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

August 21, 2017

Conducting Successful Corporate Internal Investigations in Southeast Asia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Employees, managers, and the companies they work for sometimes do bad things.   Employees might embezzle money or sell trade secrets to competitors. Executives may authorize a bribe to win a contract, or tacitly approve accounting trickery to make finances appear better than they really are. From stealing petty cash out of a lockbox to multimillion dollar bribery scandals, there are innumerable ways for employees and companies to commit misdeeds. According to PwC’s 2016 Global Economic Crime Survey, almost 80% of incidents of wrongdoing in Thailand occurred within organizations—this compares to 46% globally.

Why Investigate?

If general counsel or management is confronted by suspicious circumstances, whether revealed by a whistleblower complaint or an audit, what should they do? The recommended first step is usually to investigate. The goal of any good internal corporate investigation is to determine the facts: what happened, who was involved, when did the events occur, and why.

Based on the answers to these questions, management can then decide how to respond. Perhaps the facts will exonerate an employee who was wrongfully accused by a colleague with a gripe. Or maybe the investigation will reveal a deep-rooted problem within the organization that has the potential to cause lasting legal, commercial, and reputational damage. Whatever the case may be, to address the problem, the company has to first learn about it.  

Getting to the truth has many commercial and legal benefits. An investigation can help to excise wrongful conduct from an organization, weeding out the bad apples. Investigations will also help companies prepare for any potential governmental action. An organization would be far better equipped to deal with regulators if the facts are already known. The same applies for reputational damage. It is easier for a company to control the public narrative when it already knows what happened, instead of the facts being revealed by the media or government.

While thorough investigations are certainly advantageous, they can also be difficult, expensive, resource-intensive, and time-consuming. These challenges are magnified when the investigations take on an international character. Varied legal systems and cultural norms will always have to be considered. In Southeast Asia, for example, laws and cultures are extraordinarily diverse. Handling an employee interview in Thailand should be different than approaching a similar interview in Vietnam or Cambodia.

The Investigation Plan

With these challenges in mind, each investigation should start with a carefully drafted plan. While the temptation to rush into the investigation may be strong, and time-sensitivity is certainly an issue, having a well-thought plan is critical. Advance planning will reduce the risks of mistakes that can sink the investigation. Such a plan also has the benefit of showing regulators, shareholders, and other stakeholders that the organization took the investigation seriously and was committed to reaching the truth. While the investigation plan should be flexible enough to consider changing circumstances, it should also be sufficiently defined to avoid unintentionally widening its scope.

When crafting the plan, the nature of the wrongdoing must be considered. While all allegations or suspected misconduct should be evaluated on some level, generally, the more serious the issue, the more extensive the investigation. Matters relating to regulatory or reputational risks—such as corruption allegations—will warrant a more comprehensive investigation. Determining whether a low-level employee fudged a few dollars on an internal expense form would likely not involve a significant cross-border probe. The best practice would be for an organization to have policies and procedures in place that would help determine how an investigation should be conducted.

Another important planning issue is the investigation’s scope. Will the investigation look to turn over every rock over the last decade? Or will the scope be narrow, and only extend to a particular action by one employee? The investigation’s scope will also depend on the wrongdoing. For bribery and fraud cases that may have occurred over extended periods of time, the scope would be more extensive than one-off instances of employee misconduct. In many cases, an investigation’s scope may widen as the search for facts proceeds.

Companies also must consider who will be the investigator. The investigator should be viewed as someone independent. At a minimum, the investigator should not report to the person or persons being investigated. Depending on the nature of the investigation, external counsel can be a good choice, especially when legal violations are involved. Of course, external counsel will increase the cost of the investigation, and may not be necessary for small-scale, low-risk matters. Other benefits of external counsel include a greater likelihood of examining a company objectively, without being hampered by an organization’s internal politics.

Planning Cross-Border Investigations

For cross-border investigations, the use of local external counsel is often necessary. In addition to being able to advise on the law, local counsel will know the language and cultural and business norms. These skills are crucial when handling witness interviews and dealing with local regulators and business partners. For cross-border investigations, it is recommended that local counsel assist with preparing the investigation plan.

Local law should be considered when planning a cross-border investigation. In Thailand and Vietnam, for example, employees have significant legal protections. If the investigation team does not tread carefully, they may cause the company to be on the receiving end of a civil, or even criminal, labor-related court case. Other important legal considerations include data privacy and legal privilege. And there are often additional jurisdiction-specific legal considerations.

Another risk is for an employee (usually the investigation’s target) to seek the intervention of local government officials. To deflect from the investigation, a targeted employee may submit allegations of a company’s regulatory noncompliance to authorities in areas unrelated to the investigation. This tactic is common in Thailand and Vietnam. The end result is that the investigating company itself becomes a target of a government investigation.

Planners considering a cross-border investigation should also have complete knowledge of any targeted local subsidiary’s business organization and partnership. In Thailand, businesses in many sectors must be “locally owned,” where a majority of shares are owned by a local Thai partner. The investigation planning team must consider any implications of the investigation on the joint venture relationship. For example, issues that should be considered include whether there is a shareholders’ agreement or joint venture contract that is relevant to the investigation; and what the investigators should do if a joint venture partner blocks the investigation.

Another critical aspect to planning the investigation is identifying the witnesses/employees to be interviewed and gathering the relevant documents. These are ongoing processes. As more facts are uncovered, more names often appear. Investigators will have to meticulously compile and study all documents, continuously looking for evidence.

Interviews

A central component of the investigation is the witness interview. Witness interviews should be done after all relevant documents have been compiled and thoroughly reviewed. Without preparation, the interview will be useless. An interview question outline should be prepared in advance, based on the evidence.

Just as important as the interview is the written interview report. Memories are not reliable, so the reports serve as the written record of the 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 local subsidiary. The parent entity may not fully understand issues unique to the local jurisdiction. This includes labor and employment law, privacy matters, and, of course, language. Understanding the local culture and how to effectively communicate with and question employees will also yield much more effective interviews. For these reasons, it is always recommended for local counsel to assist when conducting interviews with local employees.

Closing the Investigation

The investigator should document each step of the investigation process. Documenting the investigation creates a permanent record of what is being uncovered, how the information is being unveiled, and who is revealing what. The end result is compiled into a report, which can either be written or presented verbally to the company’s directors. Whether the report is written or verbal depends on the nature of the investigation. A written report, for example, can be used as evidence to discipline an employee, build a legal case, disclose to shareholders, or address systemic company shortcomings, among other things. But the risk is that the written report may become discoverable by opposing parties or regulators.

Conclusion

In conclusion, investigations are a critical component of how a company uncovers wrongdoing. Investigations 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 address allegations of misconduct. This can help the organization distance itself from the bad act. Most importantly, investigations encourage a culture of transparency and accountability, which not only limits liability but is ultimately beneficial for the long-term success of the business.

The author would like to thank Mark Hsien for his assistance with the research for this article.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More