Surat Thani immigration officers uncovered what they say was a carefully staged attempt to hide foreign ownership of a Koh Samui nightlife venue, leading to a formal complaint lodged on November 26 at Bo Phut Police Station. At the centre of the probe is 60-year-old British national Maxine Lisa Schwander and two Thai women named Ladda and Jirichuda, who investigators allege acted as nominee shareholders to mask outside control of a bar near Chaweng Beach.
The venue, known as Sin by Night, reportedly offered dance shows and allowed customers to book specific performers — a familiar draw on the island’s bustling entertainment strip. But according to immigration officers, the bright lights and late-night crowds were hiding a breach of the Foreign Business Act: Schwander is accused of using Thai nationals as front shareholders so she could run the business despite restrictions on foreign ownership.
Under Thailand’s Foreign Business Act, the penalties for unlawfully operating a business as a foreigner are significant — authorities cite up to three years’ imprisonment and fines ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000 baht. Those alleged consequences now hang over Schwander and the two Thai nominees after investigators pieced together testimony and financial records.
The case only surfaced after the arrest of two British men who had been on the run. Officers detained 37-year-old Ashton Kevin Saunders and 38-year-old Daniel Farrer Thornton, who were hiding on Koh Samui while wanted in the United Kingdom on robbery charges. During questioning, both men admitted they ran Sin by Night while evading capture and said the bar helped them generate income while in hiding.
According to the men’s statements, Saunders’s mother — identified as Schwander — was listed as the official shareholder, a move they said was intended to avoid unwanted scrutiny. Investigators say company records show Schwander held 49% of the shares while the two Thai women collectively held 51%. But financial evidence and employee testimony suggest the Thai shareholders lacked any real decision-making authority and did not invest capital, calling into question the legitimacy of that ownership split.
Investigators examined the bar’s bank activity and found a pattern of transfers. Between 2023 and 2025 funds from the company’s two accounts were regularly moved into Schwander’s personal account. Prosecutors say those transfers amount to more than 17 million baht — a figure that bolstered authorities’ decision to press charges.
Ladda and Jirichuda later acknowledged that Schwander had asked to use their names as shareholders. They told investigators they had not contributed investment capital and were paid monthly wages as employees at the bar rather than exercising any control over operations. With those admissions and the paper trail of bank transfers, immigration officers proceeded with legal action against Schwander and the two Thai nominees.
The complaint filed at Bo Phut Police Station focuses on alleged breaches of the Foreign Business Act, and the case underscores how Thai authorities are scrutinising nominee arrangements that can be used to circumvent foreign ownership rules. Using local nominees — people who hold shares on behalf of a foreigner but lack any real management power — has long been a red flag for regulators aiming to enforce business and immigration laws.
For the Koh Samui community and visitors, the story is a reminder that the island’s nightlife may occasionally conceal complicated legal and financial manoeuvres behind its neon façade. For the individuals involved, the unfolding paperwork, interrogations and potential criminal penalties now complicate what had been the routine business of running a bar.
Local media reporting on the investigation has cited photos and statements from KhaoSod English and other outlets covering the matter. Immigration authorities have signalled they will continue to pursue evidence as the case moves through the legal process, and any future court proceedings will determine whether the alleged nominee arrangement and the transfers of funds constitute criminal offences under Thai law.
As the inquiry continues, Koh Samui’s nightlife operators and investors will be watching closely. The incident highlights the risks of informal ownership structures and the growing appetite among Thai officials to crack down on arrangements that appear designed to hide who really controls and profits from businesses on Thai soil.
For now, Sin by Night sits under scrutiny, and the fate of the accused — Schwander, Ladda and Jirichuda — will depend on the evidence presented and the decisions of law enforcement and prosecutors in the coming weeks.
If the bank transfers really went to her personal account, that looks like textbook nominee fraud and should be prosecuted. Thailand’s Foreign Business Act exists for a reason, but enforcement seems selective and political at times. Still, the evidence in the report sounds damning enough to merit a full court review.
Selective enforcement is exactly the issue — locals do nominee deals too, but foreigners get the headlines. We need consistent, transparent investigations instead of spectacle.
From a legal standpoint, the pattern of transfers and lack of capital contribution by the Thai shareholders establishes prima facie evidence of sham ownership. However, conviction will require clear proof of intent and control, and Thai courts often weigh documentary evidence heavily.
Agreed, Dr. Park — intent is the hard part to prove, but regular payroll to nominees and transfers straight to her account create a strong circumstantial case. I hope prosecutors build a watertight timeline.
This is why foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to own anything important here. They come, make money, and duck the rules, while locals pay the price. Lock them up and seize illicit profits.
That’s xenophobic and simplistic. Foreign investment brings jobs and tourism; the problem is shady practices, not nationality. You can’t tar all foreigners because some break laws.
There is a middle ground: enforce the law without demonizing every expat. Focus on the crimes, not identity, and offer legal paths for investment.
I get your point but I’ve seen too many locals lose businesses to foreigners with nominee tricks. The laws should protect citizens first, period.
People often forget nominees are victims too; some accept small wages because of debt or pressure. That doesn’t excuse the circumvention, but it complicates moral judgment. We need social supports and legal reform to stop exploitation on all sides.
Exactly — in many jurisdictions nominee shareholders are used under duress, and remedies include financial transparency laws and penalties targeted at controllers rather than proxies. Thailand might consider safe-harbor rules to protect coerced nominees.
So the Thai ladies might be scared and only doing what they’re told? That’s sad. Someone should help them talk to the police without getting hurt.
Yes, Ben — witness protection and safe reporting channels are crucial, otherwise people will keep being used as fronts and the cycle continues.
Why were two fugitives running the bar in the first place? That alone smells worse than anything about nominee shares. The foreigners waving the rules are the main problem here. Prosecute everyone involved.
The fugitives are a different criminal matter but definitely related; harboring fugitives while running a business suggests organized evasion. It raises questions about how long this was allowed to operate.
Lots of tourist spots hide shady actors who exploit legal blind spots — Koh Samui is no exception. The police need to coordinate with UK authorities on the fugitives, too.
Cross-border cooperation is key. If the UK made arrests and Thailand sheltered them, that opens another layer of corruption or negligence to investigate.
As someone who lives on Koh Samui, it’s embarrassing to see the island tied to this kind of story. Nightlife supports locals but not if it attracts crime and money laundering. Regulators should get tougher on licensing and audits.
Local authorities are under pressure and we have been increasing checks, but resource constraints and legal complexity slow enforcement. Public reporting and media attention help prioritize cases like this one.
Tourist dollars matter, but so does reputation. If Samui becomes known for fugitive-friendly bars, long-term tourism will suffer. Tough love on illegal owners is necessary.
Thanks for the clarification, Officer. I just hope the next step is preventive: better vetting for licenses and stricter anti-money-laundering checks.
The 49/51 share split screams of a paper arrangement to me. If the Thai shareholders had no control or investment, it’s a sham. But sometimes paper ownership is all the law can reach, so prosecutors must show de facto control.
Lots of small businesses use creative paperwork to survive, but when fugitives run things it becomes criminal. Community standards are changing; locals are less willing to cover for shady bosses.
Courts will look at who made managerial decisions, who signed contracts, and who benefited financially. The 17 million baht transfers are a compelling metric for benefit and control.
I don’t like foreigners getting special treatment, but I also don’t like witch hunts. Let the courts do their job and don’t rush to lynch someone based on headlines. Evidence should lead the way.
Fair point, Joe, but courts only act if prosecutors build a strong case. Public pressure sometimes speeds things up when officials might otherwise delay.
True, public attention helps, but we should avoid turning the accused into scapegoats for systemic issues like inadequate corporate oversight.
Nominee laws exist because countries value sovereignty over key businesses. People who think rules are optional because they bring tourists are naive. Enforce the law equally.
Hundreds of expat-run small businesses are legit and contribute, but shady operators give everyone a bad name. The solution is transparency, not blanket exclusion.
Transparency would help, but I still believe penalties should be harsher to deter repeated abuses. Light fines just encourage more nominee tricks.
I’m less interested in nationality than in process: were proper anti-money-laundering (AML) checks performed by banks on those transfers? That 17 million baht movement should have flagged AML systems long before police got involved. Financial institutions share responsibility here.
Banks often turn a blind eye in high-tourism areas, or compliance is weak. This case could expose systemic lapses in banking oversight.
Exactly, Kara — if banks did their jobs, we might never reach this level of alleged fraud. Regulators should audit banks as well as businesses.