Kampanat “Jom” Vimolnoht
Kampanat “Jom” Vimolnoht strode off the Singapore FinTech Festival stage in late 2024 with the kind of polish that sells trust: tailored blazer, crisp black T‑shirt, urbane charm.
To an audience of founders and investors, he was a familiar archetype: a crypto‑savvy venture capitalist with a UK Master’s in Investment Analysis, a history of venture capital roles and government advisory work, and a new post at KXVC, the corporate VC arm of Thailand’s leading Kasikornbank that had announced a US$100 million Web3 and AI fund the year before.
Also Read: Thailand’s corporate capital era: How big business became the startup banker
Only it was a mirage. Over the following year, a string of investors across Bangkok, Singapore, Ho Chi Minh City, and California discovered that the allocations, contracts, and deals Jom sold them were, in many cases, fabricated. The tale — reconstructed from interviews, bank transfers, blockchain traces, and KXVC’s own public warning — is both ordinary and devastating: ordinary because it follows familiar fraud mechanics; devastating because it exploited social capital — the halo effect of reputation — to drain life savings and corrode trust in a nascent investment ecosystem.
How the con unfolded
In private crypto markets, allocations to pre‑launch token sales are valuable and opaque. These deals typically circulate in invite‑only channels (Telegram, WhatsApp, and private investor lists) and access is concentrated among founders, funds, and a few insider intermediaries.
Vimolnoht played the insider role convincingly. He supplied professional‑looking decks, allocation agreements, and payment instructions, and invited friends and colleagues into deals in projects he claimed to be connected with: Monad, Babylon, Linera, and others.
Victims presented a consistent pattern: small initial transfers, followed by larger sums as trust deepened. One Bangkok executive, “Mark”, said he invested “in total more than a million dollars”. Another victim from the US, “Steven”, who paid in USDC, believes he lost about US$130,000, his life savings in crypto. Scamurai’s reporting identified about two dozen alleged victims so far, with individual losses ranging from roughly US$20,000 to over US$1,000,000. A blockchain wallet linked to some of the flows shows about US$1.71 million moving through it between July and October 2025.
When vesting milestones approached, and tokens were supposed to unlock, the excuses began: administrative delays, counterparty issues, even that Vimolnoht himself had been scammed.
Also Read: Inside the dark economy of crypto scams: 2024’s most lucrative fraud tactics
Communications then stopped. Project founders contacted directly by investors denied any affiliation or said they had only spoken informally with him. KXVC posted a terse advisory: it never raises external funds and has “never authorised any individual to act on behalf of KXVC” to solicit investor transfers to personal accounts. The firm has confirmed Vimolnoht left the company in March 2025.
A regional phenomenon
Thailand’s scams are not unique. What makes this episode instructive is how it exposes systemic vulnerabilities present across Southeast Asia: close‑knit networks, the prestige economy of panels and advisory roles, and a high appetite for outsized returns combined with uneven due diligence.
“It does not feel like being deceived. It feels like being trusted with an opportunity,” observed Dr Pun‑Arj Chairatana, former executive director at Thailand’s National Innovation Agency, warning that such schemes are often structured around curated deal‑flow circles and private chat groups that carry an air of exclusivity.
Prominent local voices corroborate the wider pattern. Yod Chinsupakul, CEO of local e-commerce company LINE Wongnai, noted the region’s “halo effect” for charismatic figures and urged a culture of whistleblowing to surface wrongdoing.
He also pointed to several other suspected malfeasances in Thailand’s tech sector: an e‑commerce enabler that collapsed amid alleged CEO fraud and tragic consequences for employees; a loyalty‑points startup accused of unlimited minting that reportedly cost a strategic partner “hundreds of millions of baht” (roughly US$5-15 million); and payment companies that allegedly engaged with illicit betting websites and opaque loans with potential conflicts of interest.
Chinsupakul stressed that while the proportion of bad actors has fallen since the industry’s early, “fluffy” years, the remaining wrongdoing is severe and often hidden.
The contagion effect
Dr Pun‑Arj cautions that the damage extends beyond direct victims. Reputation (the currency of fundraisings and syndications) erodes swiftly. He points to the Silicon Valley Bank collapse in 2023, not as an analogue in causation but as a lesson in contagion: a single failure can chill capital across markets. For small funds and emerging managers in Thailand and across Southeast Asia, the reputational fallout from prominent scams risks hamstringing legitimate teams still building track records.
This reputational contagion has practical consequences. Limited Partners revisit commitments; fundraising conversations stall; partnerships are re‑evaluated. Restoring confidence is not a matter of statements, Dr Pun‑Arj said, but of “consistency of conduct over time: transparent reporting, governance that is substantive rather than performative, and sound judgement exercised even when no one is watching.”
Enforcement, verification and the limits of charisma
Scammers exploit a familiar mix: technical plausibility (token deals, private allocations), social proof (panel appearances, advisory roles), and operational friction (the difficulty of verifying vesting schedules and off‑chain processes). That combination renders even seasoned professionals vulnerable.
What can change the calculus? Firms like KXVC have already issued public warnings; victims have filed police reports; journalists and whistleblowers are amplifying patterns. But systemic improvements are needed: clearer industry standards on syndication and disclosure, better investor education, escrow‑style mechanisms for pre‑sale allocations, and more robust checks on people representing institutional brands.
Also Read: From pig butchering to work-from-home scams, crypto crime has become more professional and global
Recent precedents in the region underline the point. In 2023-2024, Southeast Asia saw several high‑profile investment failures where founders or executives were accused of misappropriating funds or falsifying metrics, cases that left partner companies and retail investors nursing heavy losses and reputational wounds. These episodes reinforce Dr Pun‑Arj’s argument that governing conduct matters as much as technical sophistication.
Quotes that matter
KXVC’s warning is blunt and instructive: “Beware of imposters… KXVC has never raised funds from external sources and has not authorised any individual to act on its behalf in such manner.” It is a reminder that institutional identity can be weaponised in private markets.
Mark, one of the victims, captured the personal betrayal succinctly: “He worked at multiple VCs. He spoke on panels in Thailand, the US and Europe. It’s hard to understand.”
Opinion
Southeast Asia’s startup ecosystem has matured rapidly, but maturity requires not only capital and talent but also institutional hygiene. The Vimolnoht affair is a wake‑up call: charisma should never substitute for verification. Investors (institutional and retail alike) must demand paperwork that can be independently verified, insist on escrow or custodied arrangements for allocations, and treat personal introductions as the start, not the conclusion, of due diligence.
Regulators and industry bodies should tighten identity‑and‑representation norms for funds and require clearer disclosures on fundraising and allocation processes. Equally, platforms that facilitate private market deals must build safer rails: standardised contracts, provenance tracking for allocations and stronger remedies for victims.
Also Read: With new US$100M fund, KXVC aims to help global AI, deeptech, Web3 founders win APAC market
In short, the cure for confidence eroded by bad actors is not fewer deals, but smarter markets. Southeast Asia’s innovation boom can survive and thrive if stakeholders harden the institutional scaffolding that supports its convivial networking culture. Charm sells; proof secures. The region needs both, and, crucially, the latter must trump the former.
The post How a crypto ‘insider’ in Thailand sold deals that never existed appeared first on e27.