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

February 13, 2019

Stock Manipulation and Class Actions in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Since 2017, the Anti Money Laundering Office (AMLO), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) have been engaged in an active drive to monitor and pursue many charges related to stock manipulation against high-level executives of security-issuing companies. These authorities, particularly the SEC, have the duties to regulate, monitor, and sanction any traders who act in contravention of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (the Act), which prohibits, among other things, insider trading and stock manipulation. Executives charged by the SEC for engaging in such conduct could be required to pay substantial civil fines, and could also be barred from holding an executive position in securities-issuing companies. Investors who suffer losses from such manipulations also have the right to file a claim against the stock manipulators to seek compensation.  

Stock Manipulation

Stock manipulations occur when a person with inside information causes stock to behave abnormally in order to manipulate its price or value. Principally, the Act prohibits anyone with inside information related to the securities-issuing company from purchasing or selling securities, or entering into a derivative contract with respect to the securities, for themselves or for others, except as allowed by law. The disclosure of inside information to another person, directly or indirectly, is also prohibited under the Act.

Certain groups of people are presumed under the Act to have inside information by the nature of their roles or positions in the company, including directors, executives, auditors, advisors, and employees who are responsible for or capable of accessing inside information. Any such persons found to have traded securities, or entered into derivatives contracts, in a different manner from their normal practice, are presumed to have known or possessed inside information.

The impact of insider trading can be substantial, and cautionary tales abound. In one very recent high-profile case, executives of a securities-issuing airline manipulated stocks by jointly trading shares with the public while trading shares among themselves by matching orders. The transaction appeared to the public to be a bid, thereby masking the true price and volume of securities being traded. This trading scheme caused the price and the volume of the shares to behave abnormally in the market, with the prices ultimately rising 22.5 percent.

The SEC charged the executives who participated in this scheme with offences under the Act, ordered them to pay massive civil fines (nearly USD 16 million in total), and barred them from becoming executives or directors of listed companies and securities-issuing companies.

Rights of Injured Investors to Claim through Class Actions

The fines and penalties in the case above are an example of the robust protections against unscrupulous trading practices in the arsenal of the SEC. However, the risks of insider trading no longer end with SEC sanctions. Recent legislation has also empowered affected investors to recover their losses from such practices directly.

In stock manipulation cases, even when vast sums have been unlawfully procured by a stock manipulator, the individual traders that have been misled may only have suffered comparatively small amounts of individual loss. This means that claim amounts have often been too small for investors to justify the cost of litigation.

Thailand’s recently enacted class action legislation, chiefly the Act to Amend the Civil Procedure Code (No.26) B.E. 2558 (2015), changes that, by allowing plaintiffs in cases related to securities and stock exchanges, including stock manipulation, to apply for class proceedings.

This means that a representative of a large group (or “class”) of injured parties can file a claim against the same defendant or defendants, on behalf of the group, in a single lawsuit. In a stock manipulation case for example, a class may include all those who purchased stock at an artificially inflated price. If the claim is successful, the damages awarded by the court can then be calculated based on the number of members of that class (if appropriate).

Strengthening that protection further, Thailand’s class action regime is an “opt-out” system, which allows for passive participation by class members. Class action cases are initiated and driven by lawyers and representatives of the class members who suffered similar losses, based on the same legal violations and other facts. When the parameters of such a class are fixed by the court, it will issue notices of proceedings to the class members. These notices include essential information such as a summary of claims, the details of claimants and lawyers, the rights of the class members, the binding effect of any court decision on those class members, and, crucially, the period for opting out from the proceedings. Those who do not do so are included in the plaintiff class, will be bound by the court’s decision, and will may be included in the multiplier for calculating the award of damages.

Once the class is fixed, the plaintiff benefits from all the tools of civil litigation, including a document discovery process, in which parties are required to disclose their documentary evidence and witnesses to the opposing party. Uniquely among Thai civil proceedings, class action legislation enhances this discovery process by granting the court powers to interrogate the parties prior to witness hearings, and to search for additional facts beyond what has been disclosed by the parties.

This means that in addition to facing substantial fines by the SEC, and being prevented from holding future executive positions, those involved in unscrupulous trading activities may also find themselves facing an enhanced civil litigation process culminating in an award of damages based on the losses of hundreds, or even thousands, of defendants.

This powerful advantage for wronged investors should encourage companies to be even more cautious in their approach to preventing insider trading. More importantly, this protection should increase the confidence of traders, large and small, seeking to trade in Thailand free from the fear of unrecoverable losses caused by shady dealings.

Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More