At Bangchak Corporation’s (BCP) 2026 Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on April 10, shareholders officially disapproved a proposal to amend the company’s Articles of Association regarding director qualifications. Known as Agenda 7, the amendment sought to align BCP with international standards by disqualifying directors associated with money laundering, asset seizures, or sanctions by global authorities like the U.S., U.K., or UN.
The proposed change was highly controversial as it was widely viewed as a move to remove Mr. Natthakorn Athithanavanich, a board member representing Alpha Chartered Energy (ACE). ACE currently holds a 16.82% stake in BCP, though these shares have been seized by the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) as part of an investigation into alleged links to a money laundering scheme involving “Benjamin Mauerberger” also known as “Ben Smith”. Despite the seizure, no final court judgment has confirmed any wrongdoing.
The voting process itself faced scrutiny after an initial meeting invitation suggested ACE would be barred from voting as a “special stakeholder”. This restriction was ultimately reversed following an extraordinary board meeting where Chairman Pol. Gen. Suwat Jangyodsuk insisted that the board had not authorized such a move. In the final vote, 69.5% of shareholders approved the amendment, but it failed to reach the 75% supermajority threshold required for adoption.
BCP management has expressed concern that ACE’s continued involvement negatively impacts the company’s ESG ratings and international standing. Internal reports suggest that several global financial institutions, including Bank of America, JP Morgan, and Natixis, have already restricted services or credit lines to BCP due to the legal uncertainties surrounding its major shareholder. Additionally, several Thai brokerages have implemented 100% margin requirements for BCP stock.
However, the move, if true to the report, has raised questions about rationalities from these top financial institutions, believing that this could be an overreaction to the event. BCP is a fundamentally strong, profitable company backed by the Thai Ministry of Finance and the Social Security Office. It would be a “thoughtless” move for banks to forfeit interest and fees over a single director out of fifteen, especially since the Thai SEC has found no legal grounds to disqualify the representative and the courts have yet to reach a final verdict.
Furthermore, singling out BCP shows inconsistency and prematureness. Noted that many high-ranking Thai figures have engaged in similar transactions with the individuals under investigation without facing such severe financial ostracization. Critics emphasize that stripping a company of funding before any wrongdoing is proven in court is a violation of business logic and potentially harmful to BCP’s legitimate operations.
Additionally, there is no proof that ACE is linked to Ben Smith, who is alleged in the laundering scheme. For now, the rejection of the amendment preserves BCP’s current board structure while the legal proceedings regarding ACE continue to move through the Thai judicial system.
