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​ 

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
October 24, 2025
Thailand currently lacks a specific franchise act. Consequently, the legality of any franchise agreement is determined by its compliance with various existing laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Code, the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2530 (1997). Thailand is a freedom-to-contract jurisdiction. This allows for a high degree of flexibility and autonomy in contractual arrangements, provided that the terms do not violate any laws or public policy and do not fall under the scope of unfair contract terms. Given this, the requirement for fairness in franchise agreement terms often leads to uncertainty, but decisions from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) can provide guidance on whether specific contentious terms are in fact fair.  One issue worth examining in this light is the inclusion of terms on nonrefundable franchise fees and strict purchasing conditions. Franchise Fee: Unfair to Refuse Refund? Nonrefundable franchise fees represent a significant upfront investment for franchisees, often becoming a point of contention if the franchise relationship deteriorates or the franchisor ceases operations. Their fairness and enforceability are frequently scrutinized by regulatory bodies like the TCCT, highlighting the critical balance between contractual freedom and franchisee protection. Faced with one such case, the TCCT considered whether it was unfair for the franchisor to refuse to refund the franchise fee after the franchisor ceased operations.  The franchisee had entered into a service agreement on August 2, 2021, and begun operating on October 9, 2021. However, by November 21, 2023, the franchisee was notified that the system would be shut down for maintenance, and by December 26, 2023, the franchisor announced the cessation of operations due to financial losses. The franchisee then requested a refund of the franchise fee. Unfortunately for the franchisee, the TCCT found that the franchisor’s
Read More
October 3, 2025
On September 26, 2025, the Contract Committee under Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board issued a regulation that aims to standardize contracts and enhance consumer protection within the beauty and wellness industry. The Notification on Prescribing the Beauty Service Business as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), which takes effect on January 24, 2026, requires business operators to use a prescribed standard contract in Thai and adhere to strict mandatory provisions and prohibitions. These regulations apply to operators across all in-person and online service channels, including via digital platforms. “Beauty services business” is defined as the provision of services under an agreement allowing consumers to receive a series of treatments, either over a set number of sessions or within a set period. This includes massage, spa, other methods for cleanliness, beauty, or care of facial or body skin, and weight control and body shaping—including services offered electronically. The law excludes surgery, liposuction, and medical treatments performed by licensed practitioners. The notification establishes the following key requirements: Mandatory contract and formatting. All contracts with consumers must use the standard contract form, in Thai, with clear, readable text (minimum font size of 2 millimeters, no more than 11 characters per inch), and include all essential terms from the annexed form. Contract execution. Contracts must be made in duplicate, with one copy given to the consumer at signing. For agreements concluded through electronic channels, the process must comply with the Electronic Transactions Act and use the same required terms. Digital platforms. Business operators who provide services facilitated through a digital platform as an intermediary are ultimately responsible for ensuring the consumer receives a compliant contract. Prohibited clauses. The law prohibits clauses that limit or exclude liability for damages to life, body, health, mind, or property resulting from breach of contract or a wrongful act;
Read More
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts
Read More