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

March 22, 2013

Criminal Charges and Defenses Relating to Work Permits

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The blooming of global investment has been shrinking the world and blurring national borders. In our region, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) blueprint is designed to establish ASEAN as a single market and production base. It is hoped that ASEAN will become more dynamic and competitive, with new ways to expedite existing economic initiatives. The AEC is paving the way for a freer flow of skilled labor across borders, especially in eight professions: medical doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, architects, accountants, surveyors and tourism professionals.

Of course, it is an exaggeration to say there will be a totally free flow of expertise across borders. Work permits will still be required, although the AEC will attempt to facilitate visas, harmonize the procedures for obtaining work permits, and standardize various professional qualifications. Some skilled professionals may also be required to complete license requirements for working within the region.

Beneath the various policies and frameworks, Thailand’s domestic laws remain restrictive. For example, the Alien Working Act still imposes work permit requirements that wholly exclude foreigners from 39 occupations reserved for Thai nationals. The types of work open to aliens, the work areas, and the period of work are prescribed by ministerial regulations related to national security, occupational opportunity for Thais, and the demand for foreign labor to the extent necessary for a developing country.

Under the Act, “work” is defined to include all engagement in work by exerting energy or using knowledge regardless of whether it is in exchange for compensation in the form of wages or benefits. This broad definition includes every working activity from operating a business to attending a seminar—or even volunteering for a day or two.

When a work permit is granted, the permit holder can only engage in the category of work specified in the work permit, and with the employer and at the location specified in the work permit. A person who wants to change or add a work category, employer, or work location must apply for an amended work permit.

The penalties for an alien who engages in work without a work permit, or a permit holder who violates the restrictions in his or her permit, are severe and include up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to THB 100,000. Imprisonment is not often imposed, but an alien who is convicted of working without a work permit is normally deported and blacklisted from returning to Thailand for five years.

Employees who work without a permit are not the only ones who can be convicted of a crime and deported. Their employer also faces criminal liability under the Act for engaging an alien to work without a permit. If the employer is found guilty, he or she will normally be fined up to THB 100,000 per employee. And if the employer is a foreigner, he or she will normally be deported and blacklisted for five years.

If the employer is a company or other juristic person, its officers and directors are normally charged as co-defendants. In the past, the public prosecutor was often able to convict those individuals without proving their intent or their actual participation in the hiring process. Instead, it was usually enough to prove that the juristic person committed the offense and that the individual officers or directors were generally responsible for the employer’s overall operations. At least to some extent the burden was shifted to the individual managers to prove they did not intentionally hire an illegal worker or were not involved in the hiring process. The company was considered innocent until proven guilty, but the individual managers were treated as if they were guilty until proven innocent, and their constitutional rights were thereby overlooked.

Article 39 of Thailand’s Constitution is aimed at protecting the rights of the alleged offender by providing that a suspect in a criminal case is presumed innocent. Last year, the Constitution Court rendered Decision 12/2555, which stipulated it is a violation of Article 39 for an offender to be presumed guilty based on that person’s legal status. It is also a violation of the Constitution to presume the facts that constitute a criminal offense just because the defendant has a certain legal status. This Constitution Court decision is welcome news to officers and directors of Thai companies who may be blamed for their company’s crimes merely because they hold management positions.

Under the Constitution Court’s interpretation, an officer or director of a company that employs aliens without work permits can be convicted only if the public prosecutor proves the individual manager knowingly hired aliens without work permits. The accused manager or other person responsible for company operations can successfully defend the charges by asserting that he or she did not know the alien lacked a work permit or that he or she did not participate in the hiring process.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More