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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered