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 6, 2017

Foreign Directors and the Criminal Court Summons Process: Bound by Duty

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The criminal summons process can affect a company director for a number of reasons and at virtually any time. For example, a director may be summoned as a witness, as a representative for an accused company, or even as an individual accused of a crime. Further complicating matters is the possibility that a criminal summons could be issued to a company director without his or her direct knowledge. This increases the risk of noncompliance with a summons, possibly subjecting the director to additional liability.

It is often presumed that a person who is merely acting as an authorized director for a company has limited individual liability. This is generally true, but Thai law includes numerous circumstances in which a director may be named not only as a witness or company representative in criminal litigation, but also as an accused. Many laws extend a presumption of liability to a company director, including those related to construction licensing, customs clearance, labor law, and the Foreign Business Act, to name a few. Understandably, a person taking on the responsibilities of a director has increased exposure to criminal claims.

This article provides guidance in dealing with the unique issues that affect foreign directors served with a criminal summons.

The Criminal Summons

A criminal summons is a significant document that may affect the freedoms of an authorized foreign director. Failure to respond to a summons may also have significant consequences, including the issuance of an arrest warrant.

A criminal summons may be issued by any authorized law enforcement officer at the investigation stage under the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, as well as under other criminal laws. Some summonses are issued in relation to an investigation of business transactions focused on whether a company and its relevant directors have broken the law.

Take the following example. After conducting an audit of company documents, Customs or Revenue Department officers suspect that the company has committed a criminal offense under the Thai Customs Act or the Revenue Code and file criminal claims with the relevant law enforcement agency. In such case, the company and its authorized director will receive a summons to appear before a law enforcement officer.

If provided by the facts or by the relevant statute after completion of an investigation, many authorized foreign directors will be named as joint accused. Another summons will then be issued and served to the foreign director as an individual accused. While the company and others may also be named as accused, the authorized director must nonetheless defend the case separately as an individual.

Alternatively, a criminal summons may be issued in cases where a plaintiff files a criminal case to the court without an investigation undertaken by law enforcement. In such case, the court will issue a summons to inform the defendant of the details of the criminal charge against the company and the authorized director and the scheduled proceedings at the court. If the court does not accept the plaintiff’s complaint for criminal trial, the defendant has nothing to do. But if the court accepts the plaintiff’s complaint, the court will issue another summons requiring the defendant to appear and defend the case.

Responding to the Criminal Summons

A criminal summons is served by an officer of the court but according to no specific schedule. Sometimes the officer will make a surprise visit or ask to meet the director. Therefore, it is important to prepare for this potential scenario in advance. For example, company representatives should know that the summons process is important and know how to communicate with the court officer. It is critically important that nobody sign and receive the summons on behalf of the director. The director should also be advised urgently of the service.

Prior to receiving the summons it is important to review all details carefully. A summons will be served in Thai and should be translated to the language of a foreign director. This is so that the director fully understands the content, since the document may relate to his or her individual liabilities. If the officer requests to meet the director and serves the summons, the foreign director should contact an attorney immediately.

If a representative for the director receives the summons from the officer, the representative can mention in the summons receipt that the appointment date in the summons cannot be confirmed at this time. Otherwise, nonappearance may be considered a ground for issuing an arrest warrant. Should the director not be available to meet the officer on the appointment date, he or she should inform the officer in writing to reschedule based upon reasonable grounds.

If the summons names the director as a witness at the investigation stage, the director is not allowed to have an attorney to accompany him at the interview. Besides preparation for the interview, the director should assign an interpreter to join the interview. This interpreter should have experience and knowledge of the criminal inquiry process.

If the summons names the director as an accused, he or she should contact an attorney and assign an interpreter to attend the interview. The officer will inform the director of the allegation and arrange for the fingerprinting process on the first appearance date.

If the summons is served to the director by a court officer, the director should request clarification of the purpose of the summons. If the summons requires the director to appear at hearing, he or she will need to attend with an attorney and interpreter. Failure to appear without reasonable explanation may result in criminal liability.

Limiting Liabilities

Many foreign directors and their representatives mistakenly presume the summons process is simple and that there is time to manage. Some may therefore set the matter aside for review without a proper understanding of the serious nature of the court document and of their obligations to comply within a set time. But as this overview explains, the process is extremely important, and directors and their representatives need to take steps to address and, thereby, limit potential liabilities.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
Thailand has expanded the mandatory use of the Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP) system to cover submissions of procurement appeals to all government agencies subject to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (Government Procurement Act). The expansion, which was set out in an official circular dated September 16, 2026, from the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Ruling Committee, takes effect on October 1, 2026. Notable Changes Under the expanded framework, bidders challenging an e-bidding or selective-method procurement result must file their appeal exclusively through e-GP within seven working days of the result being announced by the Comptroller General’s Department. While the system accepts filings around the clock during that window, submissions on the final day must be fully completed by 16:30 according to the e-GP system clock—merely starting a draft or uploading materials before the cutoff does not count as a confirmed submission. Government agencies that disagree with an appeal, in whole or in part, will also report their findings and supporting documents to the Appeals Committee through e-GP using the prescribed Appeal Opinion Report, also within seven working days of receipt. Withdrawals of appeals must likewise follow prescribed e-GP steps that vary depending on whether the matter is still under agency review, has been forwarded to the Appeals Committee, or has already been resolved. Excluded Categories Certain categories of procurement are not subject to the new guidelines on filing appeals electronically. These include: Procurement of supplies for confidential government use. Procurement conducted by government agencies operating overseas where the bidder is a foreign legal entity with no legal representative in Thailand, or where the bidder is a non-Thai national. Consulting service procurement under chapter 7 of the Government Procurement Act Design or construction supervision procurement under chapter 8 of the Government Procurement These exclusions apply
September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
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 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