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

May 30, 2024

Bank Guarantee Disputes in Thai Construction and Procurement Agreements

A bank guarantee or bond is a powerful tool that provides contractual parties with security and assurance. Bank guarantees are commitments made by a bank (as a guarantor) on behalf of a customer (as an obligor) to a beneficiary to ensure that certain contractual obligations will be fulfilled. If the customer fails to comply with these obligations, the bank can compensate the beneficiary up to the amount specified in the bank guarantee.

Bank guarantees are widely used in Thailand as a form of security and are common in construction agreements and government procurement contracts, among others. If the beneficiary (e.g., a project owner) concludes that the counterparty in the agreement (e.g., a contractor) has breached the underlying contract in some way, the beneficiary will demand payment from the bank pursuant to the guarantee.

Collecting on a Guarantee and Preventing Payment

In the context of construction and procurement agreements, there are two types of bank guarantees—conditional and unconditional. A conditional bank guarantee means that the project owner must satisfy certain agreed-upon conditions (e.g., provision of proof of the breach, proof of damages, or even consent from the contractor) to demand payment. An unconditional bank guarantee means that the bank must compensate the project owner for the demanded amount (up to the limit specified in the bank guarantee) without any conditions.

When a project owner concludes that a contractor has breached the underlying contract (often for nonperformance or failure to comply with a representation or warranty), the project owner will demand payment from the bank holding the guarantee. Upon receiving such a demand, Thai banks will usually inform the contractor and ask if it has any objections.

Even if the bank guarantee is unconditional, in practice, a bank may be reluctant to make payment if the contractor, as the bank’s customer, strongly objects. This means that if the contractor disagrees with any insinuation by the project owner that a breach has occurred, and there is a risk that the project owner will demand payment under a bank guarantee, the contractor should clearly voice its objection.

To make an effective objection, the contractor should be aware of the various conditions that are attached to the guarantee. Common conditions in Thailand include requirements that the project owner make a demand through a specific channel or method, or within a specific time-period (e.g., 15 days from the date that the project owner became aware of the breach entitling the project owner to make a demand). The Thai Supreme Court has ruled that this is an essential condition to make a demand, and failing to do so would cost the project owner the entire payment under the bank guarantee.

Furthermore, the breach or other event entitling the project owner to make a demand must occur before the expiry date specified on the bank guarantee. In other words, the bank guarantee must be valid when the breach event occurs. If the guarantee is no longer valid at the date of the breach, the bank should deny any payment request. As such, parties should know the expiry date of the guarantee and plan accordingly.

Lastly, the contractor may carefully and selectively provide an argument, together with necessary and sufficient supporting documents, to claim that the project owner’s payment demand has no merit. A common example is to show that the contractor is actually not in breach and that any payment demand by the project owner is misguided and premature. An effective argument by the contractor can help persuade the bank to hold off on making any payment under the guarantee.

If a contractor’s objection to a bank regarding payment is not effective, then the contractor will usually have to resort to court action. An injunction can potentially stop the project owner from demanding payment from the bank or prevent the bank from making payment to the project owner. A court order is required, and in certain limited circumstances, an injunction may be granted on an emergency basis. This is applicable to both litigation and arbitration proceedings. However, Thai courts are generally reluctant to grant emergency injunctions, and the evidentiary standards are high.

Conclusion

Bank guarantees are often an integral part of Thai legal transactions, such as construction and procurement agreements. When disputes arise, and ideally before they do, the contractor and project owner should be fully aware of any conditions attached to guarantees. Swift action is usually required when a party wants to call a bond. It is generally in the best interest of both contractors and project owners to know their respective legal positions and have a ready-made plan to handle any dispute that may arise involving a bank guarantee.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 21, 2025
Vietnam’s Law on Securities of 2019 was one of several laws amended (“Amended Securities Law”) under the wide-ranging Law No. 56/2024/QH15 passed by the National Assembly on November 29, 2024. The amendments came into force on January 1, 2025, with certain provisions related to professional securities investors and the eligibility criteria for public companies becoming effective on January 1, 2026. Below are some of the key points of the Amended Securities Law. Changes to Professional Securities Investors Professional securities investors (PSIs) are investors who have adequate financial capacity or securities qualifications and can participate in private placements and private funds, among other investment activities. Under the Amended Securities Law, foreign investors, including individuals and organizations, are now automatically classified as PSIs, without having to meet any requirements regarding financial capacity. This loosening of requirements is expected to attract more foreign investment. However, from January 1, 2026, individual PSIs will only be able to purchase, trade, and transfer privately placed corporate bonds that: (i) have been given credit ratings and are secured by collateral, or (ii) have been given credit ratings and covered by payment guarantees from credit institutions. Meanwhile, institutional PSIs will not be bound by these restrictions relating to privately placed corporate bonds. Protecting Shareholders in Private Securities Issuance The Amended Securities Law introduces additional conditions for private issuance of shares, convertible bonds, and warrant-linked bonds by public companies, and revises the required contents in the issuance plans from “criteria and number of investors” to “number of shares, offering price, or principles for determining the offering price.” This change promotes shareholder supervision and protects minority shareholders from overly powerful boards of directors. Expanded Powers of SSC The Amended Securities Law grants the State Securities Commission (SSC) new powers to suspend and cancel private placements of securities and adds
March 19, 2025
On January 1, 2025, the Department of Business Development (DBD) in Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce implemented new stringent corporate registration screening measures in collaboration with several other government agencies to prevent entities from opening corporate mule accounts to commit criminal activities in Thailand. The DBD’s Order of the Office of Central Company and Partnership Registration No. 3/2024 stipulates a new method for registering the establishment of partnerships and limited companies for people who have been involved in underlying crimes or who are owners of bank accounts that are being used for underlying crime, as per the notification of the Anti-Online Scam Operation Center (AOC) to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) and the collated AMLO list of such persons. The order establishes the following key requirements: Managing partners and directors of partnerships and limited companies, respectively, whose names have been listed by the AMLO as a person who is involved in an underlying offense, or as the owner of a bank account being used for the underlying offense, must appear before the registrar in person. The concerned persons cited on the AMLO list must provide valid documentation of their identity to the DBD registrar (e.g., national identification card, government official identification card, government or state enterprise employee identification card, alien identification card, passport, document used in lieu of a travel document, or other similar documents with photo identification). This collaboration between the DBD and various relevant government agencies aims to eradicate the problem of fraudsters using mule accounts set up under legally established entities to deceive the public. It also seeks to enhance checks and screening of corporate mule accounts that are used to carry out criminal activities such as money laundering or cybercrime. These actions are part of the Thai government’s broader policy to suppress economic crimes. For more
March 14, 2025
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has published the Draft Guidelines for Digital Fraud Management, which aim to help financial service providers tackle digital fraud and ensure safety and trust in the Thai financial system. These draft guidelines, which are available for public comment until March 18, 2025, provide a comprehensive framework for financial service providers, covering prevention, detection, management, and resolution of digital fraud, as well as support for customers affected by fraud. The BOT tentatively plans to implement these draft guidelines on April 1, 2025, along with circular letters on the minimum required measures for tackling “mule accounts” (deposit or e-money accounts used as tools to receive and transfer funds obtained through the commission of any offense) and measures to strengthen Thailand’s customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence procedures. Under the draft guidelines, “financial service providers” include financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act and payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. Commercial banks, special financial institutions, and operators of transferable e-money services must adhere to every requirement in the draft guidelines. Other financial service providers (e.g., payment providers other than operators of transferable e-money services) can implement the draft guidelines as deemed appropriate to their services, products, and service channels. Digital Fraud Management Requirements The draft guidelines establish the following key requirements: Policy and oversight. Directors and senior executives of financial service providers must set and adopt appropriate “end-to-end” fraud management policies and KPIs to manage digital fraud, covering prevention, monitoring, detection, management, resolution, and support for affected customers. Fraud management processes. Financial service providers must establish a clear framework for managing digital fraud throughout the customer lifecycle, from customer onboarding to service termination, according to industry standards at a minimum and covering at least the following processes: Know your customer
March 6, 2025
On February 18, 2025, the Thai Senate approved an amendment to the Act on the Establishment of and Procedures for the Tax Court. This follows the July 2024 approval by the Thai cabinet and subsequent preparation of supporting secondary legislation. This important amendment to procedural law, once it takes effect, will extend the exclusive jurisdictional powers of the Tax Court to all criminal tax, customs, and excise tax claims in addition to the court’s existing jurisdiction over all such civil claims. The amendment, while now formally approved by the legislature, is awaiting the king’s signature and will take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. Based upon its projected publication date, the amendment will likely take effect by the end of the third quarter of this year. This development is set to offer a more sophisticated Tax Court litigation process for highly specialized and often complex criminal tax and customs claims, something with which Thailand’s traditional criminal courts have struggled. It also ensures that all tax and customs matters are adjudicated before the same court, saving time, party costs, and judicial resources. This appears likely to result in more consistent adjudication of criminal tax and customs disputes, a benefit for the Thai government and party litigants alike. Any ongoing criminal tax and customs claims already commenced with the respective criminal courts on the date on which the amendment becomes effective will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of those criminal courts. The Tax Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over all other claims. This important legislative change offers those managing or otherwise facing civil and/or criminal Thai tax or customs disputes the opportunity to more effectively plan and execute a uniform defense strategy before a single, qualified forum.