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​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre