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

November 25, 2011

Banking in Thailand: Resident or Non-resident Account?

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

As a foreigner in Thailand, you may wish to open a bank account in the country to accommodate your financial needs or investment portfolios. You may therefore wonder whether you can open a bank account in Thailand and what types of accounts are available to you.

There are two main types of bank accounts offered to foreigners, depending on their resident status in Thailand: a resident bank account and a non-resident bank account. This article will touch on the main differences between these account types and some other relevant conditions.

A resident bank account is, in theory, one owned by a person residing in Thailand for regular use within Thailand, while a non-resident bank account refers to one owned by a person having no presence or residence in Thailand. For the purpose of a resident bank account, Thai residence can be proved by a permanent residence permit or a valid work permit in Thailand.

In principle, a foreigner who has no proof of residence in Thailand can only open a non-resident bank account; however, some Thai-based banks may, depending on their internal policy and discretion, accommodate requests from non-resident customers in opening a resident account with no proof of residence. Multinational banks tend to be stricter in selecting and screening customers, and most do not allow foreigners to open a resident bank account without proof of residence in Thailand; they allow only a non-resident bank account.

Resident bank accounts and non-resident bank accounts are quite similar in terms of transferring foreign currency from abroad into the bank account for spending in Thailand. The owner of a bank account in Thailand has the duty to file a Foreign Exchange Transaction Form (FET Form) if the amount of remittance is greater than US$50,000 or its equivalent in another currency. This FET Form is the primary evidence of inward remittance of funds into Thailand, and it should clearly and precisely specify the purpose of the funds transfer as well as the details of the funds owner. In certain situations (eg, repayment of a loan or return of investment), the FET Form could be an important document for transferring funds back out of Thailand. In case the inward remittance is less than US$50,000 (or its equivalent in other currency), a statement or letter recording the transfer should be requested from the commercial bank and kept for future reference when transferring funds abroad.

Resident and non-resident bank accounts differ mainly in respect of remitting funds out of Thailand. This is because a resident bank account is considered an account within Thailand, while a non-resident bank account is treated in a manner similar to an offshore account. The transfer of funds into a non-resident bank account is more or less comparable to the transfer to a bank account in a foreign country. Any person in Thailand who wishes to transfer money into a non-resident account has to provide the necessary documents (relevant contracts or invoices) and prove the legitimate obligation and source of funds; however, there are fewer restrictions and reporting requirements in remittance of funds from a non-resident account abroad.

On the other hand, there is no reporting requirement for a transfer of money into or out of a resident account if the transaction occurs within Thailand, but it will be controlled by the Bank of Thailand in the event of remittance from a resident bank account abroad. For every single baht that needs to be remitted from a resident bank account to a foreign country, there must be appropriate supporting documents (relevant contracts or invoices) to prove the legitimate obligation, source of the money and purpose of the transfer, which an account owner is obliged to maintain.

In case a non-resident foreigner decides to open a bank account in Thailand to receive money from products sold into Thailand, a non-resident bank account will allow more flexibility when transferring such money abroad; however, any person in Thailand who deposits money into the non-resident bank account has to provide supporting documents to prove a legitimate obligation of payment for each deposit made.

Of course, this reporting requirement could cause inconvenience if deposits need to be made often. But in this regard a resident bank account would help facilitate local purchasers to transfer the selling price into the bank account, without requiring submission of any supporting documents to prove the legitimate obligation and the purpose of the transfer.

A non-resident foreigner, however, has to keep all records of money transferred in and out of such a resident bank account for the purpose of transferring money in the account abroad in the future. Otherwise, the money will need to be transferred out of Thailand via another arrangement.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 9, 2026
On January 7, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) announced a further relaxation of foreign exchange regulations through Notification No. 2/2026, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. This notification reduces the mandatory conversion requirement for exporters’ earnings in foreign currency into Myanmar kyat (MMK). Under the new notification, exporters are required to convert only 15 percent of their foreign currency export earnings into MMK at official CBM reference exchange rates, down from the previous required minimum conversion level of 25 percent. The adjustment provides exporters with more flexibility to manage foreign currency, improving liquidity for international transactions and reducing cash flow pressure. However, companies must still comply with the foreign currency conversion procedures and timelines set out in the CBM’s Notification No. 12/2022.
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More