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​ 

February 25, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Vietnam chapter in the newly released Licensing 2026 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2026 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade. The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551. The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Consolidated Definitions Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments). The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail. The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements. Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same. Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline
Read More
February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued a new regulation on material transactions (MTs) to govern asset acquisitions and disposals by listed companies and their subsidiaries. The new notification on MT criteria (No. TorJor. 45/2568) from the Capital Market Supervisory Board replaces the long-standing notification (No. TorJor. 20/2551) that has governed such matters. The SEC has also introduced parallel amendments to the country’s related-party transaction rules. The new regulation will take effect on July 1, 2026. Any MT matters approved by a company’s board of directors for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 20/2551. Following that date, the new MT rules will introduce several significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Expanded Scope of Material Transactions One of the key changes under the new regulation is the expansion of the definition of MTs, which now expressly covers financial assistance and certain lease and business lease arrangements that are not in the ordinary course of business of the listed company or its subsidiaries. For financial assistance, this includes lending, granting credit, providing guarantees, or entering into any arrangement that increases the company’s financial obligations, particularly where the recipient is facing liquidity issues or unable to repay debts. Other forms of financial support also fall within scope. However, whether the provision of collateral for others qualifies as an MT remains somewhat unclear, since no disposal of assets occurs for the provider of collateral. This issue remains to be carefully considered. For lease-related transactions, the MT rules now specifically include the lease or hire-purchase of all or part of a business or assets operated by or belonging to a listed company or its subsidiaries. New Exemptions The new regulation introduces clearer exemptions for transactions between a listed company and its subsidiaries or among subsidiaries, which
Read More