You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 4, 2012

The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Business Crime 2013 – Thailand Chapter

Subscribe to Updates
Global Legal Group

Corporate criminal liability and business crimes have become an important area of the law as a result of the economic climate; the recession has taken its toll on profits and, ultimately, business ethics. Regulations have been adopted to deal with this rise, and with the complexities of criminal enforcement against business entities and individuals. In order to keep up with changes and provide a clear guide to country-specific regulations, the International Comparative Guide series has published their third edition on business crime. Michael Ramirez and Amanda Davy, both in the Tilleke & Gibbins dispute resolution group, have both contributed to this year’s chapter on business crime in Thailand.

The chapter covers:

  • General Criminal Law Enforcement: Which authorities can prosecute business crimes, the existence of enforcement agencies, and the crimes that they combat.
  • Organization of the Courts: How the criminal courts are structured in Thailand, whether there are specialized criminal courts for particular crimes, and the absence of a right to a jury.
  • Particular Statutes and Crimes: Statutes that are commonly used in Thailand to prosecute business crimes, the requisite mental state of the accused, and liability for inchoate crimes.
  • Corporate Criminal Liability: Entities that are liable for criminal offenses and personal liability for managers, directors, and officers.
  • Statutes of Limitations: How enforcement-limitations periods are calculated, when the periods begin running, ongoing conspiracies falling outside the limitation period, and whether limitations can be tolled.
  • Initiation of Investigations: How investigations are initiated, the rules and guidelines governing the government’s initiation, and criminal authorities’ cooperation with foreign prosecutors.
  • Procedures for Gathering Information from a Company: The powers that the government has to gather information when investigating business crimes, particularly in document gathering and questioning of individuals.
  • Initiation of Prosecutions/Deferred Prosecution/Civil Dispositions: How criminal cases are initiated, using pretrial diversion or an agreement to defer prosecution, and the availability of civil penalties or remedies in a criminal disposition.
  • Burden of Proof: Which parties have the burden of proof and in which circumstances, what the standard of proof is in Thailand, and who is the arbiter of fact.
  • Conspiracy/Aiding and Abetting: The liability of a person who conspires with or assists another to commit a crime, and the nature and elements of the offense.
  • Common Defenses: Defenses related to the requisite intent of the offense and the availability of ignorance of the law or the facts as a defense.
  • Voluntary Disclosure Obligations: Whether a person aware of the crime has a duty to report it and whether they can be liable for not doing so.
  • Cooperation Provisions/Leniency: The law on leniency in Thailand, the extent of cooperation and the steps an entity would take in seeking leniency, and the general allowance and favorable treatment received as a result.
  • Plea Bargaining: Voluntarily declining to contest criminal charges, and rules and guidelines governing the government’s ability to plea bargain with a defendant.
  • Elements of a Corporate Sentence: Rules or guidelines governing the court’s imposition of a sentence on the defendant.
  • Appeals: The availability of appeals, by the defendant or government, to the guilty or non-guilty verdict and to a criminal sentence following a guilty verdict, the appellate court’s standard of review, and the powers it has to remedy any injustice by the trial court.

This article appeared in the 2013 edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Business Crime, published by Global Legal Group Ltd., London. www.iclg.co.uk

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More