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​ 

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
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
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
April 30, 2026
Thailand’s Long-Term Resident (LTR) Visa regime offers an attractive immigration pathway for qualifying foreign nationals, providing a 10-year renewable permission to stay in Thailand. Following amendments under Board of Investment (BOI) Announcement No. Por. 3/2568 dated February 4, 2025, the regime now more explicitly accommodates property investment as a qualifying vehicle—a development of particular relevance to foreign nationals already considering real estate acquisitions in Thailand. The LTR Visa is available to several categories of applicants, including wealthy global citizens with global assets of at least USD 1 million, and wealthy pensioners aged 50 or older with an annual pension or fixed income of at least USD 40,000. Property as a Qualifying Investment For both categories, property investment is recognized as one of three eligible investment types alongside Thai government bonds (with at least five years remaining to maturity) and direct investments in Thai companies or approved venture capital or private equity vehicles. The minimum qualifying property investment is USD 500,000 for wealthy global citizens and USD 250,000 for wealthy pensioners. Eligible property types include freehold condominiums, buildings, or villas, as well as leasehold properties with a remaining lease term of at least 10 years. Health Coverage Requirement Beyond the investment threshold, applicants must demonstrate adequate health coverage. This requirement can be satisfied through a health insurance policy covering at least USD 50,000 in Thai medical expenses with at least 10 months of remaining coverage, evidence of social security benefits covering Thai medical costs, or a bank deposit of at least USD 100,000 retained for 12 months. Practical Considerations For foreign nationals already considering property acquisitions in prime residential markets—where investment values commonly meet or exceed the USD 500,000 threshold—the visa pathway effectively transforms a real estate purchase into a dual-purpose investment, combining asset ownership with long-term residence rights that