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

June 25, 2025

Criminal Liability Related to Business Rehabilitation in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith.

Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation

The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process.

The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes.

The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process.

However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement, fraud, or bribery—criminal charges may arise against them under the Penal Code.

The Bankruptcy Act also establishes several criminal activities that may occur before or during the rehabilitation process. Thus, if a criminal act is committed, such as asset concealment, fraudulent transfers, or false financial status representation, the penalties portion of the Bankruptcy Act would be applicable to the case. The potential penalties could be a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Examples of Criminal Liabilities during Business Rehabilitation

Several specific criminal liabilities may arise during the business rehabilitation process.

  • Fraudulent bankruptcy: If company executives intentionally misrepresent the company’s financial situation in a manner that could cause damage to creditors, the executives could be subject to criminal liability under the Bankruptcy Act and the Penal Code.
  • Debt repayment in violation of automatic stay: After the court accepts a business rehabilitation petition for consideration, an automatic stay prevents the debtor from repaying creditors, though there are some limited exceptions. Violation of the automatic stay could be subject to criminal liability under the Bankruptcy Act.
  • Obstruction of rehabilitation: Any efforts to mislead the plan administrator or official receiver or hinder the court’s orders could lead to criminal charges, including contempt of court, and could result in criminal charges under the Bankruptcy Act.
  • Bribery to manipulate the rehabilitation process: Any person who gives, offers to give, or agrees to give property or any other benefit to a creditor or any other person, and any person who demands, accepts, or agrees to accept property or any other benefit for himself or for any other person with the intent to gain support or approval from creditors in the election of the plan preparer or the plan administrator or the approval or revision of the plan shall be subject to criminal liability under the Bankruptcy Act.

Criminal liability for these actions could lead to a fine of THB 100,000–500,000 (approx. USD 3,070–15,350), imprisonment for 1–5 years, or both.

Plan Administrator’s Liability

Plan administrators bear significant responsibility for the proper conduct of rehabilitation proceedings. Plan administrators who fail to perform their duties honestly or with the intent to cause loss to the debtor or creditors shall be liable for a fine of up to THB 500,000 (approx. USD 50,350), imprisonment for up to five years, or both.

Criminal Liability of the Directors or Executives

Directors of a company undergoing business rehabilitation can be held personally liable if the company is found to have committed criminal acts.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, executives of a debtor company are liable for a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 6,140), imprisonment for up to two years, or both if they commit any of the following acts:

  • Failing to explain material information in connection with the debtor’s business or property to the court, the official receiver, the plan preparer, the plan administrator, or a meeting of creditors, unless it is proved that the act was committed with no fraudulent intent.
  • Failing to notify the official receiver within 15 days upon learning that an allegation of false indebtedness has been made for electing a plan preparer or applying for repayment of debt in accordance with the plan.
  • Submitting materially false lists of property, liabilities, and creditor information, or providing false explanations about the debtor’s business and property, when such falsity is likely to cause damage to creditors.

Conclusion

Criminal liability under business rehabilitation in Thailand highlights that those engaged in unlawful or fraudulent actions are subject to punishment, even during times of financial difficulty and restructuring. Regardless of the company’s rehabilitation status, fraudulent conduct is punishable by law, and individuals who engage in it could suffer significant criminal penalties.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
July 15, 2026
On July 8, 2026, Thailand enacted a new law significantly expanding the framework for government service delivery and licensing facilitation. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Services Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Facilitation Act 2026) replaces and expands the framework of governmental services under the Facilitation of Official Licensing Consideration Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Facilitation Act 2015) and broadens its scope to cover public services, administrative processes, and public benefits. The Facilitation Act 2026 aims to modernize government services by promoting e-filing, reducing administrative burdens and repeated document requests, and improving predictability. For businesses, this should ease compliance and shorten approval timelines, subject to implementing regulations and agency readiness. Public Services Facilitation Scope The Facilitation Act 2015 applied mainly to permissions, registrations, and notifications required before conducting activities that require licenses, certificates, permits, approvals, or registrations. The Facilitation Act 2026 broadens this framework to include public services and other benefits, such as welfare, subsidies, and grants, provided to Thai citizens, expanding government agencies’ responsibilities beyond licensing facilitation into a wider administrative-service framework. It also introduces a broader definition of “government agency” to include central, regional, and local government bodies, state enterprises, public organizations, and other state entities. Licensing Changes The Facilitation Act 2026 introduces a “super license” (termed a “main license” under the act) that exempts the holder from obtaining multiple related or ancillary licenses issued by different government agencies. Obtaining a super license deems the licensee to have automatically obtained the related “sublicenses” required to conduct the relevant activities. The cabinet will designate eligible activities by royal decree. The act also introduces an expedited licensing option, allowing applicants to pay an additional fee to fast-track their applications in urgent cases. Expedited processing must not interfere with standard application timelines. The criteria, procedures, conditions, and fees for expedited licensing
Read More
July 10, 2026
Vietnam has taken a significant step in regulating its e-commerce sector with the issuance of a new decree guiding the country’s recently enacted Law on E-Commerce. Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP, issued on June 30, 2026, and taking effect the following day, addresses mandatory platform policies, registration requirements for offshore platforms, additional obligations on platform operators, and market access conditions for foreign investors. Mandatory Policy Contents The decree sets out detailed guidance on the required contents of various platform policies, covering pricing, payment, display priority, livestream sales, delivery, returns, method of service provision, and service termination and refunds. Clarification of Obligations for Platform Operators The decree provides clarification of the obligations applicable to platform operators. Notably, intermediary e-commerce platform operators with online ordering functions must: Collect specific information to implement electronic identity verification of sellers; Cooperate with regulators by reporting online through the state e-commerce management system and by blocking, suspending, or removing content upon request of a competent authority; Maintain a mechanism to store contract data, including price, product or service information, and parties’ information, for at least three years from the date of contract conclusion; and If qualifying as a “large digital platform” under consumer protection law, maintain an online system for receiving and handling complaints and requests, and comply with enhanced content-removal requirements. Registration Requirements for Offshore Platforms Offshore e-commerce platforms, whether direct-sales, intermediary, social-network-based, or integrated, that conduct e-commerce activity in Vietnam must register with the Ministry of Industry and Trade if the platform: Allows Vietnamese-language selection; Uses a “.vn” domain; or Reaches 100,000 or more transactions with Vietnam-based buyers within a calendar year. Notably, the registration requirement now captures not only traditional intermediary platforms, but also direct-sales platforms. Foreign Investment Conditions Foreign investors holding a controlling interest in an intermediary e-commerce platform, a social media platform
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More