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 29, 2013

Company Directors in Thailand: Your Questions Answered

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Directors and officers of both local and multinational companies in Thailand are subject to a complex array of legal duties and obligations. When things go wrong, company executives may find themselves named personally in civil suits, regulatory investigations, and criminal prosecutions, putting their assets and their livelihoods at risk. Understanding the local legal and regulatory environment is therefore essential for any director or executive working in Thailand. This article aims to answer some of the most common questions posed by directors.

Can I be sued? Yes. A breach of your duties could result in civil proceedings being issued against you personally as a director of the company. Depending on the nature of the alleged breach, proceedings could be brought by the company itself, its shareholders, employees, creditors, customers, or consumers. In Thailand, it is not unusual for third parties to sue the directors and officers at the same time as suing the company.

Can I be prosecuted? Yes. Thai law imposes criminal liability on company directors in many circumstances. Examples of statutory crimes relating to the corporate affairs of public companies include the issuance of false statements or the omission of financial data under the Public Company Limited Act, and insider trading under the Securities and Exchange Act. More than 100 further statutes in Thailand impose criminal sanctions on directors for specific acts and omissions. The penalties for committing such criminal offences can be imprisonment, fines, or both.

Can I be questioned and can my home be searched? Yes. Government authorities have broad powers to gather information, issue written orders, summon witnesses to provide statements, and request documents. A government official can demand that a company employee produce documents under the circumstances of an investigation and raid the home or office of an employee to seize documents with a proper search warrant.

Enforcement authorities can also demand that an employee, officer, director, or any other responsible person of a company submit to questioning in order to ascertain the circumstances of the alleged offence.

The person being questioned, however, has a constitutional right not to make self-incriminating statements. It is therefore essential to obtain legal advice and representation immediately upon the enforcement authority’s arrival at the company’s premises or the employee’s home, or upon receiving a request for documents or questioning.

Can I be liable for the company’s acts? Yes. Many statutory corporate criminal liability laws presume that the managing partners, president, directors, managers, or empowered persons shall be co-principals in the commission of an offence. If the entity becomes liable for a crime or the employee acted on his or her personal behalf, without authority or beyond the scope of his or her authority, the individual will be personally liable, unless they can show the offence was committed without their knowledge or consent, or they acted reasonably in preventing the offence.

What about bribery? Bribery is a criminal offence under Section 144 of the Penal Code, and is broadly defined as “giving, offering, or agreeing to give the property or any other benefit to an official so as to induce such person to do or not to do any act, or to delay the doing of any act contrary to one’s own duty”.

Are there any special laws governing foreigners? Yes. Under the Foreign Business Act, almost all business activities (except manufacturing) are reserved. Foreign shareholdings in reserved businesses are required to be below 50%, and, in certain sectors, less. Using a Thai “nominee shareholder” as a way to circumvent the requirements of the Act is a criminal offence, and the Act contains an express criminal liability provision affecting directors.

Under the Alien Employment Act, it is illegal for foreigners to work without a work permit, and for a company to employ a foreigner without a work permit. Directors working without a permit, or employing foreigners without permits may therefore be punished by imprisonment and/or a fine.

How do I protect myself? Legal proceedings are always better avoided than defended, and companies operating in Thailand should therefore put in place adequate systems to ensure compliance, including reliable record-keeping, training for directors, and access to legal advice where required. In the event that legal proceedings are instigated — or expected — immediate access to reliable legal representation is of the essence. Thai court deadlines are generally very short, and no communication with prosecutors or investigators should be entered into without suitable legal advice.

Financial protection can be provided by directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which generally provides cover for costs and liabilities arising from civil suits, regulatory investigations, and criminal prosecutions. The extent of cover available varies between providers, and policy wordings should therefore be carefully checked to ensure that the broadest permissible cover is in place.

Directors of multinational corporations with global directors’ and officers’ liability insurance cover in place should also check whether this includes a policy issued locally in Thailand, since unlicensed overseas insurers will be prevented from directly assisting and indemnifying directors facing claims in Thailand.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
September 15, 2026
The Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) has issued a notification that gives investors with projects in Myanmar clearer guidance for securing approval and for changing, expanding, or exiting an approved project. Issued on August 19, 2026, MIC Notification No. 5/2026 replaces MIC Notification No. 26/2021 and sets procedures for state or regional investment committees to review, approve, and supervise investment projects, including project amendments, investment increases, land-use rights applications, compliance inspections, and suspension or termination of approved businesses. Endorsement Application Timeline and Deemed Acceptance In Myanmar, prospective investors seeking approval under the Myanmar Investment Law generally do so through an MIC permit or an MIC endorsement, depending on the nature of the investment. While certain large-scale investment projects require an MIC permit, projects that are not required to obtain an MIC permit may instead apply for an MIC endorsement. Investors seeking MIC endorsement for their planned projects typically submit their applications to the relevant state or regional investment committee. These committees are established under the Myanmar Investment Law and are authorized to approve investments of less than USD 5 million, subject to the project’s nature and location. MIC Notification No. 5/2026 specifies that upon receiving an endorsement application, the relevant investment committee office will check it for completeness and determine whether it can be considered at the state or regional level or must be referred to the MIC; if it must be forwarded to the MIC, this will be done within 10 working days. If an application is within its purview, the committee may reject the endorsement application within 15 working days of receipt; otherwise, the application is deemed accepted. If approved, the endorsement certificate will be issued within 10 working days of the approval decision, subject to applicable procedures. Endorsement Certificate Amendment The notification clarifies which amendments a state
September 9, 2026
Certain securities, derivatives, and treasury activities in Thailand were opened to foreign investors when Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce published two new ministerial regulations in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The regulations significantly broaden the service activities that foreign-owned businesses may conduct without a license or certificate under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542, as amended (FBA). Securities and Derivatives Business Exemptions Prior to the issuance of these ministerial regulations, the exemptions covered (1) securities brokerage and derivatives brokerage with their only underlying assets being agricultural commodities, financial instruments, and securities; and (2) dealers, advisers, and fund managers conducting derivatives business under Thailand’s derivatives laws. The ministerial regulations provide broader exemptions. In addition to derivatives under the laws on derivatives as before, the following two major categories are provided: Derivatives whose underlying assets or variables fall outside the scope of Thailand’s laws on derivatives. This addresses a gap in the previous framework, which did not comprehensively exempt derivatives tied to nonregulated underlying assets or variables, such as certain commodities. Foreign brokers, advisors, and fund managers can now facilitate a broader range of hedging and risk management instruments without triggering FBA licensing requirements. Derivatives traded outside a derivatives exchange, or over the counter (OTC), whose payments are calculated by reference to foreign exchange rates or interest rates. This removes an FBA licensing barrier for foreign providers of widely used OTC hedging products, broadening the solutions available to importers and exporters managing currency exposure and to borrowers seeking greater certainty over financing costs. The ministerial regulations also exempt brokers and agents handling transactions involving either of these two derivatives categories. For securities businesses, the ministerial regulations add exemptions for margin loans used to purchase securities and for securities repurchase transactions. These additions clarify whether such activities qualify as exempt brokerage
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership