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

November 27, 2015

Constitutionality of Criminal Customs Claims: Challenges in Absence of a Permanent Constitution

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Since 1932, Thailand has had 17 constitutions. During periods of non-elected regime change, usually following military coups, constitutions have been abrogated with interim charters put in place pending the approval of “permanent” constitutions.

Most recently, the 2007 charter was abolished by the National Council for Peace and Order in May 2014 and an interim document enacted shortly afterwards.

A new draft constitution was rejected recently by the National Reform Council. A second attempt to draft a charter is now under way but it is not clear if and when it will pass. While the Constitutional Court remains in existence, its ability to effectively decide issues of constitutional merit remains uncertain.

An internal letter issued by the Office of the Judiciary to the courts shortly after the abrogation of the 2007 constitution further complicates the matter. It recommended that claims challenging the constitutionality of Thai laws in the absence of a permanent constitution should be considered for dismissal.

This poses difficulties for those seeking to challenge Thai laws imposing indirect presumptions of liability on directors and officers.

Section 115 quarter  of the Thai Customs Act is one such law. It imposes a presumption of criminal liability on a company director or officer for criminal customs violations. For example, a director or officer can be presumed to have intentionally under-declared customs duties even if he or she had no involvement in customs clearance or product valuations.

Essentially, Section 115 quarter  presumes strict liability, shifting the burden of proof to the director or officer to prove his or her innocence when faced with a charge.

This conflicts with Section 39 of the 2007 constitution, which guarantees a presumption of innocence to the accused in line with previous Thai constitutions and universally recognized human rights principles.

On a number of occasions, Thailand’s strict liability provisions under the criminal law have been successfully challenged as contrary to the rights guaranteed by Section 39 of the 2007 constitution.

One such case involved a challenge to Section 54 of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act B.E. 2545 (2002), in which the claimants argued that the language of the strict liability provision fundamentally ignored the right to the presumption of innocence for those criminally accused.

Ultimately, the Constitutional Court agreed with the claimants and ruled that the provision was unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Similar challenges have been made with respect to Section 78 of the Telecommunications Business Operation Act B.E. 2544 (2001) and Section 74 of the Copyright Act B.E. 2542 (1999).

As with many other Thai laws, Section 115 quarter  of the Thai Customs Act contains language that is identical to the language ruled unconstitutional in the case involving the challenge to Section 54 of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act. Unfortunately, since many customs cases are settled or resolved before a full criminal trial is reached, Section 115 quarter  has not yet been constitutionally challenged before the court. Therefore, directors and officers continue to be charged or subjected to criminal investigations based on presumed liability.

If the standards used by the Constitutional Court in its review of Section 54 of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act were applied to a review of Section 115 quarter  of the Customs Act, it is likely that Section 115 quarter  would also be ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Such a ruling under the 2007 constitution would apply to all cases not already determined as final judgments by the courts of Thailand, including all pending customs claims from pre-charge investigations, through trial and appeal, presuming judgment is not yet final.

In the absence of a permanent constitution, does a viable avenue exist for a charged party to challenge Section 115 quarter  of the Customs Act or similar strict liability provisions? In theory, the Constitutional Court, following the recommendation of the Office of the Judiciary, would dismiss such a petition.

The recommendation, however, does not absolutely require the court to take such action, meaning that a challenge may be possible.

In addition, a challenge would likely incorporate arguments not limited to Section 37 of the 2007 constitution, including arguments based on universally recognized human rights such as the presumption of innocence and non-retroactivity in criminal claims, which are both accepted in the Rule of Law enacted in the interim constitution.

There is no doubt that the uncertainty caused by the absence of a permanent constitution makes constitutional challenges more difficult. However, the rights guaranteed by the 2007 constitution also confirm rights that are recognized under the Rule of Law and the interim constitution, which provides an avenue for interim challenges.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed
Read More
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