Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets.

Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets.

The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand.

Key Changes

The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure.

First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process.

Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.

Third, where assets are sold through bidding between the parties, the applicable fee has likewise been reduced from 2% to 1% of the highest bid.

Perhaps the most commercially significant aspect of the reform, however, is the elimination of certain execution officer fees where enforcement proceedings have commenced but no sale or disposition of assets ultimately takes place. Previously, execution officer fees could still be applied even if assets had been seized or attached but the parties subsequently reached a settlement or enforcement was otherwise discontinued before a sale occurred—increasing the overall cost of resolving a dispute and discouraging settlement once enforcement had already begun.

By removing these fees, the amendment reduced a practical cost barrier that previously existed once enforcement proceedings were underway. This change provides greater flexibility for creditors and debtors to negotiate commercially sensible resolutions after enforcement has commenced without incurring execution officer fees that would previously have arisen despite no sale of assets taking place.

Impact on Creditors

For judgment creditors, the reduction in execution officer fees improves the overall economics of enforcement. In many cases, enforcement costs directly affect the net amount ultimately recovered, particularly where the judgment debtor’s assets are insufficient to satisfy the judgment debt in full. Lower statutory fees mean that a greater portion of the enforcement proceeds may be available for distribution to the creditor.

The amendment also provides creditors with greater strategic flexibility during the enforcement process. Commencing enforcement proceedings is often an effective means of encouraging payment or bringing a debtor to the negotiating table. Under the previous fee structure, however, continuing with enforcement could result in additional costs even where the parties ultimately reached a settlement before any assets were sold. By reducing or eliminating these fees, the amendment has removed a practical disincentive to settlement after enforcement has commenced.

As a result, creditors may be more willing to initiate enforcement promptly to keep pressure on the debtor while remaining open to commercially sensible settlement discussions. Where a debtor later proposes repayment, restructuring, or the voluntary sale of assets before a public auction takes place, the revised fee structure may facilitate a more efficient and cost-effective resolution for both parties.

These changes are particularly relevant in commercial debt recovery, distressed asset situations, shareholder disputes, construction disputes, and the enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments, where negotiated settlements frequently occur after enforcement proceedings have begun.

Impact on Debtors

The Civil Procedure Code amendment also benefits judgment debtors by reducing certain costs associated with the enforcement process. Lower execution officer fees may enable debtors to preserve more value in their assets and reduce the overall financial burden arising from enforcement. In practice, these statutory fees often form part of the overall cost of default and may ultimately be borne by the debtor.

The elimination of certain execution officer fees where enforcement concludes before assets are sold is especially significant. It removes a cost that could previously have arisen even where the parties successfully resolved a dispute after assets had been seized or attached but before a sale occurred.

This change may encourage debtors to engage with creditors at an earlier stage of the enforcement process. By negotiating promptly, arranging refinancing, redeeming seized assets, or agreeing to a repayment plan before assets are sold, debtors may be able to resolve disputes more efficiently while avoiding unnecessary enforcement costs.

Implications for Investors and Businesses

For investors and businesses operating in Thailand, the amended Civil Procedure Code reduces certain statutory costs associated with judgment enforcement, but it does not diminish the importance of careful enforcement planning or strategic decision-making.

Before entering into significant commercial transactions, businesses should continue to assess whether their counterparties have recoverable assets in Thailand, whether security should be obtained, and whether dispute resolution clauses are appropriate for the transaction. Obtaining a favorable judgment is only one step in the recovery process; effective enforcement planning should begin well before a dispute arises.

Once a judgment has been obtained, creditors should promptly consider asset searches, available seizure or attachment measures, the priority of competing claims, and the timing of enforcement. Although the Civil Procedure Code generally allows judgment creditors ten years to seek enforcement, delaying enforcement may significantly reduce the prospects of recovery if assets are transferred, encumbered, dissipated, or otherwise become unavailable.

Businesses should also bear in mind that execution officer fees represent only one component of the overall cost of enforcement. Depending on the nature of the assets and the enforcement measures pursued, additional costs may include legal fees, court expenses, publication costs, valuation fees, storage and transportation expenses, taxes, registration fees, and the internal management time required to oversee enforcement proceedings.

For foreign investors and cross-border businesses, the amendment also reflects Thailand’s continued efforts to improve the efficiency of its enforcement framework. Although the reduction in execution officer fees is a positive development, successful cross-border enforcement still requires careful preparation. Foreign parties should ensure that powers of attorney, corporate documents, translations, and any required notarization or legalization are prepared in advance, as delays in document preparation can affect the speed and efficiency of enforcement proceedings.

Outlook

By reducing execution officer fees and removing unnecessary costs where enforcement concludes before assets are sold, the Civil Procedure Code amendment improves the economics of recovery while encouraging commercially sensible settlements during the enforcement process.

From a broader commercial perspective, an effective and cost-efficient enforcement system is an important factor in promoting investor confidence and strengthening the business environment. The reduction in execution officer fees is a meaningful step in the right direction of this goal, while additional reforms—such as faster asset searches, more efficient auction procedures, and greater digital integration among government agencies—could enhance Thailand’s enforcement framework even further.

Businesses, lenders, investors, and other parties dealing with Thai counterparties should take the revised fee structure into account when assessing enforcement strategy, estimating recovery costs, and evaluating settlement opportunities. Although the amendment does not fundamentally alter the legal framework governing judgment enforcement, it may influence both the overall cost of recovery and the commercial considerations that shape negotiations after enforcement proceedings have commenced.