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​ 

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
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More