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 22, 2013

Criminal Charges and Defenses Relating to Work Permits

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The blooming of global investment has been shrinking the world and blurring national borders. In our region, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) blueprint is designed to establish ASEAN as a single market and production base. It is hoped that ASEAN will become more dynamic and competitive, with new ways to expedite existing economic initiatives. The AEC is paving the way for a freer flow of skilled labor across borders, especially in eight professions: medical doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, architects, accountants, surveyors and tourism professionals.

Of course, it is an exaggeration to say there will be a totally free flow of expertise across borders. Work permits will still be required, although the AEC will attempt to facilitate visas, harmonize the procedures for obtaining work permits, and standardize various professional qualifications. Some skilled professionals may also be required to complete license requirements for working within the region.

Beneath the various policies and frameworks, Thailand’s domestic laws remain restrictive. For example, the Alien Working Act still imposes work permit requirements that wholly exclude foreigners from 39 occupations reserved for Thai nationals. The types of work open to aliens, the work areas, and the period of work are prescribed by ministerial regulations related to national security, occupational opportunity for Thais, and the demand for foreign labor to the extent necessary for a developing country.

Under the Act, “work” is defined to include all engagement in work by exerting energy or using knowledge regardless of whether it is in exchange for compensation in the form of wages or benefits. This broad definition includes every working activity from operating a business to attending a seminar—or even volunteering for a day or two.

When a work permit is granted, the permit holder can only engage in the category of work specified in the work permit, and with the employer and at the location specified in the work permit. A person who wants to change or add a work category, employer, or work location must apply for an amended work permit.

The penalties for an alien who engages in work without a work permit, or a permit holder who violates the restrictions in his or her permit, are severe and include up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to THB 100,000. Imprisonment is not often imposed, but an alien who is convicted of working without a work permit is normally deported and blacklisted from returning to Thailand for five years.

Employees who work without a permit are not the only ones who can be convicted of a crime and deported. Their employer also faces criminal liability under the Act for engaging an alien to work without a permit. If the employer is found guilty, he or she will normally be fined up to THB 100,000 per employee. And if the employer is a foreigner, he or she will normally be deported and blacklisted for five years.

If the employer is a company or other juristic person, its officers and directors are normally charged as co-defendants. In the past, the public prosecutor was often able to convict those individuals without proving their intent or their actual participation in the hiring process. Instead, it was usually enough to prove that the juristic person committed the offense and that the individual officers or directors were generally responsible for the employer’s overall operations. At least to some extent the burden was shifted to the individual managers to prove they did not intentionally hire an illegal worker or were not involved in the hiring process. The company was considered innocent until proven guilty, but the individual managers were treated as if they were guilty until proven innocent, and their constitutional rights were thereby overlooked.

Article 39 of Thailand’s Constitution is aimed at protecting the rights of the alleged offender by providing that a suspect in a criminal case is presumed innocent. Last year, the Constitution Court rendered Decision 12/2555, which stipulated it is a violation of Article 39 for an offender to be presumed guilty based on that person’s legal status. It is also a violation of the Constitution to presume the facts that constitute a criminal offense just because the defendant has a certain legal status. This Constitution Court decision is welcome news to officers and directors of Thai companies who may be blamed for their company’s crimes merely because they hold management positions.

Under the Constitution Court’s interpretation, an officer or director of a company that employs aliens without work permits can be convicted only if the public prosecutor proves the individual manager knowingly hired aliens without work permits. The accused manager or other person responsible for company operations can successfully defend the charges by asserting that he or she did not know the alien lacked a work permit or that he or she did not participate in the hiring process.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable