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

January 24, 2014

Protecting Your Assets: How to Create an Effective Will in Thailand

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Planning for asset distribution after death is one of the most significant actions a person can take, both to provide a better future for one’s heirs and to ensure that one’s intentions are fulfilled. A properly constructed will is a significant step toward fulfilling these important aims.

The primary purpose of a will is to clarify how you want your property to be distributed after you die. An equally important reason for having a will, however, is that it increases the likelihood that your assets will be transferred in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

For those people with assets in Thailand, it is essential to have a will in place. Without a legally binding will, the distribution of your assets will be subject to the provisions of Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), which can complicate a straightforward distribution of assets.

When drafting a will, there are several important points to keep in mind, which will be discussed below.

First, a will is only valid if it adheres to the form prescribed by the CCC. Choosing the correct form of will is important for two reasons. It can ensure the will is enforceable, and it can grant the holder specific legal rights and obligations. While several forms of wills exist, the two most common are standard wills and holographic wills.

A will in standard form is one that is made in writing, is dated at the time of making the will, and is signed by the testator in the presence of at least two witnesses who shall then and there sign their names certifying the signature of the testator.

A will in holographic form is one in which the testator uses his or her own hand to write the whole text of the document, and which includes the date and their signature. A holographic will has the key advantage of not requiring any witnesses to be valid.

It is also crucial that any alteration made to the will is done accurately and correctly. Regardless of whether the alteration is an erasure or an addition, the law requires that it be done in the same form as the will being altered. For example, an alteration to a holographic will would only be valid if it is done in the testator’s own handwriting and with their own signature.

When designating a beneficiary, one should also bear in mind that CCC Section 1653 prevents a legatee from also being a writer or a witness of the will. Failure to adhere to this requirement will not invalidate the entire will, but any clause instructing the delegation of an asset to that person will be considered void.

A common question that arises is what legal rights does a beneficiary have to property that is transferred during the life of the testator? According to CCC Section 1696, the answer is “none.” Under the law, a testamentary disposition is revoked if the testator has intentionally made a valid transfer of the property which is subject of the will. The same rule applies if the testator has intentionally destroyed such property.

It is advised that you should consider reviewing your will any time you go through a significant life event. In the event that changes need to be made, a testator may revoke his or her will either in whole or in part at any time. The best way to wholly revoke a will is to make another will, but intentional destruction or cancellation by the testator is also permissible. As with all wills, a will that revokes a prior will must be made according to one of the prescribed forms. Should the testator choose to revoke the will through intentional destruction or cancellation, any duplicates that may exist must also be destroyed or cancelled before the revocation will be considered complete.

It is also important to remember that making a will is considered one of the strongest declarations of intention that can be made regarding the disposition of your property. An often-overlooked consequence of this is that failure to name an heir as a beneficiary will automatically disinherit that person from the assets listed in the will. This is a powerful aspect of a will and, as such, listing or omitting any name from a will should be done with extreme care and consideration.

Finally, it is highly recommended that there be no delay in creating your will. Beyond the obvious fact that no one can predict their death, the law states that a valid will can only be made by a person of sound mind. Section 1654 of the CCC specifies that the capacity of the testator must be considered only at the time when the will is made. As you age, this requirement may become more and more difficult to fulfill.

It is said only two things are certain in life: death and taxes. Having a well-drafted will prepared before you die can help ease the burden of both.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the