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​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the