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

July 27, 2012

Posting Bail as an Authorized Director

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Authorized directors are liable for the actions of their company, and in turn, they are sometimes involved in criminal charges. In such cases, they must prepare for the possibility that they may need to post bail to avoid a temporary stay in prison. There are typically two situations in which a director may have to consider posting bail.

First, an individual may file a criminal complaint against a company directly with the police; the police will then request the presence of a representative of the company, who is often the authorized director. The authorized director can then plead guilty, in which case bail will not be available.

Alternatively, the director can deny the charge, after which the police inquiry officer will review the case and send a prosecution or non-prosecution opinion to the public prosecutor. At that stage, the public prosecutor will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a case. If so, the director may have the option of bail.

The second situation whereby bail may be granted to directors occurs when an individual files a criminal charge directly with the court. At a preliminary hearing, the plaintiff will present witnesses to the court, and the court will then either accept or dismiss the complaint. If the complaint is accepted, the authorized director (or the accused) must reappear for a full criminal trial.

Normally, the accused is prepared to post security at the first trial court hearing. However, if security has not been prepared beforehand, then the accused director will be required to remain in temporary custody until a guarantee is posted with the court.

The amount of bail required is decided by the court depending on the severity of the alleged crime. Various securities may be used as bail, including real property, fixed-deposit bank accounts, bank guarantees or certificates, or promissory notes issued by the government.

A certificate of guarantee issued by an insurance company may also be used as a security. In this case, the insurance company sets the price of the premium based on the crime. Such insurance policies can be purchased either before or after the commission of an offense.

If the accused cannot provide any of these guarantees, they may also use a senior government official’s position as security. This means that the government official’s position is valued in monetary terms, and if the accused does not appear at the next hearing, the government official must pay the court the value of his position. This is because a third party acting as a guarantor has an obligation to present the accused at hearing. Certain other professionals may also act as guarantors, including lawyers, doctors, architects, and auditors; the same procedure applies to them as for officials.

The procedure for requesting bail begins with the accused stating which security he wishes to use as a guarantee. The officer of the court will review the request and will present it to the court for acceptance or rejection. If accepted, the guarantor (who may be the accused) will need to present the security to the court officer, after which the accused director will be released. If the court rejects the petition, the accused may submit a new request or may appeal to the Appeals Court or Supreme Court.

In determining whether to accept a petition for bail, the court considers Section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This provision states that the court must review the severity of the offence, any evidence, and the case facts. It must also assess the credibility of the guarantee and the possible consequences of agreeing to bail, such as potential damage.

The court may not accept the request for bail if it believes that the accused will abscond or tamper with evidence, interfere with the police investigation, or cause harm to another person. It may also reject the request for bail if the court does not trust the credibility of the guarantee. Additionally, the court may review any objections from the police, public prosecutor, or plaintiff.

The security or guarantee may be returned to the guarantor when the case is finalized or when the court has given an order to return bail. Then the guarantor has a right to obtain the security immediately by presenting the receipt received when supplying the original security.

While facing accusations of criminal wrongdoing is never pleasant, directors must nonetheless prepare themselves for the increased risk that they could be criminally charged. The complex responsibilities and duties that come with their positions and as stipulated by the law also increase the risk of such charges and investigations.

Being prepared for the processing of bail applications, if and when such unpleasant cases arise, allows the directors and their companies to respond without delay and utilize their resources to focus on defense of the company and its directors.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More