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​ 

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
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