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​ 

April 3, 2025
Thailand has proposed amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) as the country steps up its efforts to combat economic crimes and corruption. One of the primary objectives of the amendments is to enhance the effectiveness of measures curbing the use of nominees to help foreign nationals operate restricted or prohibited businesses in violation of the law. If these proposed updates are implemented, they will substantially strengthen existing legislation related to the use of nominees and bribing government officials, including officials of foreign governments and international organizations. These offenses would be treated as predicate violations under the amended legislation. The draft amendments are currently open for a public comment period, which is set to conclude on April 25, 2025. Highlights of the proposed amendments are detailed below. Predicate Offenses The draft amendments propose adding the concept of a “predicate offense” covering the following: Bribery: Giving, offering, or promising to give assets or benefits to Thai or foreign public officials, or officials of international organizations. Acting as a nominee: Assisting, supporting, or engaging in the business operations of a foreign national who is not permitted to operate that business; jointly operating a business with a foreign national under the guise that it is solely owned by the Thai national; or holding shares on behalf of a foreign national in a partnership, limited company, or any other legal entity to help the foreign national conduct business without the permits required under the Foreign Business Act. Under the draft amendments, Thai individuals or juristic persons who have agreed to take any of these actions, as well as foreign nationals who allow such assistance in their business operations, will be liable for committing a predicate offense under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The draft proposes a prescription period of 15 years from
Read More
April 3, 2025
On February 26, 2025, Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) issued a notification titled “Criteria for Individuals Living Together as Husband and Wife that Are Considered as De Facto Spouses (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025).” This new notification, published in the Government Gazette on March 7, 2025, took effect retroactively from January 22, 2025. Prior to this notification, the term “spouses” specifically included “individuals living together as husband and wife” without registering marriage, referring to similar language at the time in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code. However, it was unclear whether this term included same-sex and other nontraditional couples. After the Marriage Equality Act revised this language in the Civil and Commercial Code to only refer to “spouses” (with a gender-neutral Thai word), the NACC took the opportunity to issue a new notification that simply replaces any mention of “husband and wife” with “spouses,” thereby removing the ambiguity. As a result, this new notification covers same-sex de facto spouses of politicians and high-ranking officials. These spouses’ assets must now be declared together with the officials’ assets. Additionally, same-sex de facto spouses of state officials are prohibited from engaging in business with the Thai government that may present conflicts of interest. Importantly, the notification also impacts the interpretation of the Office of the Prime Minister’s (OPM) Regulation on the Giving or Receiving of Gifts by Public Officials B.E. 2565 (2022). In this regard, same-sex de facto spouses of government officials are now also prohibited from accepting gifts or other benefits related to official duties. This is because the OPM regulation references the NACC definitions when defining “family members” to include “de facto husband and wife.” Under the OPM regulation, public officials and their supervisors are strictly prohibited from permitting or condoning family members’ acceptance of gifts or other benefits related to
Read More
February 12, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins’ anticorruption team in Bangkok has authored the Thailand chapter of the newly released Anti-Bribery & Corruption 2026, published by Lexology Panoramic. This global guide provides a comparative overview of antibribery and anticorruption regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter addresses the following key areas: Relevant international and domestic law: International anticorruption conventions, foreign and domestic bribery laws, successor liability, civil and criminal enforcement, out-of-court resolution and leniency mechanisms Foreign bribery: Legal framework, definition of foreign public officials, gifts, travel and entertainment, facilitating payments, payments through intermediaries, individual and corporate liability, private commercial bribery, defenses, enforcement authorities, enforcement trends, prosecution of foreign companies, sanctions, recent decisions and investigations Financial record-keeping and reporting: Applicable laws and regulations, disclosure of violations or irregularities, prosecution under accounting legislation, penalties for record-keeping violations, and tax deductibility of domestic or foreign bribes Domestic bribery: Legal framework, scope of prohibitions, definition of domestic public officials, gifts, travel and entertainment, facilitating payments, public official participation in commercial activities, payments through intermediaries or third parties, individual and corporate liability, private commercial bribery, defenses, enforcement authorities, enforcement trends, prosecution of foreign companies, sanctions, recent decisions and investigations Updates and trends: Key developments over the past year The Thailand chapter outlines recent developments in anticorruption enforcement, including significant cases involving multinational corporations and continued operations targeting transnational fraud networks along the Myanmar border. It also provides an overview of Thailand’s legal framework for addressing domestic and foreign bribery, including the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2017). The full Thailand chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers may also register for 30 days of complimentary access to the complete Anti-Bribery & Corruption 2026 guide and other Lexology Panoramic publications through this link.
Read More
January 30, 2025
The Thai cabinet has approved a draft amendment of the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes as proposed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Following the Council of State’s review, the emergency decree will be become effective immediately upon its enactment and publication in the Government Gazette. While the draft amendment is not yet publicly available, the government recently indicated that the emergency decree aims to empower authorities with decisive measures to combat cybercrime effectively. It underscores the shared responsibility among various sectors, including banking, telecommunications, and online platforms, in safeguarding against technological crimes. Key provisions of the draft amendment of the emergency decree include: Telecommunications provider obligations: Telecommunications service providers must suspend SIM cards associated with criminal activities. The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission and mobile service providers themselves are authorized to temporarily suspend mobile phone numbers if there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activities. Banking responsibilities: Financial institutions are required to promptly report mule accounts to the Anti-Money Laundering Office to facilitate quick restitution to victims. The Anti-Money Laundering Transaction Committee is empowered to order the return of funds to victims without requiring a final court ruling. Penalties for noncompliance: The amended emergency decree introduces penalties for noncompliance by regulated entities that fail to prevent criminal activities for offenses related to technology crimes in the following cases: Digital asset services: Those engaged in the buying, selling, or exchanging of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and digital tokens, as well as digital asset businesses that launder money obtained from online crimes by converting it into digital currency, will be subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to THB 100,000,
Read More