Condo agent forges signature to steal 1.05 million baht from client

A Thai man demanded that a condominium agent in Chon Buri return 1.05 million baht to him after the agent forged his signature and stole his money in 2022.

The victim, Pongnatthana, revealed details of the issue to Channel 3 during an interview on Saturday, September 7. He explained that he bought three rooms in a condominium in the Na Jomtien neighbourhood of Sattahip district, Chon Buri province, 10 years ago.

Pongnatthana paid a deposit of 2.25 million baht to the condominium developer. However, construction on the condo was halted in 2022 due to financial difficulties.

As a result, a real estate agent named Nan contacted Pongnatthana and suggested that he buy into another condominium project in the Jomtien area of Pattaya instead. He would not need to pay a deposit for this new project, as his previous deposit would cover it.

Pongnatthana was not interested in the new project and requested his deposit be returned. Nan informed him that the developer could only refund half of the deposit, amounting to 1.25 million baht. Pongnatthana agreed to these terms and received an initial payment of 200,000 baht.

Since then, he has been waiting for the remaining 1.05 million baht but the agent continued to claim that the developer had not yet made the payment.

Pongnatthana subsequently contacted the developer directly and discovered that the amount had already been disbursed through the agent. Furthermore, it appeared that he had supposedly signed a document acknowledging receipt of the money, despite not having signed anything.

Pongnatthana eventually discovered that the agent, Nan, forged his signature to take the money, so he took legal action against her.

Channel 3 reported that Nan was summoned to Mueang Pattaya Police Station for questioning. She admitted to forging Pongnatthana’s signature but claimed that her supervisor ordered her to do so. Nan insisted that she had not taken the money.

During questioning, the mentioned supervisor called Nan. Nan asked how the supervisor would take responsibility for the legal charges she was facing. However, the supervisor denied any involvement in the issue and immediately hung up.

There has been no update on the legal proceedings of the case, and the supervisor has refused to speak with reporters.