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

September 20, 2013

Director Liability in Criminal Customs Claims: Court Ruling Signals Change

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Companies dealing with customs disputes in Thailand face a number of significant decisions in determining how they should respond.

One possible option is to consider settlement with the Customs Department at a pre-litigation stage or even after claims have been filed. Specifically, a company facing a customs dispute has the right to enter into a settlement agreement with the Customs Department under sections 102 and 102 bis of the Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926).

When considering a settlement, the Customs Director General or a person appointed by the Director General will be in charge of settlement negotiations and has the legal authority to settle any customs offense in accordance with prescribed customs regulations.

Alternatively, a company may have the option of filing a claim against the Customs Department directly if it disagrees with a Customs Board of Appeals determination or wishes to defend charges filed by the relevant authorities under the Customs Act.

One factor that should be evaluated carefully before a company decides to settle, file, or defend customs claims is whether there are any criminal charges pending against the company and its authorized directors. In fact, it is possible for a customs dispute to involve the concurrent filing of both civil and criminal customs claims. This can have significant criminal implications for a company’s authorized directors—persons who may not have any history of criminal or civil wrongdoing.

The Customs Act provides a mechanism by which criminal wrongdoing of a director can be presumed. For example, under the Act, if a company is charged with a criminal customs offense, its directors can be named as individual accused parties.

Under section 115 quarter of the Customs Act, an offender who is a juristic person, a managing partner, or other person responsible for the operation of the juristic person shall be presumed liable for the criminal wrongdoing unless he or she can prove the offense was committed without his or her knowledge or consent, or that he or she acted reasonably in the circumstances in preventing the offense from occurring. As written, this section essentially presumes strict liability for a company director, shifting the burden on the director to prove his or her innocence.

Needless to say, the presumption of liability can have a significant impact on a company’s strategic approach in choosing whether to settle or defend a criminal customs claim.

In fact, the historic impact of section 115 quarter has been to place company management in a position whereby they are more likely to settle than defend.

On March 28, 2012, a groundbreaking Constitutional Court decision in a direct-sales case (Decision 12/2555) directly addressed the controversial issue of presumed liability in criminal claims.

It affects the applicability of a number of Thai laws presuming officer and director liability, including section 115 quarter of the Customs Act.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court ruled section 54 of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act, with language nearly identical to that contained in section 115 quarter of the Customs Act, was contrary to the fundamental right of an accused, as protected by the Thai Constitution, to the presumption of innocence when charged with a criminal offense. For that predominant reason, the Court ruled that section 54, in applying a presumption of guilt to an accused, is unenforceable.

Applying the same standards as considered by the Constitutional Court in its review of section 54 of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act, section 115 quarter of the Customs Act, which contains a presumption of guilt for those deemed to control a juristic entity charged with a customs offense, shall be similarly unenforceable and is, in fact, unconstitutional. This is supported further by the fact that section 211 of the Thai Constitution provides that decisions of the Constitutional Court shall apply to all cases not already determined as final judgments by the courts of Thailand.

The decision of the Constitutional Court reasserts the constitutional mandate not only provided by the Thai Constitution, but also recognized widely in the practice of criminal law worldwide. As such, those responsible for filing criminal claims under the Customs Act should not consider charging a company director via section 115 quarter without first ensuring there is sufficient evidence to prove that the director committed the alleged offense.

The requirement for such an assessment will now place more pressure on prosecutors to consider and rely upon the direct actions of the accused directors rather than presuming liability based solely on the directors’ authority or responsibility.

It is hoped that the support offered by the Constitutional Court decision will provide companies and their management with a fair opportunity to consider all approaches to resolving customs disputes without fear of the implications for those responsible for leading the companies.

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