A post from an account called "Elite3043" that is currently being shared widely among Thai crypto traders poses a sarcastic hypothetical question: "If I get banned and removed from my position as CEO, and I have my 10 secretaries create fake volume by buying and selling to pump the price of a coin, then split the profits — on the condition that absolutely no one is allowed to catch them — do you think the SEC would know?
And do you think I would do it….?? 😆 And if it were you, would you do it…?? 😆 You don't even know who each transaction line belongs to.
Even if you can verify it down to the second….That's why I'm saying that if futures trading were legal and creating tokens was up to me, you'd face a portfolio wipeout far worse than fake volume for sure.."
This post is generating enormous discussion on social media, particularly around the question: "If an exchange executive were banned and then used associates or 10 secretaries to create fake volume and pump coin prices, would the SEC be able to detect it?"
The message does not name any specific exchange or any identifiable individual, and is written in hypothetical terms. However, the timing of its spread coincides with the SEC's recent disclosure last week of a major case involving Bitkub, leading many people to connect the two — even though no direct evidence links them.
At this point, it is important to clearly separate what is verifiable fact from the SEC and what remains an unproven claim, by reviewing two real cases connected to the term "wash trading" in the Thai crypto industry.
What is wash trading?
First, it is necessary to understand that wash trading is a form of price manipulation in which fake buy-and-sell transactions are created to make it appear that a large number of people are trading a coin, when in reality it may be the same group of people trading among themselves.
For example, a single person controls two accounts and uses one to place a buy order and the other to place a sell order, so that the orders match each other. Even though the coin has not truly changed hands, the system records that a transaction has taken place.
This method makes a coin appear to have high trading volume and more liquidity than it actually does. Other investors may mistakenly believe the coin is attracting interest and decide to buy in. In some cases, it may be used to generate hype or push up the price before the perpetrators sell their coins to take a profit.
Revisiting the Bitkub cases — from price manipulation to false reporting
To take a concrete example: in the case of Bitkub itself, the SEC previously pursued a wash trading case as far back as 2022 — a verifiable fact from official announcements, not a claim from any post.
Looking back to 1 July 2022, the SEC took civil enforcement action against three offenders: Bitkub Online Co., Ltd., Mr. Anurak Chuachai, and Mr. Sakonkorn Sakawi, on charges of creating artificial trading volume in digital assets — i.e., wash trading.
According to the SEC's account of the conduct, between 4 January and 5 September 2019, Mr. Anurak entered into a contract with Mr. Sakonkorn to act as a liquidity provider or market maker for Bitkub, with financial backing from Mr. Sakonkorn. However, the method used involved placing matched buy-and-sell orders across multiple coin pairs in a manner that artificially inflated trading volume, covering 18 different coins.
The outcome of this case was that all three offenders were required to pay civil fines totalling more than 24.16 million baht. Mr. Sakonkorn was also banned from holding any directorial or executive position in the digital asset business for 12 months, and barred from trading digital assets for 6 months.
This is notable because it maps directly onto the narrative in the viral post — namely, an "executive getting banned" and "using others to create fake volume." It must be emphasised, however, that this was a real case that occurred in 2022, not a current event, and nothing confirms that the post was written with direct reference to this case.
The issue has resurfaced following the SEC's referral of a complaint against Bitkub and those involved — Mr. Sakonkorn Sakawi and Mr. Thaweesap Rawan — to the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) on 23 July 2026, on charges of reporting false information and concealing the fact that digital assets worth approximately 1.7 billion baht had been stolen from the system in 2021. The capital adequacy reports submitted to the SEC did not reflect that loss, which may constitute a criminal offence and expose the directors to personal liability.
When the full history of penalties is tallied from 2021 onward, Bitkub has been fined or has accepted enforcement measures in four separate instances, with total fines exceeding 33.47 million baht, covering issues ranging from trading system outages, artificial volume creation, and non-compliant coin listing procedures — including a fine of 15.2 million baht in the same year — to one criminal complaint in the false reporting case.
Mounting wounds and mounting cases — the trigger for SCBS pulling out of the Bitkub deal
The point of significant business consequence is the period during which these events overlapped with the landmark deal between Bitkub and the SCBX Group to acquire a 51% stake in Bitkub Online for 17,850 million baht in early November 2021 — a timeframe that directly coincided with the period during which Bitkub was alleged to have reported inaccurate information to the SEC.
The deal took far longer to complete its due diligence process than originally planned, amid mounting regulatory scrutiny by the SEC across multiple fronts — including the wash trading case and the issue of the KUB coin being listed for trading in a manner that did not comply with the required criteria, which resulted in Bitkub being fined a further 15.2 million baht in the same year.
Ultimately, the SCBS board resolved to cancel the deal entirely on 25 August 2022, citing the fact that Bitkub still had outstanding issues under SEC orders with uncertain timelines for resolution.
Finally, this post remains no more than an unverified suspicion. The facts must await investigation by the competent authorities, and no conclusion has been drawn that it is connected to Bitkub or any specific individual.
The key message, therefore, is not the accusation from an anonymous post, but the question of how deeply the regulatory system is able to scrutinise those in positions of power and those operating behind transactions — even when the parties involved do not act through their own accounts.
