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

March 21, 2014

The DSI’s Right to Investigate Customs Violations

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Business operators in Thailand should be familiar with the many administrative agencies that have regulatory and investigative authority. For example, under the Customs Act B.E. 2469, the Customs Department has the right to investigate any customs transaction that might not comply with the customs law.

By law, a customs officer may invite a business operator for one or more interviews, and may visit the operator’s office to audit and possibly attach documents and goods for further investigation, if the officer believes those documents need to be reviewed by the customs team at their office.

The Customs Department has the authority to levy very substantial taxes, duties, and fines if it concludes that the business operation is non-compliant.

Due to recent developments in Thai administrative law, in addition to the Customs Department and other agencies directly responsible for regulating business operators, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) also has the mandate to investigate what it deems to be customs infractions or other criminal activity related to business. This means that business operators who have never been investigated by the Customs Department might still be investigated for customs violations by the DSI.

The DSI was established under the Special Case Investigation Act of 2004 and accompanying announcements (the SCI Act). The DSI is overseen and directed by the Board of Special Cases, and it is charged with investigating and examining “special cases,” which include the following:

  • Complex criminal cases that require special inquiry, investigation, and collection of evidence;
  • Criminal cases that might have a serious effect on public order and morals, national security, international relations, or the country’s economy or finance;
  • Criminal cases that involve serious transnational crime or that were committed by an organized criminal group;
  • Criminal cases involving an influential person as a principal, instigator, or supporter;
  • Certain criminal cases against administrative officials or senior police officers; or
  • Any criminal case that the Board of Special Cases determines by majority vote to investigate.

If a matter is judged to fall within the definition of the above “special cases,” the DSI will normally send the business operator a written request to attend an interview at the DSI and/or provide the DSI with a list of documents for review.

The DSI may invite the business operator to be interviewed as an accused person or as a potential witness, depending on the amount of evidence already assembled. It is possible for a business operator or members of its management to be called as witnesses, and later to be charged with the suspected crime.

Technically, a person summoned as a witness to give information to the DSI is not entitled to have a lawyer present at the interview (although discretionary exceptions are sometimes granted) and, as a general rule, anything said by a witness and recorded at the interview may be used against him or others. It is always advisable to consult legal counsel as soon as the company is first contacted by the DSI.

When there are reasonable grounds, the DSI official also has the authority to access and search any dwelling place or premises; search any person or vehicle; issue a summons or subpoena to a financial institution, government agency, or state enterprise to provide documents; and seize and attach property that is authorized under the SCI Act.

Under section 41 of the SCI Act, any person who does not facilitate lawful requests for information or evidence by the DSI is subject to imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to THB 20,000.

The above list of “special cases” might not seem very relevant to many business operators, but the Board of Special Cases recently refocused DSI resources on other business-related investigations when it issued its Announcements of the Board of Special Cases No. 4 and No. 5 in 2011 and 2012. Under those announcements, “special cases” eligible for DSI investigation now include possible infractions involving (among others) the following list of laws, entities, and agencies:

  • Consumer protection;
  • Trade competition;
  • Government agency bidding;
  • Customs, liquor, and tobacco;
  • Exchange controls, currency, Bank of Thailand and financial institutions;
  • Export tax reimbursement;
  • Trademarks and patents;
  • Industrial product standards;
  • Public companies and foreign businesses;
  • Food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and hazardous substances; and
  • Minerals.

One would be hard-pressed to identify a business operator that does not fall under the purview of the recent announcements from the Board of Special Cases. Thus, almost every business could potentially be subject to a DSI investigation, even when other directly responsible agencies (such as the Customs Department or the Department of Mineral Resources) have passed on the investigation.

All business operators should keep systems in place to help them respond to the DSI and other investigations. They should also consult legal counsel as soon as they become aware of an investigation in order to help them navigate the procedural and substantive requirements, while minimizing exposure.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
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
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
Read More