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

January 9, 2015

Enforcement of Loan Guarantees to Change under New Laws

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

New amendments to the Civil and Commercial Code will change the way loan guarantees are enforced in Thailand. Under the changes, which are due to take effect on February 11, guarantors will benefit from increased protection, as contracts imposing joint liability between a debtor and a guarantor will be void.

This change would, at first glance, appear to suggest that creditors will be forced to pursue debtors before pursuing guarantors. In reality, however, creditors will still have options to pursue guarantors before debtors under the new law.

Guarantees are contractual arrangements whereby a guarantor agrees to be responsible for another person’s performance.

For example, when a creditor provides a loan to a debtor and the debtor fails to repay the loan, the guarantor is required to pay the creditor. If the guarantor does not voluntarily perform, the creditor can enforce the guarantee. This normally requires filing a civil lawsuit.

Under the new amendments, when a debtor defaults, a creditor is required to notify the debtor’s guarantor within 60 days of the default.

If the creditor fails to give such notice, it cannot recover interest, costs, and expenses from the guarantor that were incurred after the 60 days. The present law, in comparison, does not contain any notice requirements.

Furthermore, under the new law, the creditor cannot demand the guarantor to immediately pay the debt until the notice reaches the guarantor. The present law allows creditors to immediately demand performance from the guarantor when the debtor defaults.

Another key change involves a guarantor’s liability for the debt. The new law states that contracts imposing joint liability between a debtor and guarantor will be void. The present law contains no such prohibition.

Under the present law, if a debtor defaults and the guarantor fails to voluntarily satisfy the debt, the creditor has the option to enforce the guarantee by filing a claim against the guarantor. Only the guarantor—and not the debtor—would be answerable for the debt. Such joint liability is especially useful when the debtor has no assets, which is often the reason why a guarantee arrangement is made in the first place.

Local lenders are not pleased with the changes to joint liability. Thai banking industry executives have expressed concern that a creditor would have to seek recovery from the debtor before it can enforce the guarantee. This would incur additional expenses and time to recover the debt, since two related lawsuits would be required where only one is necessary under the present law.

Despite these concerns, however, guarantors are not quite off the hook. Options still exist that allow creditors to directly enforce guarantees instead of first having to pursue debtors.

Guarantee arrangements generally involve two distinct contractual relationships. One relationship is between a creditor and debtor. The other is between a creditor and a guarantor. A court views each relationship as separate, even if all of the parties were signatories to the same contract.

Since the parties’ relationships are legally separate and distinct from each other, a creditor would still be able to pursue a claim exclusively against the guarantor without having to sue the debtor first. The new law’s prohibition on joint liability contract provisions does not prevent this.

Moreover, under Thai civil procedure laws, a court judgment is binding only on the parties in the case. Therefore, if a creditor sues a guarantor only, the guarantor cannot compel the creditor to enforce the debt against the debtor first.

If the guarantor wants the debtor to bear liability for the debt, the guarantor would have to ask the court to bring the debtor into the case as a co-defendant. The guarantor’s failure to do so would not affect the creditor’s right to enforce the guarantee.

A creditor may also consider suing both the guarantor and debtor simultaneously, as part of the same case. If the creditor obtains a judgment against both the guarantor and the debtor, the court would order the debtor to pay first if the guarantor can prove that the debtor has assets and enforcement is not difficult. Should the creditor fail to recover against the debtor’s asset, it can then seek to enforce the judgment against the guarantor.

A guarantor would be protected from paying a creditor first if the contract language in the applicable agreement states that the creditor must exhaust all remedies against the debtor before enforcing the guarantee. Any initial lawsuit against the guarantor would likely be unsuccessful if the parties’ contract is clear in this regard.

In sum, the new legal framework makes enforcement of guarantees more burdensome for creditors. However, guarantors would argue that the amendments provide greater fairness. In any case, creditors, debtors, and guarantors should all consider the legal and business issues raised by the new laws and act accordingly when setting up and enforcing guarantee arrangements.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
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