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

August 29, 2022

An Overview of Criminal Litigation in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

Disputes are unavoidable in the business world—not only civil disputes between business partners but also criminal matters, in which a company or its representatives, or even an individual, are accused of legal or regulatory violations or other crimes. While this can be a daunting situation—especially for those facing a criminal matter in a jurisdiction with unfamiliar laws or litigation processes—knowing what to expect out of criminal proceedings can bring clarity and make the situation feel much more manageable.

Thailand, for instance, is a vibrant economy in the heart of Southeast Asia that has attracted many businesses to pursue opportunities in the country. However, the relatively well-developed and sometimes unfamiliar regulatory regime in Thailand means that companies can unintentionally fall afoul of the legal requirements and find themselves having to defend against criminal litigation. In such a situation, understanding  how criminal proceedings work in Thailand  is critical step to  prepare for the case.

Thailand’s legislative system is  based on a civil law system. Notably, however, Thai courts are still influenced by previous Supreme Court decisions as precedent references for adjudicating cases. Most criminal offenses are contained in the Penal Code (also called the Criminal Code). There are also other offenses prescribed in the country’s acts (of which there are approximately 1,000), which specify the obligations and prohibitions people must observe. Although most offenses are misdemeanors, many are nonetheless punishable by imprisonment—a dire prospect for anyone, and even more so for an accused party whose home country is not Thailand.

By its nature as a juristic person, a company charged with a criminal offense is subject only to fines. However, company directors or other representatives are often accused as codefendants along with the juristic person itself. These individuals can be found guilty for the offense conducted by the juristic person if the accuser (i.e., the plaintiff) can prove that they were involved with the offending act.

Regarding the burden of proof for a criminal case, the plaintiff must prove to the court “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty by showing that the defendant committed the offense and the defendant possessed intention or awareness of the wrongdoing. Cases are considered and decided by the judge, as there is no jury system in Thailand.

In Thailand, courtroom proceedings are conducted in an adversarial system, whereby the two opposing advocates represent their clients’ cases before one or more judge. Judges may also question witnesses to seek further clarification on the testimony given by the witnesses. However, the witnesses must be presented by one of the parties to the case. The judge cannot summon a witness to testify at a hearing. Only in the court investigation stage of a criminal case does a judge have authority to summon a witness in order to investigate whether the case has a basis.

Initiation and Procedures

Generally, a criminal prosecution is initiated when someone submits a complaint to either the police or the court. Both methods are described below.

Police Complaint

If the complaint is submitted to the police, the prosecution will be handled by a police officer and a public prosecutor. Upon reviewing and accepting the complaint, the police will initiate an investigation. The investigation usually involves interviewing witnesses and related parties and gathering evidence. If the police determine that the accusation has merit, they will press charges against the accused. The accused must then submit a plea in response. The accused may need to request bail to avoid being kept in custody. If the police want the accused to remain in custody during the investigation, the police will have to explain and justify their reasoning in their request for a court order to keep the accused in custody.

After completing the investigation, the police will issue an opinion to the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor will then review the investigation file and the police’s opinion, and decide whether to prosecute the defendant in court. The court procedure starts from this point. The defendant has to attend all hearings, including evidence inspection hearings, witness examinations, and judgment hearings. The first hearing is for receiving the defendant’s plea in the case. A person who has received injury from the offense can also become part of the court litigation by submitting a petition to be a co-plaintiff.

Private Criminal Court Action

A complainant has the option to bypass the police and prosecutor by bringing a “private” criminal action against an accused party directly to the criminal court. To determine whether to accept the case, the court will conduct a preliminary “investigative” hearing to determine whether the accusation has merit. (In contrast, Thai courts generally accept cases filed by public prosecutors without holding investigative or preliminary hearings.) At this investigative hearing, the plaintiff must present at least one witness to the court to show that the case has a basis to continue for a full trial. Otherwise, the court will dismiss the case.

Defendants are not required to attend the investigation hearing, but they may submit a statement with supporting documents to the court. They can also cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness. The defendant has the additional option to petition the court to summon additional witnesses in an effort to obtain an early dismissal.

If the court finds that the case has no basis, the case will be dismissed. If the court concludes the case has enough merit to be considered, the court will accept the action, and the defendant must enter a plea in response to the accusation.

Litigation and Appeal

In both of the above routes (i.e., submitting a complaint to police or directly to the court), the first hearing marks the starting point of the court litigation. Criminal cases usually take about a year for the lower court to complete all hearings and deliver its judgment. In general, a lower court judgment can be appealed within one month to the Court of Appeal. Appellate proceedings involve a review of the case files from the proceedings in the court of first instance, but no hearings. With exceptions, the Court of Appeal’s judgment can be appealed to the Supreme Court. The deadlines for appeal at each stage can be extended upon request, at the court’s discretion.

Rights and Restrictions for Defendants

Defendants are entitled to freely enter any plea in the case. They also have the right to present evidence and witnesses to prove their innocence to the court. The accused can request bail from the police or the court after the arrest or after charges have been pressed, should the police request to keep the accused in custody, or from the court during the court proceedings. However, the court can deny bail if it believes the accused may abscond, tamper with evidence, or be harmful to the public. If not allowed bail, the accused would remain in prison until the court of first instance reads its judgment or until the case is final.

Lastly, prosecution against a foreign defendant has some unique characteristics in Thailand. In granting bail to a foreign defendant, it is normal practice for the court to impose a travel restriction on the defendant. Also, conviction of a foreign defendant, with or without a sentence of imprisonment, may cause the defendant to be deported from Thailand and be added to an immigration blacklist prohibiting the defendant from returning to Thailand.

Handling Criminal Litigation in Thailand

In summary, like in many jurisdictions, criminal litigation can be complex in Thailand. However, the procedures are usually predictable. The most important thing a prospective defendant or plaintiff can do is secure experienced and qualified local counsel who is well acquainted with the criminal litigation process in Thailand, as it is crucial for defendants to establish a strong foundation for their defense from the beginning. At a minimum, a capable lawyer can prevent surprises by keeping the client informed of every development and of what to expect at each stage. And a truly skilled and seasoned lawyer will be able to work the process to the client’s advantage, build a strong case for the defense, and anticipate the moves of opposing counsel. In this way, parties who may face criminal litigation in Thailand can address the process proactively and minimize the risk of serious consequences.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
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