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​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More