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​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the