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

July 10, 2015

Legal Changes Will Affect Rights and Obligations of Corporate Guarantors

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Guarantors are subject to a number of important obligations under Thai law. A guarantor can be held jointly liable with a debtor, or worse, solely and entirely liable as a primary debtor. In addition, creditors often use their higher bargaining power to force guarantors to waive their rights as secondary debtors, meaning that certain fundamental rights, such as the requirement for creditors to first call on debtors, are no longer enforceable.

The main forms of security available under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code are:

  • mortgage;
  • pledge; and
  • guarantee (suretyship), corporate or personal.

Thailand, however, does not provide for many of the security rights, such as liens and charges, which are available in common law countries. Therefore, creditors often elect to use guarantees—both corporate and personal—instead of security interests. Consequently, guarantors are tremendously important to creditors and they are frequently called on.

Despite their popularity, guarantors are not afforded an adequate level of protection. The Supreme Court has ruled that an agreement which is contrary to a guarantee provision, such as an agreement that requires a guarantor to be liable as a joint debtor, is enforceable. An act is not void if it differs from a provision of any law, it said, as long as the law in question does not relate to public order or good morals under Section 151 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

Therefore, as guarantee laws do not relate to public order or good morals, exemptions are permitted. The result is that guarantors can be forced to sign agreements that are contrary to the general provisions of guarantee laws—provisions that are intended to protect guarantors’ rights as secondary debtors.

In a sign that things could change for guarantors, new amendments to the guarantee and mortgage provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code will soon come into effect. This includes the Civil and Commercial Code Amendment Act (No. 20) B.E. 2557 (Amendment No. 20), which became effective on Feb 11, 2015, and another recent draft amendment (New Amendment) approved by the National Legislative Assembly on May 14, which is currently pending publication in the Government Gazette.

Amendment No. 20 aims to provide greater protection of rights and fair treatment to guarantors who are not primary debtors. However, local lenders have expressed discontent with the amendment because it offers the same level of protection to individual and corporate guarantors. In response to the outcry, the New Amendment will change the provisions that relate to guarantors and mortgagors who are juristic persons, financial institutions, or in the business of providing guarantees for remuneration.

Some of the most significant changes introduced by both amendments relate to corporate guarantors. Under Amendment No. 20, Section 681/1 has been added to the Civil and Commercial Code, which provides that:

“Any agreement which specifies that a guarantor must be liable in the same manner as that of a joint debtor or in the capacity of a joint debtor shall be void.”

The New Amendment added a second paragraph to Section 681/1, as follows:

“The above provision is not applicable to a guarantor who is a juristic person and who has consented to be bound in the same manner as that of a joint debtor, or in the capacity of a joint debtor. In such case, a guarantor who is a juristic person shall have no rights as provided in Sections 688, 689, and 690.”

Under these provisions, guarantors who are juristic persons and who have consented to be bound as a joint debtor can still be held jointly liable with debtors. In such a case, they have no rights as secondary debtors to request and require lenders to demand and call on debts from debtors first. These are rights provided under Sections 688, 689, and 690 of the Code.

In conclusion, corporate guarantors can still be liable as joint or primary debtors. Furthermore, if you are a corporate guarantor and your company is regarded as foreign under the Foreign Business Act, the provision of a corporate guarantee to secure a parent or affiliated company’s debts would be deemed a service business, which is restricted under List 3 (21) of the Act. Therefore, you would need to obtain a Foreign Business License before entering into a guarantee agreement.

If lending and guarantee arrangements involve foreign lenders, then an approval in principle from the Bank of Thailand regarding foreign-exchange control regulations is also likely to be required.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
Certain securities, derivatives, and treasury activities in Thailand were opened to foreign investors when Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce published two new ministerial regulations in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The regulations significantly broaden the service activities that foreign-owned businesses may conduct without a license or certificate under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542, as amended (FBA). Securities and Derivatives Business Exemptions Prior to the issuance of these ministerial regulations, the exemptions covered (1) securities brokerage and derivatives brokerage with their only underlying assets being agricultural commodities, financial instruments, and securities; and (2) dealers, advisers, and fund managers conducting derivatives business under Thailand’s derivatives laws. The ministerial regulations provide broader exemptions. In addition to derivatives under the laws on derivatives as before, the following two major categories are provided: Derivatives whose underlying assets or variables fall outside the scope of Thailand’s laws on derivatives. This addresses a gap in the previous framework, which did not comprehensively exempt derivatives tied to nonregulated underlying assets or variables, such as certain commodities. Foreign brokers, advisors, and fund managers can now facilitate a broader range of hedging and risk management instruments without triggering FBA licensing requirements. Derivatives traded outside a derivatives exchange, or over the counter (OTC), whose payments are calculated by reference to foreign exchange rates or interest rates. This removes an FBA licensing barrier for foreign providers of widely used OTC hedging products, broadening the solutions available to importers and exporters managing currency exposure and to borrowers seeking greater certainty over financing costs. The ministerial regulations also exempt brokers and agents handling transactions involving either of these two derivatives categories. For securities businesses, the ministerial regulations add exemptions for margin loans used to purchase securities and for securities repurchase transactions. These additions clarify whether such activities qualify as exempt brokerage
Read More
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
Read More
September 1, 2026
Thailand has taken another step toward liberalizing its foreign business framework, exempting additional service activities and derivatives brokerage or agency businesses from the licensing requirements of the Foreign Business Act (FBA). Since the FBA came into effect, Thailand has taken a measured approach to opening its economy to foreign investment. While the FBA regulates foreign participation in businesses that may affect domestic interests, the framework has also evolved to allow foreign participation in certain business activities where sector-specific laws and regulatory frameworks already provide sufficient oversight, making additional FBA restrictions unnecessary. This is particularly true where Thai businesses are sufficiently capable of competing in certain service sectors, or where liberalization is intended to facilitate the provision of services among companies within the same corporate group. Against this backdrop, two new ministerial regulations have been issued pursuant to the FBA. Service Businesses Under the FBA Under the FBA, certain categories of business are restricted for foreign operators. List 3 of the FBA sets out businesses that foreigners may operate only if they obtain a foreign business license (FBL) or a foreign business certificate (FBC), or unless a specific exemption applies. List 3 (21) covers “other service businesses,” which is a catch-all provision that captures a wide range of service businesses not specifically enumerated elsewhere in the FBA. In practice, this means that most service activities carried on by foreigners in Thailand require an FBL or FBC unless otherwise exempted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the FBA provides a mechanism to address this breadth by empowering the Minister of Commerce to issue ministerial regulations excluding specific types of service businesses from List Three (21). Once a service business is so excluded, foreigners may operate it without obtaining an FBL or FBC. Prior to the new regulations, four ministerial regulations had been issued to
Read More
August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More