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

August 7, 2015

Marrying a Thai Citizen Is a Straightforward Affair

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Thailand is a popular tourist destination attracting millions of foreigners to its vibrant cities and windswept shores each year. While many of these foreigners fall in love with the food, others fall in love with the people. Fortunately for those who are love-struck, getting married in Thailand is an easy process, as the country has a well-established system for foreigners to marry Thai citizens.

To illustrate how the process works, we will look at the lives of David and Suda, a fictional couple who would like to marry under Thai law.

Background

David, a U.S. citizen, fell in love with Suda, who is a Thai citizen. As David’s time in Thailand was coming to a close, he realized that he did not want his relationship with Suda to end. He wanted a real future for the relationship. Suda, upon hearing this, was thrilled. She had been dreading David’s departure and hoped to cement their relationship.

In order to move forward with their marriage, David and Suda must comply with certain procedures and requirements and provide certain documents when registering their marriage at the district office.

Preparations

David must obtain an Affirmation of Freedom to Marry. This can be obtained at a foreigner’s national embassy or consulate in Bangkok. Since David is a U.S. citizen, he must go to the U.S. embassy. David must bring his passport and is required to prove through a divorce or death certificate that any previous marriage has been legally dissolved.

After David obtains the Affirmation of Freedom to Marry, he must go to a translation office to translate it into Thai. Afterward, this must be approved by a consular official in the Legalization Division of the Foreign Ministry’s Consular Affairs Department.

As Suda is more than 20 years old, she must bring her original ID card and an original Certificate of House Registration along with copies of each to the district office.

Prenuptial Agreements

David is a cautious person and so wants to enter into a prenuptial agreement before marrying Suda. His parents went through an ugly divorce, as they could not agree on how to divide their assets. David wants to ensure he avoids such a situation.

A prenuptial agreement must be made in accordance with Thai law so that it is enforceable in the event of a divorce. It must be made in writing, written in Thai, signed in front of two witnesses prior to the marriage and registered at the local district office at the time the couple register their marriage.

David and Suda should seek legal consultation to draft their prenuptial agreement in accordance with Thai law as outlined in the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand.

The Marriage

After all of the preparatory administrative and legal requirements have been fulfilled, David and Suda can get legally married.

They simply need to go to the local district office to register their marriage legally. David must bring his Affirmation of Freedom to Marry, an authenticated translation, his passport, and an authenticated copy of his passport. Suda must bring her original ID card and Certificate of House Registration along with copies of each and proof that any previous marriages have been legally dissolved.

However, as much as David and Suda would like to celebrate their marriage with friends and family and embark on their honeymoon, the administrative process is not over yet.

The marriage certificate that is issued to them by the local district office is in Thai. This must be translated into English, and the translation must be certified by the Foreign Ministry. The certified and translated marriage certificate must then be brought to the U.S. embassy to report the marriage.

After registering their marriage at the U.S. embassy, David and Suda can finally take off to Phuket to celebrate their marriage and live happily ever after.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
June 25, 2025
In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,
Read More
June 13, 2025
In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance. In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance. Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain. Effective Mitigation Approaches Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes. Various legal
Read More
June 11, 2025
Thailand’s tax dispute resolution framework has undergone a significant transformation with the enactment of the Act Establishing the Tax Court and the Procedure for Tax Cases (No. 3) B.E. 2568. Published in the Government Gazette on May 27, 2025, the amended act will come into force on November 24, 2025, which is 180 days after its publication. The amended act marks a pivotal shift in the jurisdiction and procedures of the Tax Court, most notably by empowering it to adjudicate certain criminal tax cases for the first time. Background and Rationale The Tax Court was originally established in 1985 as a specialized forum to handle complex tax disputes, including those related to revenue, customs, and excise taxes. The creation of the Tax Court recognized the need for judicial expertise in tax law, given its technical and specialized nature. The latest amendment is designed to address procedural inefficiencies, modernize court processes, and align Thailand’s tax litigation system with international standards. The reform demonstrates Thailand’s commitment to enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of its tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Key Amendments and Provisions Six of the key changes in the amendment are highlighted below. Expansion of jurisdiction to criminal tax cases. The most significant change is the extension of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to include criminal offenses under the Revenue Code, customs law, excise tax law, and other tax-related laws that may be specified by royal decree. New sections in the act explicitly grant the Tax Court authority to hear and decide criminal tax cases, so individuals and entities accused of criminal tax evasion or other tax-related crimes will now have their cases heard by judges with specialized tax expertise. The law also clarifies the Tax Court’s jurisdiction when a single act constitutes multiple offenses (some tax-related, some not) or when
Read More