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

April 7, 2016

Tailoring Compliance Programs to Country-Specific Risks: Challenges in Thailand

TRACE Trends – A Compliance Conversation

The content below was first published on TRACE Trends – A Compliance Conversation, a blog published by TRACE International. Tilleke & Gibbins is the TRACE Partner Law Firm for Thailand.

Companies doing business in Thailand should be wary of corruption risks. While Thailand has made substantial recent progress in its efforts to combat corruption, the practice nonetheless persists in many aspects of business. As in other jurisdictions, companies that commonly utilize government contracts or regularly interact with officials are at special risk. Companies may be at risk for not only running afoul of Thailand’s recently updated anti-corruption laws, but also under foreign anti-corruption laws, such as the FCPA and UK Bribery Act.

Thailand has extensive anti-bribery legislation in place. In 2015, the government issued the latest amendment to the Thai Organic Act on Counter Corruption (OACC). The Amendments to the OACC provide that a company can be criminally liable for the bribery offenses of its employees, agents, and others acting on behalf of the company, even if the bribe-giver acted without the company’s authorization. Importantly, the OACC Amendments also state that if the company implements “proper internal measures” (i.e. a compliance program) to prevent the bribe, this would be a mitigating factor to limit or exclude liability. 

Thailand’s current government has made anti-corruption a core policy focus. Numerous investigations have been brought against public officials. For example, the former president and chairman of a state-owned bank was recently sentenced to 18 years in prison for various corruption-related offenses. While there have not yet been major anti-corruption investigations initiated against foreign companies in Thailand, this is likely to change, particularly given the current government’s stated commitment to more aggressive anti-corruption enforcement.

To minimize risks, companies should tailor internal compliance programs for the local Thai environment. One aspect of a tailored program is having controls in place to vet third-party agents and consultants, and to identify improper or potentially illegal behavior. Foreign-invested companies often rely on third-parties to liaise with officials for everything from securing contracts to dealing with law enforcement officials. A good local compliance program would ensure that those third-parties are properly vetted. The program would also red flag situations warranting further review, such as higher-than-expected official fees, entertainment expenses, questionable charitable contributions, and other similar payments.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 15, 2019
Cambodia’s steady, robust economic growth continues to draw foreign direct investment (FDI), in addition to increasing the purchasing power of the country’s population. The economy is diversifying as well, with investment expanding significantly beyond the garment industry and tourism sector. Both industry and construction are two sectors poised to make big gains in the coming year, and the economy as a whole is expected to maintain its impressive growth rate of approximately 7 percent.
October 2, 2019
This country profile looks at Thailand, which traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money.Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No.Any Egmont members?  Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group.Regulation
February 13, 2019
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.
December 18, 2018
Thomas Treutler, partner and managing director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ two offices in Vietnam, and Chuyen Hong Huu Le, an attorney-at-law in the firm’s corporate and commercial group in Ho Chi Minh City, have drawn on their well-versed understanding of anti-bribery and corruption law to provide a Vietnam report for Lex Mundi’s Anticorruption Compliance Guide .