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

May 28, 2024

Case Dismissed: The Impact of the Phinai Law on Ongoing Criminal Cases

Subscribe to Updates

Under Thai law, namely the Criminal Procedural Code, an injured person may bring a criminal case to a criminal court without having a public prosecutor file the case for him or her. After the court conducts an inquiry into the case, the court considers whether to accept the case for further trial and determine whether the defendant should be penalized accordingly. Private parties involved in certain types of cases, such as labor disputes or shareholder disputes, may find this a common channel to pursue.

Criminal law in Thailand recently underwent a significant change, as new legislation changed numerous criminal offenses to become phinai-fine offenses instead. However, as this is a relatively new development, there are still instances in which plaints involving phinai fines are still being submitted to the court by these private injured persons as criminal cases. But this raises the issue of whether the court can proceed with such cases.

For over a year, Thailand has enforced the Act on Phinai Fine Proceedings B.E. 2565 (2022) (ACFP) as a new legal measure to decriminalize certain types of fines for criminal penalties with less-serious offenses to phinai offenses, which results in phinai-related offenders having to pay only fines instead of facing the entire criminal procedures and penalties under the Thai Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, including bail submission, travel restrictions, imprisonment, and a criminal record.

What happens to ongoing trials in court for phinai offenses?

The ACFP automatically changed criminal offenses under 204 pieces of legislation, including certain offenses under the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), the Determining Offenses Relating to Registered Partnership, Limited Partnership, Limited Company, Association, and Foundation Act B.E. 2499 (1956), the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (1992), and other legislation listed in the ACFP, to be phinai offenses. Once the ACFP took effect, many of these common white-collar criminal offenses were no longer criminal offenses but became phinai offenses. The practical effect of this is that many offenses are no longer considered crimes.

One of the effects of this change is that the ongoing trials for these offenses at the court are changed into phinai proceedings falling under the guidelines provided in the Regulation of the President of the Supreme Court on Trial for Phinai Cases B.E. 2565 (2023).

This regulation includes procedures and guidelines for proceeding with phinai cases that are designed explicitly for phinai offenses, such as in-absentia and asynchronous trials, paper-based hearings, and electronic proceedings. The regulation also provides for the notification of the judgment in writing without requiring the parties to attend a judgment hearing. These procedures and guidelines for phinai cases result in proceedings that are more flexible, more convenient, and faster than proceedings in civil and criminal cases.

In contrast to the Criminal Procedural Code, this regulation has a limited definition of “plaintiff” for the purposes of a phinai case. Specifically, articles 3 and 11 of the regulation provide that the plaintiff must be a “public prosecutor or government official. This narrows the scope of the eligible group of people who can file a phinai complaint with the court. These articles are designed to align with section 23 of the ACFP should the phinai offender refuse to accept the phinai accusation or to pay the phinai fine, in which case the government official must summarize the facts and the supporting documents, providing a legal basis, and send the final report to the public prosecutor to file a complaint with the court unless the legislation stipulates otherwise. This results in the plaintiff in the phinai case being narrowed down to be a public prosecutor or government official, which in effect would reduce the number of cases in which an injured person files a case directly with the court as a bargaining or pressure tool against the offender, such as offenses relating to labor disputes, shareholder disputes, director disputes, and so on.

However, a phinai accuser can still supplicate the allegation or bring its grievance through a government official so that the phinai offender can be fined. A phinai case could also be brought to court through a government official and the public prosecutor’s determination.

What if the plaintiff is not a prosecutor or government official?

The impact of section 23 of the ACFP and articles 3 and 11 of the regulation mentioned above is that if the plaintiff is not a public prosecutor or government official, the court has no other option but to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff has no authority to file a phinai case against a phinai offender. This will result in the court not accepting the case for trial.

Still, we cannot deny that the ACFP and the regulation are new procedural laws that the courts and most litigators may not have experienced or have in-depth knowledge of. Consequently, it is advised to seek local expert consultants to identify and explain the details or the updates related to the ACFP and the regulation and to analyze the strategy for ongoing phinai cases in court.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More