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​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More