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​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More