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

July 18, 2013

Anti-Money Laundering Regulations in Thailand 2013 – Thomson Reuters Complinet

Subscribe to Updates
Complinet Complete (Thomson Reuters Accelus)

This Compliance Complete country profile looks at Thailand, which traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money.

Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No.

Any Egmont members? Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group.

The offense

Money laundering: Violators are punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year to 10 years and/or a fine of THB 20,000 to THB 200,000. Failure to comply with the Act’s reporting requirements is punishable by a fine of up to THB 500,000 and an additional fine of up to THB 5,000 a day for every day that one fails to comply. Filing a false report is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of THB 50,000 to THB 500,000.

Regulation

The law, known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the Act), was passed in March 1999 with the aim of combating not only the drug trade, but other illicit activities, such as corruption, criminal fraud and prostitution.

Enforcement of the Act was not immediate, however. There were some initial delays in the establishment of an enforcement agency and in passing implementing legislation. Once established, enforcement of the Act started in October 2000 and during the first five months alone approximately THB 150 million in assets was seized. Since that time, billions of baht have been frozen and/or seized under the legislation.

The Act was amended on March 2, 2008, with the aim of broadening the overall scope of targeted offenses, increasing the powers to conduct investigations and seizures and to attack the controversial issue of perceived government corruption. A further amendment became effective in 2009, expanding the types of businesses subject to the Act’s reporting requirements beyond just financial institutions. Under this amendment, non-financial businesses, such as traders in jewelry, car dealers, and real estate brokers, are now required to report transactions that exceed the values prescribed in the relevant ministerial regulations. The most recent amendment was released on February 1, 2013.

Financial intelligence unit

Of the total number of transactions reported to AMLO annually, a relatively small portion result in further investigation for violation of the Act. That said, the trend is for more active participation and enforcement by AMLO in recent years.

Targeted crimes

Thai law enforcement officials initially proposed the enactment of a money laundering law to target the regular transfer of money and property derived from the rampant trade in illegal drugs, as well as to comply with requirements for membership under the 1988 Convention Against Illegal Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-Toxic Substances. Additional predicate criminal offenses were added both during the legislative process again during subsequent amendments. The February 2013 amendments not only added twelve new categories of predicate offenses, but also confirmed application of the Act to predicate offenses committed outside Thailand, provided such acts would have constituted a predicate offense had they been committed in Thailand.

Currently, the Act covers the transfer or conversion of funds or property obtained from the following predicate offenses:

  1. Drug trafficking
  2. Prostitution and other sexual offenses
  3. Fraud against the public
  4. Fraud involving financial institutions
  5. Abuse of position by a government official
  6. Extortion
  7. Trade in contraband
  8. Terrorism
  9. Gambling offenses, with particular emphasis on large-scale organization of gambling games
  10. Participation in racketeering groups or participation in a criminal association
  11. Receiving stolen property only as it constitutes assisting in the selling, buying, pawning, or receiving, in any way, property obtained from the commission of an offense with the nature of business conduct
  12. Counterfeiting or alteration of currencies, seals, stamps, and tickets with the nature of business conduct
  13. Criminal trading only where it is associated with the counterfeiting or violating of intellectual property rights to goods or the commission of an offense under the laws on the protection of intellectual property rights with the nature of business conduct
  14. Forgery of a document of right, electronic cards, or passports with a nature of regular or business conduct
  15. The unlawful use, holding, or possessing of natural resources or a process of illegal exploitation of natural resources with a nature of business conduct
  16. The commission of an offense relating to murder or grievous bodily injury which leads to the acquisition of assets
  17. Restraining or confining a person only where it is to demand or obtain benefits or to negotiate for any benefits
  18. Theft, extortion, blackmail, robbery, gang-robbery, fraud, or misappropriation with a nature of regular conduct
  19. Acts of piracy under anti-piracy law
  20. Unfair securities trading practice under the law on securities and stock exchange
  21. Offenses related to arms and arms equipment which is or may be used in combat or war under the law on arms control

Focus on corruption

Under the Act, it is a crime to transfer, convert, or receive the transfer of funds or property arising from the above-referenced criminal offenses for the purpose of hiding or concealing the source of the funds. Violators are punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year to ten years and/or a fine of THB 20,000 to THB 200,000. Violators are defined under the Act as persons who commit or attempt to commit a money laundering offense or aid another person in committing a money laundering offense.

It is also important to note that the March 2008 amendments include provisions targeted specifically at government officials, whereby the aforementioned fines and maximum prison sentences are doubled for government officials and can be tripled if certain categories of government officials are involved in a conspiracy to commit a money laundering offense. This represents a concerted effort to tackle the consistent problem of institutional corruption in Thailand.

Banking transactions are a primary activity subject to scrutiny under the Act, but other financial transactions are also covered. For example, an individual who secretly uses money from a drug sale to purchase shares of publicly traded stocks on the Stock Exchange of Thailand could be prosecuted under the Act. Furthermore, a corrupt government official who uses money obtained from a bribe to then purchase land runs the risk of being exposed, having the land confiscated, and being subject to double-scale fines. Even property developers, who knowingly hold or accept money for concealment that they know is derived from one of the stated criminal offenses, can be subject to enforcement under the Act.

Enforcement officials can seize, without a warrant, money or property connected with the commission of one of the enumerated criminal offenses or a money laundering offense. In such cases, the owner of the seized property must be able to demonstrate that the property is unrelated to the commission of one of the enumerated crimes, or a money laundering offense, in order to recover the property.

Reporting requirements

A key provision of the Act is the requirement that financial institutions and other businesses that tend to be used as vehicles for money laundering report all cash transactions of THB 2 million or more. Property transactions in excess of THB 5 million must also be reported. Also required for reporting are all suspicious transactions that may be related to one of the enumerated criminal offenses, are more complex than normal, lack economic plausibility, or appear to have been undertaken to avoid compliance with the anti-money laundering law. For such transactions, the financial institutions must require their customers to provide a detailed record of the transactions. The latter requirement is generally left to the practical discretion of the financial institution which must then choose between customer confidentiality concerns and compliance with the Act.

The AMLO has also implemented separate regulations which require all persons entering or leaving Thailand to declare currency in their possession where the amount meets or exceeds certain statutory minimum levels.

Failure to comply with the Act’s reporting requirements is punishable by a fine of up to THB 500,000 and a daily fine of up to THB 5,000 a day through the period of violation or not acting correctly. Filing a false report is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of THB 50,000 to THB 500,000.

Thailand has made great progress in its legislative efforts to combat illicit crime and the transfer of funds related to such crimes. While much has been done and the laws are in place, ultimate success depends on the practical enforcement of the law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More