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

March 31, 2017

Responding to Fraud: A Private Sector Approach to International Asset Recovery

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Fraud poses a major problem not only for its victims, but also for the economy as a whole. Today we are seeing more and more cases of large-scale and serious acts of fraud in the headlines. Indeed, with the rapid communications and transactions that take place around the world every day, fraudulent statements, asset misappropriation, white-collar crime, Ponzi schemes, and corruption can occur at any time in any jurisdiction.

After fraud takes place, the perpetrators may face both criminal and civil penalties. In a criminal matter where the public prosecutor is the plaintiff, an injured person is entitled to compensation for physical or mental harm, deprivation of physical liberty, damage to reputation, or damage to property.

In a civil matter, the affected party can seek compensation for damages or the return of stolen assets. The ultimate goal of civil proceedings is not to obtain a criminal punishment against the wrongdoer (such as a prison term or fine), but to locate, seize, and recover stolen assets for the legitimate owner.

If the stolen asset has been transferred out of Thailand to other jurisdictions, the traditional recovery approach for fraud victims—whether individuals, businesses, or government agencies—is through criminal law channels. In Thailand, the Act on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters B.E. 2535 (1992) provides a legal framework for seeking assistance from, or providing assistance to, a foreign state in the investigation, inquiry, prosecution, forfeiture of property, and other proceedings relating to criminal matters.

Under the Act, a government agency representing a victim in seeking assistance from a foreign state must submit its request and all supporting documents to the “central authority,” either the Attorney General or a designee. If the request is approved, the government agency will then contact appropriate agencies in the foreign country to investigate and initiate forfeiture proceedings of stolen assets on the victim’s behalf.

However, asset recovery by the public sector is often a lengthy process due to the diplomatic and bureaucratic formalities involved. Successful asset recovery requires swift action. Often, by the time a foreign state confirms its willingness to help, the stolen asset may have already been transferred to a different country, requiring the government agency representing a victim to start the process all over again.

But fraud victims can consider an alternative approach to overcome the limitations of asset recovery by the public sector. Victims can seek assistance via the private sector, specifically international law firms, international professional service companies, or international business or legal organizations.

These organizations can possess considerable experience in locating, seizing, and recovering stolen assets in private fraud cases. They are also able to operate swiftly and in multiple jurisdictions due in part to their focus on civil, rather than criminal, proceedings in local courts and their presence in many countries.

A private sector organization undertaking an asset recovery case will assemble an asset recovery team, led by an attorney and comprising other legal professionals, which may include investigators, forensic accountants, and expert local counsel. The team begins by conducting an investigation to identify the perpetrator of the fraud, as well as tracking and locating the stolen assets.

During the course of the investigation, the team will work with civil courts in local jurisdictions to implement a variety of legal actions, such as the Anton Piller or Banker’s Trust orders, gag and seal orders, search and seizures, asset freezing, etc.

(An Anton Piller order, named for the plaintiff in a 1975 UK case involving theft of trade secrets, is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning, in order to prevent destruction of evidence. A Bankers Trust order, based on another British case in the 1970s, is intended to identify a defendant by ordering disclosure by a third party that may have unknowingly helped the wrongdoer.)

When the perpetrator has been identified, the team will work with local courts, often in multiple jurisdictions, to freeze the perpetrator’s assets to prevent sale or transfer, and to initiate civil proceedings for asset liquidation and victim compensation.

Civil proceedings have been used effectively in many cross-border cases in which it was difficult to criminally charge accused persons due to the defendants’ absence or the inability to obtain evidence from a foreign state. Civil proceedings require a lower burden of proof, and allow for absent defendants to be tried so long as they have been properly served notice.

One example of a successful private sector asset recovery organization is FraudNet, a network of specialized asset recovery lawyers and law firms in over 60 countries, founded in 2004 by the Commercial Crime Services unit of the International Chamber of Commerce.

In one notable case, FraudNet assisted a victim in tracing assets to the Cayman Islands, where the assets were fraudulently disposed by individuals from multiple jurisdictions. Working with local courts, the asset recovery team was able to secure a freezing injunction of over USD 80 million in assets and to locate and recover an additional USD 10 million deposited in local financial institutions for the client.

Asset recovery by the private sector provides another option for fraud victims seeking to regain their financial assets in jurisdictions outside Thailand, and illustrates how civil proceedings can be applied to obtain favorable outcomes.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

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