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

October 7, 2011

Impact of the New NACC Reporting Requirement on the Private Sector

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

A new notification from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is expected to have a significant impact on companies that do business with the Thai government. On August 11, 2011, the NACC issued the Notification re: Rules and Procedures Concerning the Preparation and Disclosure of Revenue and Expenses Accounts of Projects which Individuals or Juristic Entities are Contractual Parties with Government Agencies (Notification). Pursuant to the Notification, effective January 1, 2012, private sector entities entering into procurement contracts with government agencies will be required to prepare and electronically submit revenue and expense accounts to the Revenue Department every year, together with their Corporate Income Tax Return (for juristic entities) or Personal Income Tax Return (for individuals).

The Notification will significantly impact entities in the private sector that enter into government procurement contracts, including individuals, Thai companies, and foreign companies with a local presence. The definition of “government agencies” is quite broad and includes majority state-owned enterprises such as Krung Thai Bank and PTT.

Importantly, the threshold for reporting is quite low—all government procurement contracts that have a value of THB 500,000 or more will be subject to the disclosure requirement. Businesses and individuals will also be required to submit one revenue and expense account for each contract and to keep supporting documents for at least five years. (However, if there is an investigation on incorrect disclosure or corrupt activities, supporting documents must be kept until the investigation is completed.) The Notification further requires that government agencies must set a condition that businesses and individuals entering into procurement contracts must receive and make payment via a current account, except for payments not exceeding THB 30,000, which can be made in cash.

Government contracts executed before January 1, 2012, will not be subject to this new disclosure requirement. However, if any material amendments are made to such contracts on or after January 1, 2012, they will also be subject to the disclosure requirement under the Notification.

If full payment under a contract is completed within a single accounting period (for juristic entities) or tax year (for individuals), the revenue and expense accounts shall be filed for that accounting period or tax year. If full payment under a contract is not completed within a single accounting period or tax year (for individuals), the revenue and expense accounts consisting of revenue and expenses arising in each accounting period shall be filed for that accounting period. The reporting requirement will commence from the date that the contracts are executed and will continue until the completion of obligations under the contract—meaning that businesses and individuals will still be required to report their revenue and expense accounts of the project during the warranty period.

Although failure to comply with the new disclosure requirement does not entail criminal penalties, the sanction imposed under the Notification is commercially severe: violators will be disqualified from entering into new procurement contracts with government agencies. In addition, failure to comply with the reporting requirement or incorrect reporting could result in scrutiny by the NACC, Revenue Department, and other relevant government authorities.

Aimed at curbing corruption, the revenue and expense reporting form (Form Bor Chor.1) requires businesses and individuals that enter into government procurement contracts to provide detailed information of each procurement contract, including the cost of sales or expenses, manufacturing costs, and selling and administrative expenses (which cover certain items such as personnel expenses, utilities expenses, and directors’ remuneration not specifically incurred under any particular contract). At this stage, it is still unclear whether and how these expenses will have to be allocated to each government procurement contract for the purpose of reporting revenue and expense accounts.

The new reporting requirement will place a substantial burden upon the private sector because it requires a separate detailed report for each contract, and the threshold of contract value subject to the reporting requirement is set at only THB 500,000. (The NACC has explained that this threshold was set in accordance with the existing requirement that government agencies are currently required to report contracts having a value of THB 500,000 or more to the Comptroller General’s Department.)

Given that a business may enter into hundreds or thousands of contracts with government agencies each year, one can see the considerable impact that this new requirement will have on the private sector. The new measure will increase operating costs for preparing revenue and expense accounts, and businesses and individuals will be obliged to take such additional expenses into account when bidding for or entering into procurement contracts. On the other hand, those not wishing to be involved with complicated reporting may refrain from bidding or entering into government procurement contracts, which could effectively limit competition.

The new requirement could also divert regulators’ attention from larger cases of corruption, as the NACC and Revenue Department will be flooded with information due to the relatively low value of contract threshold. Thus, it remains to be seen whether this new measure will be effective in addressing major corruption in Thailand.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts