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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed