On the afternoon of 19 April 2024, a cramped courtroom at the People’s Court of Hanoi was the setting for the first criminal trial of a case of copyright and related rights infringement in Vietnam, regarding the act of illegal streaming of English Premier League football matches on online platforms. This case is expected to open the door for the criminal prosecution of other cases of copyright and related rights infringement on the internet, an area that has faced numerous difficulties over the past two decades. First criminal case of illegal streaming Vietnamese criminal law has long had provisions in place for criminal handling of copyright infringement crimes, specifically in Article 131 of the 1999 Penal Code. However, more than 20 years after this law took effect, and even though Vietnam enacted the 2015 Penal Code with subsequent amendments, these regulations have remained mainly a law on paper only, and many significant and serious cases causing great frustration for rights holders and society have not been criminally prosecuted. The case in question was initiated by a denunciation of the BestBuyIPTV subscription service by the Football Association Premier League Limited (the “Premier League”) and the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (“ACE”), a coalition of global entertainment companies and film studios dedicated to combating digital piracy and copyright infringement. BestBuyIPTV had illegally streamed Premier League matches and other protected works without authorization of the rights holders. In 2023, after an extensive investigation, the Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention Division (PA05) and the Police Department for Investigating Corruption, Smuggling, and Economic Crimes (PC03) of the Hanoi police brought a case for criminal copyright infringement, pursuant to Article 225 of the 2015 Penal Code, against the offender, an individual named Le Hai Nam, consolidating the dossiers for the People’s Procuracy to indict this

In this chapter from Eversheds Sutherland’s Global Freezing Order Guide, attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins provide answers to common questions regarding civil freezing orders and their particulars in Thailand. 1. Are freezing orders (or their equivalent referred to below) available in civil legal proceedings in this jurisdiction and what is their effect? Yes. The effect of a freezing order is that the respondent is prohibited from transferring or disposing of the assets referred to in the freezing order until a specified time (for example, a further hearing, a judgment or payment) or a further order of the Court. The property subject to a freezing order may include the property in dispute or the respondent’s property, including money or property owed to the respondent by a third party. Thai law is silent on the issue of whether a freezing order issued by a Thai Court could potentially apply to assets located outside of Thailand. In light of this, in practice, a Thai Court is unlikely to include assets located outside of Thailand in a freezing order. It is possible that a Thai Court could order a respondent over whom it has jurisdiction not to transfer any property or other assets located abroad, however, enforceability may be difficult, with limited consequences where the respondent refused to comply with such an order. 2. Are other interim orders commonly made in conjunction with a freezing (or equivalent) order? No. The Court does not typically place obligations on the respondent to provide disclosure of the nature, value and location of his, her or its assets, with the onus being on the applicant to provide the Court with the information available. 3. Briefly what is the relevant legal test? The applicant has to prove that there is good cause for the complaint. The applicant must

“Forced labor” has many incarnations. Some forms are shocking, such as a case in 2021 where Vietnamese guest workers were brought to a Chinese-owned factory in Serbia that manufactured tires sold to European car companies. The guest workers allegedly had their passports taken away and were subjected to horrible living conditions, including a lack of food, forcing them to resort to hunting small animals in the nearby forest to survive. However, forced labor more often takes subtler forms, so that most people do not even recognize it as such. For example, a factory may receive an order with an extremely short production deadline, and the workers are instructed to work overtime hours. If the employees refuse to do so and stop working when their regular shift ends, they receive warning letters the next day. While less shocking than the situation of the guest workers forced to hunt squirrels to survive, it is also forced labor. ILO Convention No. 29 on Forced Labor defines forced labor as “all work or service…extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered…[them]self voluntarily.” The ILO names 11 indicators of forced labor: abuse of vulnerability, deception; restriction of movement, isolation, physical/sexual violence, intimidation and threats, retention of identity documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive working or living conditions, and excessive overtime. Excessive overtime in particular is common in the manufacturing sector in Southeast Asia, and debt bondage is also prevalent. Some companies demand employees provide a “training deposit” when they commence their employment, which they will have repaid provided they continue working for a minimum period. However, these common practices may soon be eradicated due to new supply chain due diligence legislation. Two such examples demonstrating this greater focus on forced labor within

Over the past decade, business rehabilitation proceedings in Thai courts have received a great deal of attention from debtors and creditors, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Business rehabilitation and bankruptcy proceedings have different objectives in court. As a result, Thai courts have a different perspective and set of criteria for considering and approving rehabilitation proceedings than for bankruptcy petitions. Both proceedings are outlined in the Bankruptcy Act B.E 2483 (1940). This article mainly discusses in-court business rehabilitation proceedings. Three parties can petition the court to initiate business rehabilitation proceedings: Debtors; Creditors; and Certain authorities, such as the Bank of Thailand For a debtor to be subject to business rehabilitation proceedings, it must: Be insolvent or unable to repay debt of at least THB 10 million (for corporate debtors) or from THB 2 million to less than 10 million (for SME debtors); Have debt that is determinable but has not yet become due; Be indebted to one or more creditors, where the combined total of the debt is within the required debt amounts above; and Have reasonable cause and possible ways to rehabilitate its business. Court Approval of a Petition Upon receipt of the business rehabilitation petition, the Bankruptcy Court will schedule a hearing on it. In conducting an inquiry into the petition, the court will consider whether: The facts in the petition are true; There are prospects of success for business rehabilitation; and The petitioner has filed the petition in good faith. If these three criteria are met, the court will approve the business rehabilitation. Prospects of Success In considering whether there are prospects of success for business rehabilitation, the court will look at whether the business rehabilitation petition contains reasonable grounds as well as appropriate and feasible solutions for rehabilitating the business. In that regard, the petitioner must