investors, brokers and analysts scrambled to identify the previously unknown shareholder. Yet her name had never surfaced among Thailand’s recognised investment figures. Instead, the disclosures appeared to reveal one of the kingdom’s largest private investors almost overnight.

The filings were submitted through the SEC’s Form 246-2 disclosure system. They appeared to show holdings above the mandatory 5% reporting threshold in several blue-chip companies. Most notably, the reports listed a 7.0992% stake in True Corporation.

That holding alone carried a reported value exceeding ฿30 billion. In parallel, the filings showed a 5.1% stake in Kasikornbank and a 5.01% holding in Bangkok Bank. They also attributed a 5.33% interest in Asia Aviation and a 9.99% stake in Major Cineplex to Ms Supaporn. Separately, two disclosures involving GJ Steel reported holdings of 48.6% and 80.9%. One filing stated those shares had been acquired through inheritance.

Collectively, the reported portfolio stunned financial circles. Fund managers struggled to explain how such enormous holdings had escaped notice.

Brokers searched shareholder records for answers. Analysts examined whether nominee structures might be involved. Others questioned whether undisclosed block transactions had taken place. Within hours, the filings became one of the Stock Exchange of Thailand’s biggest talking points.

True rejects reported transaction as listed companies and SEC uncover multiple irregularities in disclosures

Notably, True Corporation quickly challenged the disclosure. The company stated the reported transaction “did not exist”. It also pointed out that the filing referred to preferred shares. True said it has never issued preferred shares to the public.

In response, other listed companies informed regulators that aspects of the disclosures failed to match their shareholder registers and securities records. As a result, confidence in the filings quickly deteriorated.

The SEC immediately began examining the reports. Initially, the filings were marked as preliminary. They were then placed under verification.

After investigators identified several irregularities, all seven disclosures were removed from the SEC’s public reporting system. Subsequently, the regulator confirmed the information did not correspond with the facts. That conclusion shifted attention away from the reported holdings and towards the disclosure process itself.

Police questioning reveals decade-old mutual fund purchase sparked reporting misunderstanding

As part of the investigation, ECSD officers summoned Ms Supaporn together with SEC representatives. Investigators questioned her extensively about the filings.

Afterwards, police concluded the incident most likely stemmed from a misunderstanding while Form 246-2 was being completed. They also found no evidence she had acquired the reported holdings.

During questioning, Ms Supaporn admitted she knew very little about investing in the stock market. She explained that she bought a mutual fund through a bank about 10 years ago.

However, she never understood exactly what type of investment she had purchased. Recently, she wanted to discover approximately what she owned. She also wanted to monitor future dividend payments. Accordingly, she decided to submit Form 246-2 to the SEC.

According to her testimony, she searched the Thai NVDR website while completing the form. Unfortunately, she misunderstood how the reporting process worked. Instead, she copied information from the website into the disclosure.

Mistaken use of Thai NVDR website data led to false reports of huge shareholdings across top firms

In turn, inaccurate information appeared in the SEC’s reporting system. She firmly told investigators she has never purchased or held the substantial True Corporation stake attributed to her. Likewise, she denied owning any of the other reported shareholdings.

Before meeting investigators, Ms Supaporn publicly believed another woman sharing her name had been identified. Reports indicated there were two women named Supaporn Pimphong, one living in Bangkok and another in Prachin Buri.

Earlier, the Bangkok resident told local news outlet Matichon she first learned about the controversy from a friend who invested in shares. Even then, she insisted she had never invested directly in the stock market. She also said she possessed no knowledge of share trading. Therefore, she believed the disclosures probably referred to someone else.

She told the publication: “We are innocent and verifiable. I am ready to cooperate because we have been minding our own business and nothing unusual has happened. I believe it might be a case of someone with the same name. We have not been contacted by either the SEC or the police, so we think they know we are not involved. We firmly believe we are 100% not involved.”

When asked whether she intended to file a police complaint over possible impersonation, she declined. Instead, she said investigators would establish the facts themselves. On the following day, however, ECSD officers formally interviewed her.

Police accept explanation. Probe finds misunderstanding behind one of year’s biggest market mysteries

During that interview, the explanation changed significantly. Rather than another individual using her identity, she acknowledged submitting the disclosure herself. Nevertheless, she insisted she acted through ignorance rather than intent. Instead, she said she was simply trying to identify details of a mutual fund investment purchased years earlier.

Meanwhile, investigators accepted that explanation after reviewing the evidence. Police concluded the disclosures resulted from misunderstanding rather than ownership of major listed companies.

Finance Minister orders urgent probe into confusion about stock market share transfers and reporting

The investigation also established that information copied from the Thai NVDR website had been incorrectly entered into Form 246-2. Consequently, the extraordinary reported portfolio proved never to have existed.

By then, the case had already unsettled Thailand’s financial community. Investors had searched for hidden ownership structures. Listed companies had reviewed shareholder records. Market professionals had questioned whether an unknown billionaire had suddenly emerged. Ultimately, none of those theories proved correct.

Instead, one of the year’s most remarkable securities disclosure controversies ended with a simple explanation. An inexperienced mutual fund investor misunderstood the SEC’s reporting process while trying to identify an investment made a decade earlier.