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

March 2, 2020

Competition Litigation: New Rules for Criminal and Administrative Actions

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On January 17, 2020, Thailand’s current Trade Competition Commission (TCC) again showed their proactive approach to enforcement by issuing guidelines for competition litigation under the Trade  Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017). This act prohibits anticompetitive actions, abuse of dominant market power, cartels, collusion, restrictive agreements or arrangements, and unfair trade practices. The new rules give clear guidance to both the TCC and the public, and will help competition litigation proceed more quickly in order to protect free and fair trade in Thai markets.

Involved Parties

The new rules, which focus on complaints, investigations, and procedures for criminal and administrative actions, specify the role, duty, and rights of the following parties:

  • Claimant – The filer of a complaint (civil or criminal) or report to the TCC concerning a potential violation of the Trade Competition Act.
  • Respondent – The alleged wrongdoer.
  • Accused – The person accused by the TCC of committing a criminal offense regardless of whether the action results in imposition of an administrative penalty.

The rules also clarify that the TCC can initiate an investigation even when no complaint is filed.

Filing a Complaint

The claimant, who may be an injured party or witness to the wrongdoing, may file a complaint with the TCC in writing or by email, in person to a TCC officer, or by telephone. An officer receiving a verbal complaint needs to record it—along with testimony of any accompanying witnesses—and collect the claimant’s signature. Complaints must give the facts and evidence, and written complaints also require the claimant’s signature. Once the complaint is filed, the TCC can proceed with the investigation regardless of subsequent withdrawal or change of circumstances, such as death of the claimant.

The new rules also seem to empower the TCC with a police-like ability to investigate criminal actions. The TCC’s authority in criminal complaints used to be limited to filing a criminal complaint with the inquiry police (the section of the Royal Thai Police tasked with inquiring into criminal cases), who would then investigate the matter and submit a prosecution or non-prosecution suggestion to the public prosecutor. Under the new rules, if a criminal offense is found, the TCC has to ask the inquiry police (or other officers under other laws) to transfer the criminal case under the Trade Competition Act to the TCC. The TCC can order and summons a person to be interviewed.

Investigation

After receiving a complaint, the sectary of the Office of the TCC (OTCC) may assign an officer to investigate the facts and gather evidence in order to identify the wrongdoer. This process is limited to 30 days from receipt of the complaint, after which the secretary must determine whether the complaint has grounds. The TCC will then issue an order to either dismiss a groundless complaint or to proceed with making a formal accusation according to the relevant criminal or administrative proceedings.

The TCC will appoint a subcommittee to investigate the criminal offense, and must inform the accused of this appointment. The subcommittee can be challenged for conflict of interest if a member has a close connection or conflict with the claimant, the respondent, or the accused.

The subcommittee will commence their work without delay, and the committee’s duties will mirror those of the inquiry police: ordering the accused and witnesses to be interviewed and collecting all evidence related to the wrongdoing. The rules also require the subcommittee to inform the accused of the offense according to the Criminal Procedure Code and give the accused 15 days to reply. The rules prohibit revealing the name, address, or identifying information pertaining to the claimant or witnesses.
The accused may reply to the criminal charge verbally or in writing. The accused is allowed to present witnesses or evidence, or to ask the subcommittee to call in a witness or evidence. The subcommittee may deny the request if they believe it is a delay tactic, is made in bad faith, or concerns irrelevant witnesses or evidence.

Guilt under the Trade Competition Act

If the subcommittee finds the accused guilty, it will suggest a criminal or administrative penalty to the TCC. If the subcommittee suggests a fine under section 79 of the Trade Competition Act, the accused must plead guilty—or, for the purposes of a settlement offer, decline to accept guilt—and pay the fine within the specified time. The criminal case can be revoked under the Criminal Procedural Code, but only if the accused pleads guilty first.

Interim Orders

The interim order is a new tool that enables the TCC to protect competition more efficiently. An interim order is made during the course of the subcommittee’s investigation, without the court’s involvement, in order to remedy damage, and prevent further damage, in the public’s interest.

The subcommittee can recommend that the TCC issue an interim order forcing an accused business operator to suspend, cease, or change their operations for a specified duration if there is reasonable cause to believe that the accused is involved with a violation of section 50 (abuse of a dominant market position), section 51 paragraph 2 (merger or acquisition to dominate the market), section 54 (formation of a serious cartel), section 55 (reduction of competition), section 57 (unfair trade practices), or section 58 (collusion with a foreign business operator for monopoly or unfair trade impacting the economy and the public interest as a whole).

To solve the above problems, administrative penalties were imposed in the current act for the following offenses:

The TCC’s order is considered an administrative order under the law of administrative procedures. If the wrongdoer insists on not paying the administrative fine, the TCC can file a complaint with the Administrative Court to enforce it. If the court agrees with the TCC, it will order the confiscation of the wrongdoer’s assets for a public auction and sale in order to pay the administrative fine.

The wrongdoer can also oppose the TCC’s administrative order by filing a complaint requesting the Administrative Court to revoke the TCC’s order. If the Administrative Court considers that the TCC’s order is not lawful, it will be revoked.

Investigation for an Administrative Action

In general, the TCC can impose an administrative fine on the wrongdoer under the Trade Competition Act. However, the new rules specify that, in a complicated administrative case, the TCC may appoint a subcommittee to give its opinion on the offense. An administrative case can be challenged by the accused in the Administrative Court, which may impose an administrative order or fine.

Although specific required qualifications have not been given in the new rules, members of the subcommittee for administrative cases must be government officers or former government officers with knowledge and experience in administrative law, economics, law, accounting, or other subjects necessary for considering the case. Members should also have experience in administrative procedures or governmental administration.

The new rules also set a 90-day time limit for the secretary or the subcommittee to receive the complaint. Once appointed, the subcommittee must also offer their opinion on the administrative offense and the administrative fine within 90 days, with a maximum extension of an additional 30 days. After 120 days, either the secretary or the TCC may allow additional extensions, at its discretion, on a case-by-case basis. An order to impose an administrative penalty must be made in writing and must give a detailed explanation of the offense and relevant legal provisions, as well as the administrative penalty being imposed. The TCC must also inform the wrongdoer of their right to appeal the order to the Administrative Court.

Summary

The TCC’s new rules on complaints, investigations, and procedures for criminal and administrative actions provide comprehensive guidelines to claimants, accused parties, OTCC officers, and the TCC themselves. By allowing the TCC to act as the inquiry authority in a criminal case, as well as an administrative authority that can issue an administrative order or interim order even before filing the case with the court, the rules assure the public that free and fair competition will be protected more effectively and efficiently than before. With the TCC now taking a more proactive posture in regulating and enforcing the Trade Competition Act, business operators should be ready to fully comply with the Trade Competition Act by being sure to avoid any potentially anticompetitive acts.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 20, 2026
The past year has been an important one for the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT). With a right combination of commissioners bringing expertise in competition law, investigations, administrative procedures, court processes, and sector-focused industries, the regulator has pushed forward with stronger enforcement efforts and closer cooperation with both domestic and international stakeholders. In 2025 the TCCT participated in major international initiatives—including peer reviews conducted by the OECD and ASEAN. These efforts reflect Thailand’s ongoing ambition to elevate its competition law framework to meet international expectations and build trust among global communities. There was also significant momentum around potential amendments to the Trade Competition Act (TCA). Political parties, the TCCT, the private sector, and civil society all agreed that the 2017 law could benefit from clearer rules and more effective enforcement tools. Although a draft amendment passed an initial reading and moved to a subcommittee for revision, the process stalled following the dissolution of Parliament. At the same time, the TCCT invested heavily in strengthening its own internal capabilities. It expanded collaborations with organizations such as the OECD, ASEAN authorities, the EU, and counterparts in Japan and Australia. The TCCT also published sector-specific market studies, including on digital platforms and e‑marketplaces and on cold‑rolled steel. The regulator also shared draft guidelines aimed at regulating online platforms—although these have not yet been finalized. What’s Next for the TCCT? Looking ahead, the TCCT is set to keep building on the momentum it has created and be a more active, transparent, and practical regulator. It is likely to become even more visible in the public sphere as it steps up efforts to raise awareness about competition law, especially among businesses that may not traditionally follow or be familiar with such regulatory developments. Digital markets, including e‑commerce and online marketplaces, will remain a
Read More
February 16, 2026
On February 4, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released a draft notification outlining updated criteria and procedures for requesting advance decisions under section 59 of the Trade Competition Act (TCA). This draft is now open for public comment through the TCCT website until March 5, 2026. Section 59 of the TCA lets businesses proactively ask the TCCT to review whether a planned activity, such as a business strategy, marketing program, or other proposed conduct, could potentially violate the TCA. The major limitation is that this mechanism cannot be used for merger‑control matters. The new draft aims to make the process more accessible and user‑friendly. Key updates include allowing for electronic submission of requests and establishing a shorter notification timeframe, requiring the TCCT to explain any delay to the 60‑day review period within 7 days instead of the previous 15 days. For many businesses, this preliminary consultation tool is an effective way to reduce regulatory and competition‑law risks. Businesses that have taken advantage of this process have found that obtaining an advance decision can provide meaningful legal certainty, as the decision is binding once issued.
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More