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

August 22, 2014

Customs Settlements: Guidelines for Waiver of Prosecution

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Every year, numerous companies and individuals face criminal prosecution for violating Thai customs law. The penalties include significant fines and even incarceration. This can have a profound effect on both a company and its employees and agents, and even those who may have unintentionally violated customs laws.

In some circumstances, however, reaching a settlement with Thai customs authorities may be a cost-effective solution that provides closure for companies and targeted individuals and also results in a full waiver of liability for wrongdoing. This article explores the customs settlement process and the internal customs guidelines for waiver of prosecution.

The Customs Department has the power to review and investigate all customs transactions it believes may not be in compliance with Thai customs law. The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has similar authority to conduct customs investigations that fall within its jurisdictional reach.

In cases where the Customs Department concludes through investigation that the applicable customs law has been violated, it has the authority to levy substantial taxes, duties, and fines against an accused company and individuals. The DSI and law enforcement agencies also have the power to recommend criminal prosecution for alleged wrongdoing.

The Customs Department also has specific authority to settle claims by waiver of prosecution. Section 102 of the Customs Act gives the director-general of the department the authority to waive prosecution where an accused consents to settlement by a fine. Such a waiver also acts as an indemnification of the accused against further prosecution for the alleged wrongdoing.

The same provision gives the director-general the authority to prosecute a claim irrespective of the accused party’s willingness to settle if the director-general believes settlement is not proper in the circumstances.

There is an additional authorization step that must be considered internally for settlements and waivers of prosecution at the Customs Department for claims that are of high value and considered “serious.” This includes, but is not limited to, claims of intentional under-declaration of customs duties and related offenses.

Specifically, Section 102 bis of the Customs Act provides that certain delineated offenses with value in excess of THB 400,000 must be brought before a designated Customs Department settlement committee for authorization before settlement and a waiver of prosecution can proceed. The committee consists of representatives of the Customs Department, the Finance Ministry, and the Office of the National Police, all of which have an interest in the decision on settlement and waiver of prosecution and can provide additional oversight of the settlement process.

In recognition of customs claims settlements being a viable solution for those charged, as well as a cost-effective means for the Customs Department to obtain revenue without prosecution, the department issued order No.10/2554, which provides internal guidelines for settling by fine in return for a waiver of prosecution.

Notably, there are various levels of wrongdoing that may determine whether settlement is viable and involves a waiver of criminal prosecution under the applicable guidelines. For example, misstatements as to quality, which do not affect duty, may be settled under the guidelines with a modest fine in most cases.

More serious criminal charges, such as those for intentional under-declaration of customs duties, are considered on a case-by-case basis, typically requiring substantial settlement in return for waiver of prosecution. However, if the alleged wrongdoing involves violations of non-customs laws, such as a case of forgery, then the Customs Department has no authority to waive prosecution.

The foregoing highlights the settlement options that may be available to parties facing criminal customs inquiries. While opportunities exist that could encourage settlement, end ongoing investigations, and waive prosecution, settlement should not be considered lightly. Once made, settlement is irreversible and could have long-standing financial, legal, and practical implications for those concerned.

For example, a settlement may involve admissions on the part of an accused that could affect future business decisions for the company or individuals accused of wrongdoing. Furthermore, there is the prospect, however slight, that a prior settlement could have some effect on future inquiries and investigations.

It is therefore critically important that a company has in place systems and protocols to respond to customs inquiries. Of equal importance, the company and its counsel should review and assess the legal allegations carefully before making the significant decision on whether to settle claims in return for waivers of prosecution.

In many cases, settlement makes legal and financial sense, but in others settlement may not be in the best interests of the accused.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More