More Than 150 Mae Chaem Residents Reportedly Lose Welfare Access After Disputed Company Tax Records

Company income records put village welfare payments at risk

At least 57 residents of Mae Hae Nai village in Thailand's Chiang Mai province have been affected after their names appeared in company tax records showing income of hundreds of thousands of baht, despite their accounts that they had never worked for the businesses involved. Across the wider Mae Chaem area, officials say more than 150 people have been affected.

The disputed records have led to residents losing access to the state welfare card scheme. For some older villagers, the loss means going without a monthly benefit of 300 baht that they relied on for basic needs. Residents say the income recorded against their names does not reflect money they actually earned.

The allegations concern three companies that reportedly listed villagers as employees and used their personal details in withholding tax records. Residents are seeking an investigation, correction of the records and urgent restoration of their welfare rights. A representative of one company has offered compensation, but there is no confirmed date for benefits to resume.

Reports dated October 7, 2026 describe residents seeking help to investigate unexpectedly high income attributed to them. The central issue is the gap between what appears in tax records and what villagers say happened: people who describe lives largely confined to a remote farming community have been recorded as receiving substantial company income.

Older residents describe losing essential support

Phola Methawirot, 62, said she had no income and depended on the 300 baht monthly welfare benefit. Losing that support had caused serious hardship, according to her account. The amount is modest, but for someone without earnings, its removal leaves an immediate gap in the household budget.

Jenge Rattanaphongphairak, 70, said she rarely travelled outside the village and did not know how her name had been used in tax records. Her account highlights a basic question for investigators: how did identification details belonging to residents who deny working for the companies enter their employment and tax documentation?

Mae Hae Nai is a Pga K'nyau ethnic community in Pang Hin Fon subdistrict, Mae Chaem district. It has 106 households, difficult road access and a population largely engaged in agriculture. These circumstances matter because villagers dispute any suggestion that they travelled elsewhere to take the jobs recorded against their names.

The village head has asked the Revenue Department and other relevant agencies to investigate and restore benefits promptly. He said villagers had not gone outside the area for hired work. He also expressed concern that his own name appeared in company records, suggesting the need to establish the full extent of the disputed registrations.

How a tax record can affect welfare access

Withholding tax is tax deducted by a payer when making certain payments, such as wages, and reported to the tax authority. Such records can associate an identified person with income paid by a business. They are therefore more than an internal company list: they can become part of the official information used to assess a person's financial circumstances.

In this case, villagers say those records made them appear to have income of hundreds of thousands of baht. The reported consequence was the removal of welfare eligibility, even though residents deny receiving the earnings attributed to them. An income entry does not, by itself, resolve a dispute over whether the named person performed the work or received the money.

The investigation must distinguish several issues: who supplied the identity details, who actually worked, who received payment and what each company reported. Establishing those facts would help determine which income entries require correction and which residents should have their welfare rights restored.

The exact income amounts assigned to individual residents have not been disclosed. Nor is there a stated tax year, a detailed account of the eligibility decisions or confirmation that every affected person lost benefits in the same circumstances. Those gaps prevent a precise calculation of the total disputed income or the total welfare support lost.

One company explains how it obtained identification details

A representative of one of the three companies said the business hired people in the area based on identification cards supplied by a work supervisor. The representative said the information was used only for withholding tax and denied that the cards had been used for other transactions.

That explanation identifies a possible route by which the details reached the business, but it does not establish that the people named on the cards were the people who worked. It also leaves unresolved whether the residents knew their information had been supplied, consented to its use or received any associated wages.

The distinction is central to the complaint. A supervisor providing identification details and a company accepting those details are separate steps from confirming the identity of a worker and documenting payment. Investigators will need to determine what checks were made and whether the company's records match actual employment.

The company representative's account applies to one business. No explanations from the other two companies are described, and no official finding has established responsibility. The allegations should therefore remain separate from any conclusion about who knowingly supplied or submitted inaccurate information.

Compensation offer does not settle the record dispute

The company that responded said it would compensate more than 80 affected people at a rate of 3,600 baht a year until their state welfare card rights were restored. That sum equals 12 monthly payments of 300 baht, matching the annual value of the benefit described by Phola.

The offer could replace that specific monthly amount if paid as promised. It would not itself correct the disputed tax entries or restore official eligibility. The terms described do not establish when payments would begin, whether past losses would be covered or how recipients would be selected.

The different counts also need to be kept distinct. The 57 people identified in Mae Hae Nai are a village count. More than 150 is the figure reported for the wider area. The company's proposed compensation covers more than 80 people. These figures refer to different groups and do not necessarily contradict one another, but their overlap has not been explained.

Without a verified list linking each resident to the relevant company and disputed income entry, it is not possible to say how many people would remain outside the compensation offer. There is also no confirmation that residents have accepted it or that any payments have been made.

Blank paper signatures prompt further concern

Residents also reported that a group of people offered them 10,000 baht each in exchange for signing a blank sheet of paper and not filing a police complaint. The account adds another concern to the dispute, particularly because the proposed document contained no stated terms for villagers to review.

The reported 10,000 baht offer is separate from the company's stated annual compensation of 3,600 baht. The identity of the people making the larger offer, their authority to act and any connection to the three companies have not been established.

A signature on an otherwise blank document creates uncertainty about what text might later be placed above it. Here, residents' concern is also tied to the reported request that they refrain from complaining to police. No confirmed account establishes that villagers accepted the money or signed the papers.

These allegations require their own examination. They should not be treated as proof that a company organised the approach, but neither does the compensation proposal resolve residents' concerns about how their names were used or whether they will receive fair treatment.

Officials seek corrections, but no deadline is confirmed

The Mae Chaem district chief said he had contacted the local Revenue Department office to seek an explanation and accelerate action to restore welfare rights. He put the number of affected residents across the area at more than 150 and advised villagers to have their complaints entered in the police daily record as evidence.

Such a record documents that a complaint was made. It does not itself correct tax information, establish responsibility or guarantee the return of benefits. Those outcomes depend on the relevant agencies checking the disputed entries and acting on what they find.

No completion date for the investigation or restoration process has been announced in the reported accounts. There is also no confirmed finding on how the identification details were first obtained, whether the disputed income has been removed or whether the companies face any further proceedings.

For residents, the immediate priorities are closely connected: recover the support they lost and ensure that official records no longer attribute earnings to them without a factual basis. Compensation may address part of the financial loss, but accurate records are necessary to resolve the eligibility dispute.

Key Points

• At least 57 Mae Hae Nai residents are affected, with more than 150 reported across the wider Mae Chaem area.
• Villagers say three companies used their names in tax records showing income they did not earn.
• Some residents lost a monthly state welfare benefit of 300 baht.
• One company offered more than 80 people annual compensation of 3,600 baht until welfare rights return.
• Residents separately reported offers of 10,000 baht for signing blank papers and avoiding police complaints.
• District officials have sought Revenue Department action, but no restoration deadline or final finding has been confirmed.