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

June 14, 2013

Expanding the Potential for Secured Transactions

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Secured transactions refer to transactions secured by collateral, which guarantees the fulfilment of an obligation to repay loans. Currently, Thailand recognises only a limited class of security that can be put up as collateral, effectively limiting the potential for greater credit availability in the economy. This article examines the types of security available under other jurisdictions as well as registration and common enforcement mechanisms with an eye towards potential use in Thailand.

United States: A large variety of assets or properties can be used as collateral, all of which are governed by Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). These include immovable assets such as real estate, movable assets such as agricultural and consumer products and intangible assets such as goodwill and future advances. The creation of security must be evidenced by contract. Upon default, UCC-9 stipulates several methods of enforcement, the most common being repossession of the security and strict foreclosure.

Japan: Secured transactions can only be created over specific movable assets. Articles 85 and 86.2 of the Civil Code define movable assets as property that is not real estate. Such properties include construction machinery, aircraft and ships as well as inventory and intellectual property.

There is no US-style system of registration and notification of mortgages created over movable property. Security is created by contract and enforced by the Civil Execution Act. If there is a default on a loan agreement, Chapter 3 of the Act specifies for the movable property to be sold at a public auction unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Because a sale at a public auction is typically time-consuming and fetches lower prices, parties typically enter into foreclosure agreements in the contract, where the creditor is granted the right to dispose of property in a reasonable manner or take possession of the property upon a default.

India: Under India’s General Clauses Act and Registration Act, any asset that is not immovable is classified as movable property. A large variety of movable properties can be used as security including uncalled share capital, booked debt, revenue and receivables, and intangible property such as goodwill.

A secured transaction must be evidenced in writing, signed by both parties and registered electronically under the Companies Act. Upon default, the creditor has a power of sale only with a court order. Foreclosure is largely  limited to conditional-sale mortgages, and this remedy must be stipulated in the contract and a court order obtained. The right to appoint a receiver must be stipulated in the contract.

Singapore: A unified system of classification and registration of security known as “charges” under the Companies Act makes no distinction between immovable or movable property.

Charges can also be created over intangible assets such as shares, debentures and goodwill. Section 131 of the Act requires registration within 30 days of the creation of the charge. A failure to register the charge renders it void as against the liquidator and creditor upon insolvency.

However, this does not prejudice the repayment of money secured by a charge. When a charge is void for lack of registration, money secured thereby is immediately repayable. Such an approach effectively safeguards both the debtor’s and the creditor’s interests, creating an environment conducive for business.

Thailand: Under the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), movable property can be pledged in exchange for credit, but there is a requirement to deliver possession of the property.

Furthermore, immovable property can be mortgaged in exchange for credit. However, such mortgages are currently limited to real estate and specific movable property under the CCC. Automobiles, aircraft and machinery can be mortgaged if registered pursuant to specific procedures and under the relevant laws.

To enforce a pledge when a debtor defaults, the creditor can bring the pledged asset to sell at auction without the need to file a complaint. If the secured property suffers loss or damage to the extent that the remaining value is not sufficient as security, the creditor has the right to enforce the mortgage.

There are two alternatives to enforce a mortgage, and each requires filing of a complaint. The first is to seize the mortgaged property for sale at auction, while the second is foreclosure. If the debtor transfers the mortgaged property to a third party, the creditor needs to file a claim against the third party, requesting that the court seize the mortgaged property for sale at auction.

There have been discussions in Thailand about including other movable and intangible assets such as inventories, as is the case in several other jurisdictions. A major advantage would be raising the amount of credit in the economy.

Before such legislation is passed, however, close scrutiny must be paid to what classes of properties can be appropriately used. There must also be safeguards that protect the rights of both creditors and debtors.

As well, a system of registration and enforcement should be created to ensure the debtor’s right has been protected in order to ensure clarity as to the specific property used as security and that a person who has the authority to enforce the secured property cannot intentionally, or unintentionally, disadvantage a debtor.

Finally, since ownership and possession of the security transfers to the creditor upon default, there should be a requirement that the debtor be advised of the risks involved in entering into such loan agreements.

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
August 27, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior issued an urgent circular letter (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 19097) to all provincial governors, introducing enhanced enforcement guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of suspected nominee landownership by foreign nationals. The circular letter builds upon a prior circular letter issued on April 19, 2023 (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 7665), which first established the framework for provincial-level investigation committees and interagency cooperation on this issue. Under Thailand’s Land Code, foreign nationals are generally prohibited from owning land. To circumvent this restriction, some foreign nationals have historically used Thai nominees, whether individuals or Thai-registered juristic persons, to hold land on their behalf. Various government enforcement measures have been progressively strengthened in recent years. The new circular letter introduces three key measures: Expanded investigation committees. Provincial authorities must add representatives from specialized investigative agencies (such as local police superintendents) to the existing Fact-Finding and Investigation Committees, giving them broader access to shareholding data, tax records, immigration information, financial records, and evidentiary materials. Proactive screening of juristic persons. Provincial Land Offices are now required to actively screen and flag juristic persons (companies, partnerships, etc.) that show risk indicators of acting as nominees for foreign land ownership. The screening results must be referred to the investigation committees, which will determine whether the entity qualifies as a “foreign national” under the Land Code or was set up to circumvent the law. Two-track enforcement actions. Based on the committee’s findings, enforcement may consist of one or both of the following: Land disposal: If a juristic person is classified as a foreign national under the law, the provincial governor sets a deadline for the entity to dispose of the land under the Land Code. Criminal prosecution: If the entity was established specifically to hold land on behalf of a foreign national in circumvention
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
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