Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are

On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as

Thailand’s consumer protection authorities have strengthened oversight of residential leasing businesses following numerous complaints about unfair lease terms, including unjustified deposit forfeitures and excessive utility charges. The Contract Committee of Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board issued the Notification of the Contract Committee Re: The Stipulation of Residential Property Leasing as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), published in the Government Gazette on June 6, 2025. The notification becomes effective on September 4, 2025, and repeals the prior notification issued in 2019. The notification prescribes two types of standard residential lease contracts: short-term residential lease contracts (for leases of not more than three years) and long-term residential lease contracts (for leases of more than three years up to 30 years or for the lessee’s lifetime). However, use of these standard contract forms is not compulsory, and parties may use any form as long as the terms do not contradict the notification’s requirements. Expanded Scope The notification expands the scope of enforcement to include any lessor with at least three residential units, while the 2019 notification applies only to businesses leasing five or more residential units. Hotels and dormitory operators are excluded, as they are regulated under other specific laws. Residential lease contracts entered into under the 2019 notification will remain valid and enforceable until the expiration of the contract. Any residential lease contract executed from September 4, 2025, onward must comply with the new notification. The notification also expressly extends its applicability to lease contracts made through online platforms. Electronically executed lease contracts must comply with the required and prohibited terms specified in the notification as well as applicable laws governing electronic transactions in Thailand. Mandatory Terms and Conditions Residential lease contracts must contain clearly legible Thai text no smaller than two millimeters in size and no more

On August 12, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Environment submitted a draft law amending several provisions of the Land Law 2024 (“Draft Amended Land Law” or “Draft”) for government consultation and public comment. The Draft primarily aims to address three controversial issues in Vietnam’s land regime concerning (i) land pricing, (ii) land clearance, and (iii) the allocation of land outside auctions, following policy set out by Resolution 18-NQ/TW and the newly adopted Resolution 69-NQ/TW on land governance modernization. Land pricing is potentially one of the most important areas among the proposed reforms. The Draft, however, has notably not addressed a major concern recently raised by the public: When a project has been allocated or leased land, but the relevant authority has not yet issued the land-price decision, a “supplemental charge” continues to accrue for the entire waiting period. Under current rules, this charge is calculated at 5.4% per year on the ultimately determined land-use fee or land rent, materially shifting project economics and pricing risks to developers or end-buyers. Core Reforms on Land Pricing The Draft Amended Land Law sets out a number of reforms on land pricing, including the following: Land price tables: The Draft maintains provincial land price tables but clarifies the scope of application: They are used to determine land-related financial obligations of land users and compensation when the state recovers land; the government will detail the adjustment coefficient regime, ratios for land-use fee calculation by land type/user/form, and deductible infrastructure costs. Provincial people’s committees will continue to issue land price tables every five years, effective from January 1 of the first year in the cycle, with authority to supplement within the cycle as necessary. In provinces with cadastral maps and digital land price databases, the tables may be established down to the land-parcel level,