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​ 

August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign