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​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or