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

April 9, 2020

Bank of Thailand Issues Relief Measures for Debtors Affected by COVID-19 Pandemic

Subscribe to Updates

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has issued BOT Announcement No. Wor 277/2563, dated February 28, 2020, to provide relief measures for small and medium-sized debtors who suffer adverse economic effects from the COVID-19 pandemic. The key points of this announcement are summarized below.

Revised Definition of Debt Restructuring

Under this announcement, “debt restructuring” means restructuring of debt arising from a debtor’s increased credit risks, which can be divided into two categories:

  1. Debt restructuring for loans that are not yet classified as Non-Performing Loans (NPLs). This type of debt restructuring is preemptive, and will commence once the debtor starts demonstrating issues with debt repayment. The debtors are not yet classified as NPL, but have Net Present Value (NPV) loss; and,
  2. Debt restructuring for NPLs deemed to be Troubled Debt Restructuring (TDR), regardless of whether there is NPV loss.

Guidelines for Relief Measures for Debtors from January 1, 2020, until December 31, 2021

Financial support

The BOT has requested cooperation from Specialized Financial Institutions (SFIs) (i.e., state-owned financial institutions established and defined under specific laws, such as the Government Savings Bank, Export-Import Bank of Thailand, and Small and Medium Enterprise Development Bank of Thailand) to provide preemptive financial support to debtors who face direct and indirect adverse impact from the outbreak (e.g., providing additional working capital, loan moratoria, packing credit or trust receipts, renewal of credit limits, and cutting interest rates).

Scope of debtors entitled to the relief measures

The debtors entitled to the relief measures under this announcement must have potential to continue business operations or repay debt in the future, and must be:

  • Debtors whose debt has been classified as Non-NPL (classified as normal or Special Mention) since January 1, 2020;
  • Debtors whose debt became an NPL on or after January 1, 2019, except where the SFI can prove that a debtor whose debt became an NPL before January 1, 2019, is an NPL debtor adversely affected by the economic loss.

SFI Requirements

SFIs which provide relief measures to debtors that meet the above criteria must comply with the following measures.

  • Formulation of policy for relief measures. SFIs must formulate a clear policy for the provision of relief measures and criteria for considering debtors who are adversely affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.
  • Classification of debtors. SFIs can immediately classify Non-NPL debtors (normal debtors or Special Mention debtors) as normal debtors, provided that the result of the SFI’s analysis shows that the debtors can perform obligations under a debt restructuring agreement. This kind of debt restructuring will also be deemed preemptive, and will not be deemed as TDR.
  • Working capital. The SFIs can classify the provision of additional working capital to debtors to facilitate their business operations during debt restructuring, provided that the debtors have sufficient cash flow for repayment or have repayment capability when taking other factors into consideration.
  • Reserve requirements. SFIs are required to comply with BOT notifications regarding reserve requirements for SFIs.
  • Relevant personnel for debt restructuring. If an SFI has insufficient personnel for debt restructuring, the BOT temporarily allows loan officers to perform work related to debt restructuring, provided that the SFI has put in place policies for checks and balances.
  • Reducing minimum amount due on credit cards. SFIs can consider reducing the minimum amount due on credit cards, for debtors who are adversely affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, below 10% of the outstanding amount.
  • Report to the BOT. SFIs are required to submit reports to the BOT detailing target loans and outstanding debts of the debtors who are subject to these measures.
  • Communication. The SFIs are required to internally communicate relief measures both within the organization and externally to debtors.

These measures should provide strong relief for small to medium sized debtors that are suddenly facing financial difficulties as a result of the unexpected disruption caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. In addition, the BOT is expected to provide additional measures if and when the situation escalates.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
Read More
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
Read More