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

August 11, 2026

Cambodia Launches Online Platform for Forced-Sale Auction Notices

Subscribe to Updates

Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings.

How the Platform Works

The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform.

The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court.

Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court.

Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia

The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered perpetual leases and usufructs, and jointly held shares in those rights, and execution against such property is effected exclusively by the forced-sale method.

A few features of that procedure are useful context for prospective bidders:

  • Execution of a court judgment against immovable property is carried out by forced sale, and the competent Execution Court is the court of first instance having jurisdiction over the location of the immovable property.
  • Sale of the immovable is generally carried out by tender or auction. The Execution Court sets the date, time, and place of sale, and the court clerk gives public notice describing the immovable, the minimum sale price, and the sale details.
  • Bidders must provide a monetary guarantee equal to 10% of the minimum sale price. This deposit is returned to any unsuccessful bidders once the sale is completed.
  • The judgment debtor is prohibited from bidding to purchase the immovable.
  • After the tender or auction is conducted, the bailiff determines the highest bidder and prepares a protocol recording the result.
  • The Execution Court then holds a hearing and issues a ruling permitting or prohibiting the sale, based on grounds such as procedural defects or bidder disqualification. This ruling may be challenged by an interested party through an appeal.
  • Once a ruling permitting the sale becomes final and binding, the purchaser must pay the sale price to the Execution Court within a period set by the court (not exceeding one month). Ownership of the immovable passes to the purchaser upon payment.

Practical Takeaways for Clients

Clients interested in bidding on properties subject to forced sale, such as real estate investors, creditors, and lenders, should:

  • Monitor the Ministry of Justice’s website for newly published notices covering the municipality or province of interest.
  • Prepare the bidding application form and gather all required supporting details—including identification, ownership certificate references, and the applicable enforcement case and auction announcement numbers—well in advance of the sale date.
  • Be prepared to post the required 10% guarantee deposit of the minimum sale price when submitting a bid.
  • Submit completed application forms directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the relevant forced sale notice, and direct any follow-up questions about a particular sale to that court.

Prospective bidders will need to adhere to the procedural requirements and strict deadlines involved to successfully navigate the forced-sale process.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 17, 2025
M&A specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins have contributed the Vietnam chapter to Private M&A 2025, a newly released guide from Lexology Panoramic. The publication provides practical insights into private mergers and acquisitions frameworks in jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam chapter addresses key aspects of private M&A transactions, including: Structure and process, legal regulation, and required consents Advisers, negotiation, and documentation Due diligence and disclosure obligations Pricing, consideration, and financing Conditions, preclosing covenants, and termination rights Representations, warranties, indemnities, and postclosing covenants Taxation of transfers Employees, pensions, and benefits Recent legal, regulatory, and market practice developments The chapter highlights how Vietnam’s legal framework governs private acquisitions and disposals, outlines typical transaction processes and structures, and provides guidance on common regulatory and practical considerations. It also notes recent trends, including increased scrutiny of merger control filings by the Vietnam Competition Commission and regulatory changes affecting M&A approvals. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complimentary access to Private M&A 2025 and Lexology Panoramic’s full library of resources through this link.
Read More
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 8, 2025
On September 1, 2025, Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) issued Directive No. 106/2025 to remind all companies and organizations registered under the Myanmar Companies Law of their obligation to strictly comply with the DICA registrar’s orders, directives, and procedures. This directive highlights the importance of legal and procedural compliance in corporate filings, governance changes, and operational conduct. It also signals increased scrutiny over documentation submitted during annual returns, share transfers, and director appointments or resignations. Public companies will be subject to closer regulatory attention, and new company registrations will involve vetting of proposed directors to ensure prior compliance with applicable laws. Compliance The directive emphasizes the following points: Companies must ensure full compliance with the Myanmar Companies Law and all directives issued by the registrar. This includes the proper submission of annual returns and adherence to updated requirements for share transfers and changes in directors. Companies and organizations must comply with all applicable laws, rules, directives, and procedures issued by relevant ministries and departments. If any authority takes action due to noncompliance, the registrar may also take appropriate measures. Noncompliance may result in regulatory sanctions, including restrictions on future company participation and vetting under anti–money laundering and counter–terrorism financing protocols. Prospective directors of newly registered companies will be vetted to confirm no prior violations of applicable laws. Entities must respond promptly and accurately to document requests from the registrar, both during initial registration and in subsequent filings. Companies are strongly advised to review their internal compliance frameworks and ensure readiness to meet DICA’s documentation and procedural expectations. In particular, companies must respond promptly and accurately to document requests from the registrar, whether during initial registration or in subsequent filings. For more information on this DICA announcement, or on any aspect of corporate registration, or assistance with
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More