Thailand ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on December 21, 1959, with the Convention coming into force on March 20, 1960. This ratification was a significant step in aligning Thailand’s arbitration framework with international standards, facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the country. In Thailand, the enforcement of both domestic and international arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which is based on the first version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (as opposed to the latest version from 2006). However, unlike Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Thailand is not an UNCITRAL Model Law country. While Thailand’s Arbitration Act is influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it incorporates certain local contexts that require interpretation alongside Thai court rulings. The Arbitration Act also confirms the authority of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, reinforcing tribunals’ power in managing disputes effectively. Additionally, the act incorporates principles from the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). This article explores the key procedural steps, timeframes, and practical challenges associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards under Thailand’s legal framework. Procedures for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Thailand The enforcement of arbitral awards in Thailand follows the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Act: Application to the competent court: Under the Arbitration Act, parties seeking enforcement must submit a petition to the Thai courts within three years of the award having become enforceable. The application must include the original or certified copies of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, along with translations if necessary. In Thailand, the choice of court for filing the arbitral award depends on the nature of the disputed contract. If the contract concerns

Tilleke & Gibbins’ anticorruption team in Bangkok has authored the Thailand chapter of the newly released Anti-Bribery & Corruption 2026, published by Lexology Panoramic. This global guide provides a comparative overview of antibribery and anticorruption regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter addresses the following key areas: Relevant international and domestic law: International anticorruption conventions, foreign and domestic bribery laws, successor liability, civil and criminal enforcement, out-of-court resolution and leniency mechanisms Foreign bribery: Legal framework, definition of foreign public officials, gifts, travel and entertainment, facilitating payments, payments through intermediaries, individual and corporate liability, private commercial bribery, defenses, enforcement authorities, enforcement trends, prosecution of foreign companies, sanctions, recent decisions and investigations Financial record-keeping and reporting: Applicable laws and regulations, disclosure of violations or irregularities, prosecution under accounting legislation, penalties for record-keeping violations, and tax deductibility of domestic or foreign bribes Domestic bribery: Legal framework, scope of prohibitions, definition of domestic public officials, gifts, travel and entertainment, facilitating payments, public official participation in commercial activities, payments through intermediaries or third parties, individual and corporate liability, private commercial bribery, defenses, enforcement authorities, enforcement trends, prosecution of foreign companies, sanctions, recent decisions and investigations Updates and trends: Key developments over the past year The Thailand chapter outlines recent developments in anticorruption enforcement, including significant cases involving multinational corporations and continued operations targeting transnational fraud networks along the Myanmar border. It also provides an overview of Thailand’s legal framework for addressing domestic and foreign bribery, including the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2017). The full Thailand chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers may also register for 30 days of complimentary access to the complete Anti-Bribery & Corruption 2026 guide and other Lexology Panoramic publications through this link.

The Thai cabinet has approved a draft amendment of the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes as proposed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Following the Council of State’s review, the emergency decree will be become effective immediately upon its enactment and publication in the Government Gazette. While the draft amendment is not yet publicly available, the government recently indicated that the emergency decree aims to empower authorities with decisive measures to combat cybercrime effectively. It underscores the shared responsibility among various sectors, including banking, telecommunications, and online platforms, in safeguarding against technological crimes. Key provisions of the draft amendment of the emergency decree include: Telecommunications provider obligations: Telecommunications service providers must suspend SIM cards associated with criminal activities. The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission and mobile service providers themselves are authorized to temporarily suspend mobile phone numbers if there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activities. Banking responsibilities: Financial institutions are required to promptly report mule accounts to the Anti-Money Laundering Office to facilitate quick restitution to victims. The Anti-Money Laundering Transaction Committee is empowered to order the return of funds to victims without requiring a final court ruling. Penalties for noncompliance: The amended emergency decree introduces penalties for noncompliance by regulated entities that fail to prevent criminal activities for offenses related to technology crimes in the following cases: Digital asset services: Those engaged in the buying, selling, or exchanging of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and digital tokens, as well as digital asset businesses that launder money obtained from online crimes by converting it into digital currency, will be subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to THB 100,000,

A proposal to establish a specialized Intellectual Property Court in Vietnam has been a topic of significant interest among IP practitioners for the past 20 years. It was thus a major breakthrough when the new Law on the Organization of People’s Courts was ratified in 2024, stipulating in Article 4.1(dd) that the Vietnamese court system would include a specialized first-instance IP Court. The new law took effect on January 1, 2025, replacing the Law on the Organization of People’s Courts of 2014, A groundbreaking law This breakthrough can be viewed from multiple perspectives. First of all, in terms of organization, this is the first time, after numerous considerations, that Vietnam has officially recognized the importance of the IP field and the need to establish a specialized adjudicative body due to the field’s unique nature. The establishment of a specialized first-instance IP Court is expected to lead to fundamental changes in the practice of developing and applying IP law. While the establishment of IP rights such as trademarks, patents, and plant varieties is managed by administrative agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Office, and the Crop Production Department, which seem unlikely to change their functions and tasks, there could be significant changes in the enforcement of these rights, which has been a persistent issue in Vietnam’s IP law system. Thus far, in practice, the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam has relied overwhelmingly on administrative measures over civil measures. Civil measures, typically involving court proceedings under which the matter will be submitted to a court for settlement, are not appealing to disputing parties, especially IP rights owners. The absence of a specialized court has led to many IP cases being handled by judges without any knowledge or experience in this specialized field, resulting in confusion, misconceptions about