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?

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.

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