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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More