Actress Whisuda Files Complaint Against Doing Good Foundation Over 50,000 Baht Flood Donation - Thairath English

At around 7:00 p.m. recently, the famous actress Whisuda visited police to file a complaint against the “Doing Good” Foundation, led by senior actress Boom Panadda Wongpudee, as a victim after having transferred 50,000 baht in donations to aid flood victims.

Whisuda revealed that on 17 September 2024, during the major flood, she personally contacted Boom to ask how to donate. She received an account number under the Doing Good organization name and transferred 50,000 baht. However, when requesting a tax-deductible receipt, Boom said it could not yet be issued since the organization had not been established for the required two years. At the time, Whisuda trusted Boom completely and did not suspect the account was actually a personal one.

Openly confused! Will wait as long as needed to hear the truth from “P'Boom” herself

Whisuda admitted she is currently confused as new information keeps emerging rapidly. As a donor, she insists she is one of the victims seeking clear answers on where the donated funds actually went and whether they were used properly to help the public.

“I will continue to wait for an answer directly from P'Boom, no matter how long it takes. If it turns out the money was not used to aid flood victims, I will be very disappointed, but I won’t regret the donation because it was given with good intentions,” Whisuda said.

Lawyer Kung, who accompanied Whisuda, gave a stern legal perspective: The foundation’s account is a dedicated account, so every baht from the public must be used according to its stated purpose and undergo thorough financial scrutiny. Regarding Boom Panadda’s public apology and sole acceptance of responsibility, Lawyer Kung affirmed this is legally insufficient. Courts rely on evidence, witness testimony, and forensic science. If the board members responsible for budget approval neglected their duties, they are legally liable as well. “Publicly accepting responsibility cannot override court evidence. What was said today is a concession to the evidence and an attempt to appear as the leading figure,” Lawyer Kung concluded.