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​ 

April 25, 2025
Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged:
Read More
April 3, 2025
Thailand has proposed amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) as the country steps up its efforts to combat economic crimes and corruption. One of the primary objectives of the amendments is to enhance the effectiveness of measures curbing the use of nominees to help foreign nationals operate restricted or prohibited businesses in violation of the law. If these proposed updates are implemented, they will substantially strengthen existing legislation related to the use of nominees and bribing government officials, including officials of foreign governments and international organizations. These offenses would be treated as predicate violations under the amended legislation. The draft amendments are currently open for a public comment period, which is set to conclude on April 25, 2025. Highlights of the proposed amendments are detailed below. Predicate Offenses The draft amendments propose adding the concept of a “predicate offense” covering the following: Bribery: Giving, offering, or promising to give assets or benefits to Thai or foreign public officials, or officials of international organizations. Acting as a nominee: Assisting, supporting, or engaging in the business operations of a foreign national who is not permitted to operate that business; jointly operating a business with a foreign national under the guise that it is solely owned by the Thai national; or holding shares on behalf of a foreign national in a partnership, limited company, or any other legal entity to help the foreign national conduct business without the permits required under the Foreign Business Act. Under the draft amendments, Thai individuals or juristic persons who have agreed to take any of these actions, as well as foreign nationals who allow such assistance in their business operations, will be liable for committing a predicate offense under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The draft proposes a prescription period of 15 years from
Read More
April 3, 2025
On February 26, 2025, Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) issued a notification titled “Criteria for Individuals Living Together as Husband and Wife that Are Considered as De Facto Spouses (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025).” This new notification, published in the Government Gazette on March 7, 2025, took effect retroactively from January 22, 2025. Prior to this notification, the term “spouses” specifically included “individuals living together as husband and wife” without registering marriage, referring to similar language at the time in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code. However, it was unclear whether this term included same-sex and other nontraditional couples. After the Marriage Equality Act revised this language in the Civil and Commercial Code to only refer to “spouses” (with a gender-neutral Thai word), the NACC took the opportunity to issue a new notification that simply replaces any mention of “husband and wife” with “spouses,” thereby removing the ambiguity. As a result, this new notification covers same-sex de facto spouses of politicians and high-ranking officials. These spouses’ assets must now be declared together with the officials’ assets. Additionally, same-sex de facto spouses of state officials are prohibited from engaging in business with the Thai government that may present conflicts of interest. Importantly, the notification also impacts the interpretation of the Office of the Prime Minister’s (OPM) Regulation on the Giving or Receiving of Gifts by Public Officials B.E. 2565 (2022). In this regard, same-sex de facto spouses of government officials are now also prohibited from accepting gifts or other benefits related to official duties. This is because the OPM regulation references the NACC definitions when defining “family members” to include “de facto husband and wife.” Under the OPM regulation, public officials and their supervisors are strictly prohibited from permitting or condoning family members’ acceptance of gifts or other benefits related to
Read More
March 6, 2025
On February 18, 2025, the Thai Senate approved an amendment to the Act on the Establishment of and Procedures for the Tax Court. This follows the July 2024 approval by the Thai cabinet and subsequent preparation of supporting secondary legislation. This important amendment to procedural law, once it takes effect, will extend the exclusive jurisdictional powers of the Tax Court to all criminal tax, customs, and excise tax claims in addition to the court’s existing jurisdiction over all such civil claims. The amendment, while now formally approved by the legislature, is awaiting the king’s signature and will take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. Based upon its projected publication date, the amendment will likely take effect by the end of the third quarter of this year. This development is set to offer a more sophisticated Tax Court litigation process for highly specialized and often complex criminal tax and customs claims, something with which Thailand’s traditional criminal courts have struggled. It also ensures that all tax and customs matters are adjudicated before the same court, saving time, party costs, and judicial resources. This appears likely to result in more consistent adjudication of criminal tax and customs disputes, a benefit for the Thai government and party litigants alike. Any ongoing criminal tax and customs claims already commenced with the respective criminal courts on the date on which the amendment becomes effective will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of those criminal courts. The Tax Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over all other claims. This important legislative change offers those managing or otherwise facing civil and/or criminal Thai tax or customs disputes the opportunity to more effectively plan and execute a uniform defense strategy before a single, qualified forum.
Read More