The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple

For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction

On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.

Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a