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

February 17, 2017

Conducting a Corporate Internal Investigation

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Illegal or unethical conduct can occur in any workplace, whether by employees or management.

Employees might steal money or trade secrets. Management may allow a bribe to be paid to secure a lucrative contract or use accounting trickery to make finances appear more attractive. There are countless ways that a company and its staff can commit misdeeds.

If an organization suspects that something is amiss, one of the first steps it should take is to investigate to determine the facts. Based on these facts, management can decide how to respond.

The investigation may exonerate an employee, or it may reveal a deep-rooted problem within the company that requires immediate attention and action. Investigations can also excise any wrongful conduct from the company, allowing it to weed out the bad apples, promote good organizational culture, limit legal liabilities, and protect the company’s reputation.

Another benefit of conducting an internal investigation is to help the company prepare for any potential governmental action. An organization would be far better equipped to deal with inquiring regulators if the truth of the matter is already known. It’s better for a company to find out something damaging first, instead of being told by a government regulator. In most cases, the company will be able to prevent or reduce its exposure.

The main drawback to investigations is that they are time-consuming and often expensive. A company considering an investigation may be under significant time constraints or lack necessary expertise. To help ease the resource burden, a company should begin each investigation with a carefully drafted plan.

When preparing the plan, a key issue to consider is the nature of the wrongdoing. The more serious the offense, the more extensive the investigation. Stealing a coworker’s lunch from the refrigerator should not warrant a full investigation. But something more onerous—such as bribery or fraud—almost always warrants a full investigation.

Another important planning issue is the investigation’s scope. Will the investigation look to turn over every rock from the last decade? Or will the scope be narrow, extending only to a particular action by a specific employee?

The investigation’s scope will also depend on the wrongdoing. For bribery and fraud cases that may have occurred over longer periods of time, the scope would be more extensive than one-off instances of employee misconduct. In many cases, an investigation’s scope may naturally widen as the search for facts proceeds.

Companies must also consider who will be assigned as the investigator. Ideally, the investigator should be viewed as someone who is independent and impartial; certainly, he or she should not be someone who reports to the person being investigated.

External counsel can be a good choice, especially in cases involving legal violations. External parties can examine a company objectively and will not be hampered by internal politics.  Outside lawyers usually work in tandem with a company’s in-house counsel to gain insights on the organization’s operations for an investigation.

Another critical aspect to planning the investigation is identifying the witnesses to be interviewed and gathering relevant evidence. This aspect is an ongoing process. As more facts are uncovered, more witness names often appear. Investigators will have to meticulously compile and study all forms of evidence.

The investigator should carefully document each step of the investigation process to create a permanent record of what is being discovered, how the information is being uncovered, and who is revealing what. The end result is compiled into a detailed written report, which can then be used as evidence to discipline an employee, build a legal case, make disclosures to shareholders, or address company systemic shortcomings, among other things.

A central component of the investigation is the witness interviews, which should be done after all relevant documents have been compiled and thoroughly reviewed. Without preparation, the interviews will be ineffective. Just as important as the interview is the written interview report. Often, memories are not reliable, so the reports serve as the written record of each interview. And when the interview reports are examined in conjunction with each other, the facts often become clearer.

Part of the art of witness interviews involves understanding cultural nuances. This is especially important in cross-border investigations, where an overseas parent company (or law firm) investigates conduct in a Thai subsidiary, for example. The foreign entity will likely not understand issues unique to Thailand, such as Thai labor and employment laws, privacy matters, and of course language. Understanding Thai culture and how to communicate and question employees will also yield much more effective interview results. For these reasons, it is always recommended that local experts assist foreign parties when conducting cross-border investigations.

Investigations are a critical component of how a company uncovers wrongdoing. They can not only help eliminate wrongful behavior, but also show employees that the organization takes misconduct seriously. What is more, with an investigation a company can show the public at large that it will resolutely and earnestly address allegations of misconduct. This can help the organization distance itself from the bad act. More importantly, investigations encourage a culture of transparency and accountability, which not only limits liability but is ultimately beneficial for a business’s long-term reputation and success.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
April 28, 2026
Thailand’s Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee has issued a major update to the anticorruption standards required for private entities engaging in high-value state projects. The update, titled “Announcement re: Procurement Limits and Minimum Anticorruption Standards (No. 2),” replaces and amends key provisions of the original announcement dated September 25, 2024. Published in the Government Gazette on April 10, 2026, the new rules take effect on May 10, 2026, and apply to projects valued at more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 9.3 million). The key amendments to the anticorruption standards are detailed below. Expanded Definition of Conflict of Interest The 2026 regulation significantly broadens the scope of what constitutes a conflict of interest compared to the 2024 version, which focused primarily on basic kinship and business ties. Under the new rules, a conflict of interest includes using one’s position or authority to seek benefits for oneself, a group, close associates, or business, including through business relationships, kinship ties, or relationships with spouses or individuals living together as partners without marriage registration. The 2026 announcement also introduces specific examples that were largely absent from the 2024 text, such as holding shares in similar businesses that submit proposals for the same project, or submitting proposals for projects in which a relative, spouse, or unregistered partner is an “involved party” in that procurement. Continuous Compliance: The “Final Payment” Rule Under the 2024 rules, the coverage period for anticorruption policies was less strictly defined. The new regulation mandates a continuous timeline: policies or certifications must remain effective from the date of bid submission until the contractor receives the final payment installment under the contract. If a certification or policy is set to expire before the final payment, the contractor must submit a new self-audit form and supporting evidence to the state agency before the original
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The