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​ 

July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
June 25, 2025
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,
Read More
June 13, 2025
In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance. In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance. Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain. Effective Mitigation Approaches Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes. Various legal
Read More
June 11, 2025
Thailand’s tax dispute resolution framework has undergone a significant transformation with the enactment of the Act Establishing the Tax Court and the Procedure for Tax Cases (No. 3) B.E. 2568. Published in the Government Gazette on May 27, 2025, the amended act will come into force on November 24, 2025, which is 180 days after its publication. The amended act marks a pivotal shift in the jurisdiction and procedures of the Tax Court, most notably by empowering it to adjudicate certain criminal tax cases for the first time. Background and Rationale The Tax Court was originally established in 1985 as a specialized forum to handle complex tax disputes, including those related to revenue, customs, and excise taxes. The creation of the Tax Court recognized the need for judicial expertise in tax law, given its technical and specialized nature. The latest amendment is designed to address procedural inefficiencies, modernize court processes, and align Thailand’s tax litigation system with international standards. The reform demonstrates Thailand’s commitment to enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of its tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Key Amendments and Provisions Six of the key changes in the amendment are highlighted below. Expansion of jurisdiction to criminal tax cases. The most significant change is the extension of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to include criminal offenses under the Revenue Code, customs law, excise tax law, and other tax-related laws that may be specified by royal decree. New sections in the act explicitly grant the Tax Court authority to hear and decide criminal tax cases, so individuals and entities accused of criminal tax evasion or other tax-related crimes will now have their cases heard by judges with specialized tax expertise. The law also clarifies the Tax Court’s jurisdiction when a single act constitutes multiple offenses (some tax-related, some not) or when
Read More