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​ 

June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
Read More
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More