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 10, 2020

Bank of Thailand’s Economic Relief Measures for SMEs Affected By COVID-19 as of April 7

Faced with the specter of corporate liquidity problems brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Thai government and the Bank of Thailand (BOT) have announced an array of measures to assist small and midsize enterprises (SMEs) affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The measures range from preemptive financial support, to debt moratoria, to the granting of low interest financial assistance.

Below is a chronological summary of the measures as at April 7:

On February 28, the BOT issued guidelines to 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), for providing preemptive financial support to debtors who face direct and indirect adverse impact from the COVID-19 outbreak. The guidelines include providing additional working capital, loan moratoria, packing credit or trust receipts, renewal of credit limits, and cutting interest rates. Details of the February 28 package are available here.

On March 10, the Thai cabinet approved a broad range of financial and fiscal relief measures to alleviate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on SMEs, including:

  1. Making a total of THB 150 billion available for low interest loans (at 2% interest for a period of two years, for not over THB 20 million per customer).
  2. Suspending payments of principal and reducing interest rates for debts owed to the Government Savings Bank and Government Housing Bank.
  3. Easing of the BOT rules for granting loans by commercial banks.
  4. The Social Security Fund making available a total amount of THB 30 billion for low interest loans (at 3% interest for a period of three years).
  5. Reducing withholding tax from 3% to 1.5%.
  6. Allowing SMEs a tax deduction equal to 1.5 times their interest expenses incurred on loans obtained under the government’s low interest soft loan initiative (item 1 above) occuring between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020.
  7. Allowing SMEs to deduct, for corporate income tax purposes, three times the salary expenses paid from April 2020 to July 2020 to employees who are insured under the Social Security Fund and who receive wages of not more than THB 15,000 per person per month.
  8. Acceleration of VAT refunds to domestic entrepreneurs within 15 days after filing the form.
  9. Refunding the deposit for electricity usage.
  10. Reducing contributions to the Social Security Fund by employers and employees.
  11. Reducing rental fees for state property by government agencies.

On March 20, the BOT cut the policy rate by 0.25 percentage points from 1.00% to 0.75%, the lowest so far, effective on March 23, to reduce the burdens of borrowers affected by the COVID-19 outbreak and to alleviate the liquidity problem of the financial markets.

On April 7, the BOT announced additional measures to assist SMEs affected by COVID-19. These include the following:

  1. A six-month loan payment holiday for all SMEs with a credit line not exceeding THB 100 million. The payment holiday will not be considered as a missed payment and thus will not impair credit history.
  2. Soft loans to SMEs with a credit line not exceeding THB 500 million at a concessional interest rate of 2% per annum and interest-free for the first six months.

These measures provide extensive relief for businesses impacted by the outbreak—especially when considered alongside the tax relief measures announced by the Thai Revenue Department. However, as the crisis deepens and the situation develops, it is likely that the government will continue to issue further economic stimulus measures in an attempt to soften the blow of the outbreak on the national economy. Affected companies should keep a close eye on the measures made available to them, so that they can avail themselves of these measures if necessary to maintain liquidity. Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to update you on these measures as they emerge.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
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
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