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​ 

February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More
January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed
Read More
January 26, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed an updated Vietnam chapter to Foreign Investment Review 2026, a recently published global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 25 jurisdictions worldwide. Published and distributed by Lexology Panoramic, the guide discusses law and policy on oversight of foreign investment, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other important stipulations for foreign investors. The Vietnam chapter was prepared by Kien Trung Trinh, a partner in the Tilleke & Gibbins’ Hanoi office, Dung Thi Phuong Le, an associate in the firm’s office in Ho Chi Minh City, Nguyen Thi Huong Nguyen, associate in Hanoi, and Ngan Thuc Nguyen, paralegal in Ho Chi Minh City. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of the Vietnam chapter can be accessed through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Foreign Investment Review 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More