# Phuket MP asks DSI to push nominee-case questioning back to late September

> Somchat Techathaworncharoen did not appear before Thailand's DSI on September 7 as scheduled. He asked to delay to late September, citing parliamentary sessions and fieldwork; DSI's investigating team said the full extension was unlikely and was weighing an earlier date instead, and noted his appearance has now slipped more than once. He denies wrongdoing; no charge has been filed.

**September 7, 2026** was the date Thailand's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) had set for Somchat Techathaworncharoen, the People's Party MP for Phuket Constituency 1, to appear over an allegation that he holds a director's or shareholder's stake in private companies that own Phuket real estate and condominium units together with foreign nationals. He did not appear on that date. DSI disclosed that he had instead submitted a letter asking to push the session back to the end of September, citing second- and third-reading parliamentary sessions scheduled for September 7–9 and constituency fieldwork, [Dailynews](https://www.dailynews.co.th/news/6168375/), [Matichon](https://www.matichon.co.th/politics/news_5878385) and [MGR Online](https://mgronline.com/crime/detail/9690000087587) reported the same day. DSI's investigating team indicated that granting the full extension to the end of September was unlikely and said it was weighing an earlier date instead, while separately noting that his appearance date has now been pushed back more than once. No charge has been filed, no court or prosecutor has ruled on the underlying allegation, and Somchat denies it.

## What happened

This is a continuation of the case [reported](/news/phuket-mp-nominee-allegation-dsi-2026) [twice before](/news/phuket-mp-dsi-second-summons-2026). DSI's first summons, issued around **August 22**, went undelivered because the postal service found the registered address closed. A second summons, issued on **August 31**, was confirmed delivered, and Justice Minister Pol Lt Gen Rutthaphon Naowarat said on **September 2** that DSI had set **September 7** as the date for Somchat to appear, [Thairath reported](https://www.thairath.co.th/news/politic/2956886). At the time, the minister said DSI knew only that the summons had reached him, not whether he would actually attend, [Dailynews reported](https://www.dailynews.co.th/news/6152650/).

What is new: September 7 arrived, and instead of appearing, Somchat filed a written request to postpone. Dailynews, Matichon and MGR Online, all reporting on September 7, said his letter cited the House's second- and third-reading sittings running September 7–9 and a need to visit his constituency. The reports say DSI's investigating team had no objection to him filing the request itself — this is now the second time his appearance has slipped, after the earlier failed delivery of the first summons — but that the team judged granting the full extension to the end of September unlikely to be feasible, and was instead weighing an earlier date for him to appear. No specific new date has been reported.

## Confirmed figures and source dates

The dated sequence, drawn from the sources above: a first summons attempted around August 22 and not delivered; a second summons issued August 31 and confirmed delivered; the minister's confirmation of the case and the September 7 appearance date on September 2; and Somchat's postponement request, disclosed by DSI and reported by three independent outlets on September 7 itself. No DSI case file, formal press release, or written order has been published for any of these steps; each is sourced to officials' statements as reported by named outlets, consistent with how this case has been documented since it surfaced in mid-August.

## Who is affected

Directly, this remains a matter concerning one sitting MP and the companies in which he is reported to hold a stake. The practical fact this update adds is procedural rather than substantive: it shows how DSI has responded, so far, when a summoned MP asks for more time — by signalling that the full length of the requested delay is unlikely to be granted, weighing a shorter one instead, and noting the pattern of delay. Anyone else facing a DSI summons over a company structure with foreign participation is not bound by this precedent, and the specific earlier date DSI may set, if any, has not been reported.

## What it may mean for Phuket property

A requested postponement is not a ruling and does not change the [legal test set out when this case began](/news/phuket-mp-nominee-allegation-dsi-2026): a Thai company with a foreign stake at or under 49% is a legal structure, not itself proof of a nominee arrangement, and the question is whether a Thai majority holder is holding shares for a foreigner's capital, control and economic benefit. What this update shows is only that DSI has signalled it is unlikely to grant the full several-week extension Somchat requested and is weighing an earlier date instead, and that its own investigators are keeping a record of the delay pattern rather than treating it as neutral. Neither fact bears on whether the underlying allegation is true.

## What remains unknown

The specific earlier date DSI is weighing, if any, has not been reported. Whether Somchat will provide the company registration documents, financial records and transfer explanations DSI has said it wants, and what happens once he does appear, are also unreported. Whether the separate asset-declaration question raised earlier in the case has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission remains unreported. Which specific Phuket properties the companies hold, and their individual values, also remain unreported.

## Related guides and data

Our guide to [[thai-company-property-ownership|Thai-company property ownership and nominee risk]] explains the capital, control and economic-interest test regulators apply. Our guide to [[foreign-property-ownership-thailand|how foreigners hold Thai property]] covers the legal ownership routes this case sits between, and [[foreign-business-act|the Foreign Business Act]] sets the ownership threshold a nominee arrangement is designed to sidestep. This article is not a finding of fact about Somchat Techathaworncharoen or any company associated with him; it reports a postponed investigative appearance and his denial, neither of which is a conviction.