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

March 18, 2022

Overview of Anticorruption Laws in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

As many countries have experienced firsthand, corruption and bribery can have severe and far-reaching effects throughout a country’s political and economic systems. They not only impact the financial status and administrative ability of the countries involved, but at the same time, can also create and perpetuate a negative image of those countries to current or potential trade or investment partners. Recognizing the importance of minimizing or eliminating the damaging effects of bribery and corruption, many countries have made—and continue to make—efforts to strengthen their anticorruption and antibribery capabilities.

Thailand has enacted relevant laws and enforced anticorruption measures in both the public and private sectors. Under Thai law, a bribe can take the form of property or a benefit. “Property” can be tangible (such as money, a car, a house, etc.) or intangible (such as copyrights, patents, etc.), while a “benefit” can be a gift, a discount, entertainment, healthcare costs, a job promotion, and so on.

This article discusses the key provisions related to criminal offenses committed by private parties under three anticorruption laws in Thailand:

  • Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018)
  • Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act, B.E. 2560 (2017)
  • Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies B.E. 2542 (1999)

Organic Act on Anti-Corruption

The key provision of the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (OAAC) is Section 176, which prohibits giving, offering, or promising property or a benefit to a public official, foreign public official, or official of a public international organization with the intent to induce the official to wrongfully perform his or her duty. Violations are subject to criminal liability, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,000), or both.

If the offender is a person associated with a company that does not have appropriate internal control measures to prevent bribery—and the offense was meant to benefit that company—the company would be deemed to have committed the offense and could face a fine of one to two times the damages caused or benefit received. “Company” in this instance refers to a company established under Thai law or established under a foreign law and operating in Thailand, while “a person associated with a company” includes representatives, employees, agents, affiliated companies, and any other person acting on the company’s behalf.

The required “appropriate internal control measures” are evidenced by the following conditions:

  • Anticorruption must be emphasized as an important policy issue by the company’s top management.
  • The company must apply anticorruption measures to parties who have business relations with it.
  • The company’s human resources management guidelines must correspond to the anticorruption measures.
  • The company must have measures for reporting offenses or suspicious incidents.

Public Procurement Act

The purpose of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act (“Public Procurement Act”) is to establish rules for the procurement activities of public officials. As such, the public procurement must be worthwhile (i.e., priced reasonably for meeting the project’s objectives), transparent, verifiable, and effective.

Under the Public Procurement Act, “public procurement” refers to operations related to the acquisition of supplies through a sale, hire, lease, or exchange transaction. The “supplies” referred to under this law include goods, services, construction work, consultancy work, and design or construction supervision work.

Section 19 of the Public Procurement Act provides that a business operator who would like to engage in public procurement for a project valued at THB 500 million (approx. USD 15 million) or more must put in place an anticorruption policy and have appropriate anticorruption measures—similar to the measures mentioned above with respect to the OAAC.

Section 120 of this law imposes criminal liability for violations on both the public officer responsible for the public procurement and the private person (individual or corporate entity) involved in the corruption. Punishments can include imprisonment for one to ten years, a fine of THB 20,000–200,000 (approx. USD 600–6,000), or both.

Submission of Bids Act

The Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies (also known as the “Submission of Bids Act” or the “Collusion Law”) addresses corruption by means of bid rigging. Bid rigging takes place when two or more bidders agree to submit their separate bids with the objective of fixing the price to take advantage of a government agency, to avoid a real and fair price competition, or to gain any benefit for the bidders.

The law defines “submission of bids” as submitting an offer in order to get a contract with a government agency for purchase, hire, exchange, lease, disposal of property, acquisition of a concession, or acquisition of any other rights.

Bid rigging can take the following forms:

  • Cover bidding is when bidders agree to submit their offers with the intention to let the agreed bidder win the bidding. To ensure that they will not be awarded the contract, the losing bidders may submit offers with higher prices or more difficult conditions for performing the work.
  • Bid suppression can occur when bidders agree not to submit any offer or agree to initially submit an offer and withdraw it later, so that a certain bidder can win.
  • Bid rotation refers to bidders agreeing to rotate the winning bidder—for example, bidder A will win one project, and bidder B will win the next one.

The key offenses—each detailed in its own section of the act—are as follows:

  • Collusion among bidders who dishonestly submit a bid (bid rigging).
  • Giving money, property, or any other benefit to induce a person to dishonestly participate in submission of a bid.
  • Dishonestly using force or coercion to get a person to participate in submitting a bid.
  • Using deception to prevent others from submitting a bid.
  • Submitting a bid (whether too low or too high) making it impossible for the bidder to fully perform its obligations under a contract with the government agency.

These offenses, depending on their seriousness, are punishable by various terms of imprisonment. Apart from imprisonment, offenders (both individuals and corporate entities) may be subject to a fine of 50% of the amount of the highest bid submitted, or the full amount of the contract concluded with the government agency—whichever is greater. The severity of this substantial fine indicates Thailand’s intention to seriously penalize offenders under this law.

Conclusion

Regardless of the strictness of a country’s anticorruption laws or the severity of penalties that can be imposed, implementation and enforcement of these laws would be inefficient or useless if public officials and business operators do not fully understand them or do not take anticorruption matters seriously.

Without sufficient knowledge of anticorruption laws and proper prevention measures, employees and management team members of business operators may be at risk of violating the applicable anticorruption laws. Therefore, prudent business operators should have an appropriate anticorruption policy in place to provide knowledge and training to their employees and other associates.

Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 3, 2025
Recent high-profile corporate fraud and accounting scandals have brought increased scrutiny to governance, compliance, and enforcement practices in Thailand, highlighting the legal and practical challenges facing companies operating in the country. As regulators and law enforcement authorities sharpen their focus on financial misconduct, cybercrime, and corruption, businesses must navigate a complex and evolving investigative landscape. Tilleke & Gibbins’ investigations and compliance team examines these issues in the Thailand chapter of The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations – Tenth Edition, published by Global Investigations Review (GIR). The chapter provides a detailed overview of Thailand’s legal framework for corporate investigations, offering practical guidance for companies and counsel responding to regulatory and criminal scrutiny. The Thailand chapter covers key topics including corporate criminal liability, enforcement priorities, internal investigations, data protection considerations, dawn raids, whistleblowing, cyber-related investigations, and cross-border cooperation. It also addresses emerging issues such as cybersecurity enforcement, economic sanctions compliance, and anticipated developments affecting investigations in Thailand. The chapter is authored by John Frangos, Chitchai Punsan, Alongkorn Tongmee, Michael Ramirez, Piyawat Vitooraporn, and Michelle McLeod. The Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below, and the full guide can be accessed on the GIR website.
Read More
September 11, 2025
Thailand traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money. Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No. Any Egmont members? Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group. Regulation The relevant law, known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the Act), was passed in March 1999 with the aim of combating not only the drug trade but also other illicit activities, such as corruption, criminal fraud and prostitution. There have been a number of changes and updates to the Act, the most recent one in late 2015, in which the Act was amended to include: Additional predicate offences such as offences relating to human trafficking, online gambling and offences relating to unfair practices relating to derivatives and agricultural commodity futures. Broader scope of money laundering offence. Non-disclosure obligations to applicable financial institutions and reporting entities. Compulsory training to financial institutions and reporting entities’ employees responsible to monitor and ensure compliance with the Act. Retention period. Enhanced penalties Additionally, discussions did take place mooting further changes to the Act, set out in 2020 and 2021 drafts. Proposed changes included suggestions to expand the definitions of financial institutes, predicate offences and professions, as well as to impose greater reporting and due diligence responsibilities on companies subject to the Act. However, recent amendments to the Act in 2022 only included minor procedural and substantive changes that did not materially alter or expand the Act. The most notable amendments were changes to an injured party’s rights to claim damages caused by a predicate offence and the rights of beneficiaries claiming assets seized by the government in connection with a predicate offence. Financial intelligence unit Of the total number of transactions reported to AMLO annually,
Read More
August 1, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Corporate Governance 2025, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This respected guide offers comprehensive, jurisdiction-specific overviews of corporate governance laws and practices around the world. Each jurisdictional chapter follows a clear Q&A format, providing practical insights into critical issues such as: Sources of corporate governance regulation Shareholders’ rights, powers, and responsibilities Structure and duties of management bodies Stakeholder involvement in governance Transparency and reporting requirements ESG and sustainability-related obligations Cybersecurity and technology-related disclosures The Vietnam chapter was authored by Tram Ngoc Bich Nguyen, Truc Thi Thanh Tran, Dung Thi Phuong Le, and Quang Minh Vu, members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ corporate and commercial team in Ho Chi Minh City. The authors provide detailed analysis of Vietnam’s corporate governance framework, including recent developments such as the 2025 amendments to the Law on Enterprises requiring disclosure of ultimate beneficial ownership and the increasing emphasis on sustainable business practices and responsible corporate conduct. The chapter also discusses practical considerations for foreign investors in Vietnam, such as overlapping signing authorities between key company officers, enforcement of shareholders’ agreements, and disclosure obligations related to ownership and management roles. The complete Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF below. The Vietnam chapter—and the full Corporate Governance 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More