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​ 

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
April 7, 2026
Real estate law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins provided the chapter on Vietnam for Practical Law’s Commercial Real Estate Global Guide 2026, a comparative jurisdictional guide in Q&A format giving a high-level overview of real estate investment structures, restrictions on foreign ownership, and other important issues of real estate law. The main topics include the following: Real estate investment Title to real estate Sale of real estate Real estate tax Real estate finance Real estate leases Planning and development controls To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The