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​ 

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
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More
December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More