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

October 30, 2025

Regulatory Reforms Expand Thai Tax Court’s Criminal Jurisdiction

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has introduced a comprehensive overhaul of its tax litigation procedures that will significantly impact how tax disputes are handled. The Regulations for Tax Cases B.E. 2568 (2025) take effect on November 24, 2025, and repeal the prior B.E. 2544 (2001) regulations in full. These regulations support the implementation of the Act on the Establishment of the Tax Court and Tax Case Procedure (No. 3) B.E. 2568 (2025), which expands the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to certain criminal tax matters. Published in the Government Gazette on October 14, 2025, the regulations have been reorganized into three parts covering civil cases, criminal cases, and forms, and are designed to accelerate proceedings, tighten evidentiary discipline, and modernize court operations.

Structural Reform and Scope

The prior regime governed only civil tax disputes. Under the new framework, the regulations introduce a dedicated chapter for criminal cases alongside updated civil procedures, as the Tax Court now has express authority to adjudicate specified criminal tax offenses. Select mechanisms applied in civil case proceedings, such as electronic communication, recording testimony, and appointing experts, also apply to criminal proceedings mutatis mutandis where they do not conflict with criminal procedure.

Civil Cases: Evidence Submission, Deadlines, and Scheduling

Parties must submit, together with the witness list, originals of all documentary evidence, media, or electronic data (such as files, USB drives, or CDs), and all physical evidence in the party’s possession. Failure to submit any original within the deadline (see below) results in a loss of the right to adduce that item at trial, subject only to narrow exceptions where submission is impossible due to force majeure or where receipt of the evidence is indispensable to the interests of justice. The practical impact is that parties are now obligated to assemble and verify all original documents and data at the very start of the case to meet the strict filing requirements.

The deadline to file witness lists and related evidentiary requests will now be at least 15 days before the hearing to determine the disputed issues—compared to the previous regulation, which set the deadline at 30 days before the hearing to determine the disputed issues.

The court also assumes a more active scheduling role. Upon accepting a complaint, the court must fix hearing dates and promptly notify the parties.

Criminal Cases: New Procedures and Interim Provincial Court Roles

The regulations’ new criminal chapter operationalizes the act’s expansion of Tax Court jurisdiction over criminal tax matters.

At the pretrial stage in provinces outside Bangkok, the provincial court acts on behalf of the Central Tax Court for investigative measures. These include issuing arrest and search warrants, granting or denying temporary release, ordering detention, and approving extensions of time to file charges.

Complaints may be filed with the provincial court where the offense occurred or is claimed or believed to have occurred, where the accused resides or was apprehended, or where the investigation was conducted. The provincial court must then notify the Central Tax Court, which assumes control of the case.

For cases filed by private plaintiffs, the provincial court will forward the original complaint to the Central Tax Court to schedule preliminary hearings.

For cases filed by public prosecutors, the provincial court will forward a copy of the complaint to the defendant and inquire whether the defendant has an attorney. The provincial court will then read and explain the complaint to the defendant and interrogate the defendant. Thereafter, the provincial court will forward the original complaint and the records of the defendant’s plea to the Central Tax Court for the decision on whether to conduct a preliminary hearing or accept the complaint.

For a case filed by a public prosecutor where the defendant pleads guilty and no witness examination is required for adjudication, coordination between the courts permits prompt adjudication. If a ruling is not made on the same day, the Central Tax Court may grant the defendant temporary release.

For trial proceedings, the Central Tax Court may select among three venues or modalities: hearings at the Central Tax Court in Bangkok, assignment of a Central Tax Court judge to preside at the local provincial court, and hearings conducted by videoconference, with the parties appearing at the provincial court under supervision and the proceeding being legally deemed to have occurred in the Central Tax Court’s courtroom. Witness testimony may likewise be taken remotely in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

Provincial courts may manage preliminary steps, such as serving complaints and recording pleas, but do not adjudicate the merits.

For defendants in the provinces, this framework offers greater convenience for pretrial matters at the local court, while preserving centralized adjudication through flexible in-person, traveling-judge, or videoconference formats.

Parallel Civil and Criminal Tracks

In many tax disputes, both civil cases (such as appeals against tax assessments) and criminal cases (such as allegations of tax evasion) can arise from the same set of facts. The regulations maintain clear procedural separation of the cases in such a scenario. Parties facing both types of cases must plan and resource parallel litigation strategies, each with distinct timelines, filings, and evidentiary demands.

Practical Considerations

The regulations modernize Thailand’s tax litigation framework by accelerating case management, tightening evidentiary discipline, and extending the Tax Court’s reach to criminal matters with clear procedures and interim provincial court support.

Success under the new regime turns on preparation. Parties must ensure that all original documents, electronic media, and physical evidence are compiled, validated, and ready for submission well in advance of the 15-day witness list deadline. For criminal matters arising outside Bangkok, parties should anticipate local pretrial engagement at provincial courts and be prepared for trials to proceed either at the Central Tax Court, before a traveling tax judge, or via videoconference deemed to take place in the Central Tax Court’s courtroom.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
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