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​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More