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​ 

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
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More