Thailand has enacted new legislation to counter cybercrime and scams. The Royal Decree on Measures for Protection and Suppression of Technology Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023) (“Cybercrime Decree”) was published in the Government Gazette on March 16, 2023, and took effect the following day. The Cybercrime Decree provides a new legal tool to interrupt the money-laundering process and aims to crack down on cybercrime perpetrators and scammers by providing stronger legal measures applying to certain types of offenders that had not been sufficiently covered by existing laws. This new legislation grants victims the right to have commercial banks and online payment platforms freeze suspicious transactions and obligates these banks and platforms to comply with such requests. It further requires these banks and platforms—as well as other service providers—to share data for the prompt prevention and suppression of cybercrime. The key rights, duties, and offenses established by the Cybercrime Decree are detailed below. Freezing Transactions The Cybercrime Decree requires commercial banks and online payment platforms to temporarily freeze (for 72 hours) any related transactions of their account holders upon receipt of an alert from the account holder that he or she is the victim of cybercrime. Victims can report these illicit transactions by phone or electronic means. If by phone, the relevant bank or platform must document the call. The victim must file a police complaint about the illicit transaction within 72 hours of the freeze being made. A police inquiry officer will then notify the bank or platform about the complaint, and the transaction freeze must be maintained for seven days from the filing of the complaint with the police. The police will then determine whether it is necessary to keep the transaction frozen for longer than seven days. If the seven days lapse without a further order to freeze the

For most in-house counsel, the thought of defending a civil case brought against the company is typically an unpleasant proposition—even more so when the matter is proceeding in a foreign or unfamiliar jurisdiction in which the substantive law and court procedures differ from those in one’s home jurisdiction. But different procedures, even if unfamiliar, can sometimes be advantageous to a defendant. This is particularly true with respect to certain aspects of the discovery process in Thai civil court proceedings. For in-house counsel in certain jurisdictions, the specter of litigation not only entails the potential risks posed to the company and the time and financial costs inevitably incurred, it can also mean lengthy and costly discovery battles. However, as discussed in more detail below, due to the nature of Thai discovery procedures, these types of discovery battles are typically rare in Thai civil court proceedings. Further, due to the limited scope and mechanisms for discovery practice in Thailand, the whole discovery process tends to be rather expedient and straightforward, particularly when compared to that in jurisdictions with extensive discovery practice. In this article, the authors provide an overview of some of the more notable features of the process for discovery under the Thai Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”), particularly those that may differ from those in jurisdictions with a more vigorous and wide-reaching discovery process. (We note that this article addresses only discovery procedures in civil proceedings in Thai courts; the discovery process in criminal proceedings is subject to the Thai Criminal Procedure Code and differs from the process in civil courts in some respects.) Rules of Evidence Before taking a closer look at some of the discovery provisions in the CPC, it is important to understand a few fundamental principles of Thai evidence law, as these provide the general guidelines

On February 20, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam submitted a Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts, as well as a Draft Amendment of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts to seek online comment from interested parties. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court has expressed a desire to establish specialized courts such as an IP court and a bankruptcy court. Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the implementation over the past eight years of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts (“LOPC”), which took effect in 2015. Some highlights of the implementation process, as set out in the Supreme People’s Court’s practical report, are as follows: Re-systematization of all levels of courts: The LOPC systematized the court system in Vietnam, including four levels: Supreme People’s Court Three Superior People’s Courts 765 first-instance trial courts (including 702 district courts and 63 provincial courts) 66 appellate courts (including 63 provincial people’s courts and the three Superior People’s Courts) In addition, the Supreme People’s Court established four adjudicating agencies for cassation and reopening (including three Judicial Committees of the Superior People’s Court and the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court). Support departments for the court have been strengthened, and policies have been developed to train judges. Trial results: From June 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, the courts have settled 3,187,285 cases of all kinds out of a total of 3,334,915 cases handled (95.57%). Most of the remaining cases are newly accepted and still within the time limit for settlement as prescribed by law. On average, the courts have had to deal with about 476,416 cases each year. Draft Amendment of Law on Organization of People’s Courts Despite the notable

Thailand’s Office of the Prime Minister has issued a new regulation titled Giving or Receiving Gifts of State Officials B.E. 2565 (2022). This regulation, which took effect on January 13, 2023, repeals the previous 2001 version and updates certain provisions to be in sync with Thailand’s primary anticorruption law, the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018). The regulation prohibits state officials’ family members from receiving gifts from people who are dealing with the officials’ respective agencies. It also prohibits state officials from giving gifts to their supervisors and their supervisors’ family members. An exception, carried over from the previous version of the regulation, is provided for gifts on limited “customary occasions” valued at THB 3,000 or less. There are some notable revisions in the definitions of the new regulation. The term “gift” is now clearly defined to include “training” or “seminars.” In addition, the term “family members” now includes spouses living together “as husband and wife,” even if not legally married. For example, the common-law spouse of an officer considering a license application is not allowed to receive a gift from or attend an overseas seminar organized by the applicant. The regulation also provides: Guidelines for state officials to self-report in case of violation by a family member; Instructions on how to deal with the gifts received in violation; and Disciplinary actions for violation. Importantly, the regulation continues to prohibit the receipt of gifts by state officials’ family members but does not expressly criminalize the giving of gifts by private parties. However, all who deal with government officials should take note of the updated regulation to avoid creating a situation that might violate the rules.