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

October 2, 2015

Termination for Serious Fraud: Tamping Out Smoldering Embers

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Fraud, which is both a civil and criminal wrong, involves a deliberate deception to secure an unfair or unlawful gain. Employees commit fraud of varying degrees for many reasons including financial, peer pressure, and patronage obligations. In Thailand, most employee fraud is viewed as minor and goes unpunished even if detected. Serious fraud is another matter.

When an employer uncovers serious acts of fraud, termination often results. But it is important to understand that regardless of the seriousness of the employee’s conduct, the employer must still follow the provisions of the Labor Protection Act, the employer’s own internal procedures, and other laws to reduce the risk of the employee suing the company.

Terminating an employee for fraud involves investigation, termination, and follow-up.

Investigation

An investigation is used to gather facts to prove the employee engaged in fraudulent conduct. From the court’s perspective, the most reliable evidence to prove fraud is an unbroken chain of documents showing each step of the fraud. This evidence should be supported by statements of other employees or involved persons.

To conduct a proper investigation without interference from the suspected fraudster, the company may wish to remove him or her by using a suspension, which is authorized under the Labor Protection Act and usable if it appears in the company’s work rules.

The employee must be given written notice of the suspension, and the nature of the wrongdoings must be stated. The suspension should not be more than seven days, and the company must pay the employee at least half wages during the period. If the suspension does not result in a termination or other disciplinary action, the employer must pay the unpaid wages with interest. Another alternative is to suspend the employee indefinitely with full pay.

Termination

If the investigation results in clear and convincing evidence concluding the employee has committed fraud, the next step is termination. The two most important aspects of termination are the notice of termination and payment to the employee upon termination.

The notice of termination should always be in writing and clearly and specifically state the conduct of the employee that provided the basis for termination. Employers should never terminate the employee verbally or accept a verbal resignation from an employee under investigation for fraud.

The second aspect of termination is payment. Termination for serious cause under Section 119 of the Labor Protection Act is often misunderstood by employers to mean they do not have to pay anything to the employee upon termination. In actuality, the employer is only exempted from statutory severance pay and payment in lieu of advance notice. This means the employer may still be required to pay the employee for accrued and unused annual leave or other obligations. Failure to make such payments at termination may result in civil or criminal liability.

Of course, the employer must follow not only the law but also the company’s own internal procedures and work rules.

Follow-up

The final phase of a termination is follow-up. This may involve filing police reports, seeking the return of company property, and updating human resource records. A debriefing of involved staff members and affected employees is also helpful to keep morale up and otherwise bring closure to the situation.

Uncovering fraud can result in snap decisions and terminations, and the employer’s natural inclination is to remove the employee from any access to company property to prevent further damage.

The most basic rule for making a decision on termination is that a decision should not be made by any one individual but rather be reviewed by the employee’s direct supervisor, department head, and human resource manager.

The best way to prevent a rash decision being made is to prepare a basic checklist in advance that multiple persons must sign off on:

  • The employee’s full name, biographical information, position, job description, performance, training, and prior discipline.
  • A confirmation of the employee’s knowledge of the standard of conduct or policy that was violated.
  • The assignment of an investigation team to conduct an unbiased investigation including interviewing witnesses.
  • A confirmation that the employee has had an opportunity to present his or her view.
  • The treatment of other employees who engaged in similar conduct in the same way.
  • The specific considerations and grounds for termination.
  • A list of all internal procedures to be followed.

While no amount of preparation and paperwork can guarantee an employee will not sue the company, employers can significantly reduce this risk by following procedures in a pre-prepared checklist and paying close attention to detail.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s cabinet approved in principle a draft amendment that would extend mandatory social security coverage to three categories of workers currently excluded from Thailand’s compulsory social security system. The amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Labour, would modify the Royal Decree Prescribing Businesses and Employees Excluded from the Social Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Newly Covered Workers The cabinet-approved proposal would remove the exclusions for the following three categories of employees, bringing them within Thailand’s mandatory social security system: Workers in seasonal cultivation (pho pluk), forestry (pa mai), and livestock (liang sat) businesses that do not employ workers year-round and whose operations do not include other types of business activities. Notably, fishery (pramong) workers were excluded from this amendment following objections raised at a Social Security Board meeting on April 30, 2025, because employers and employees in the fishery sector can already agree to opt into social security coverage under fishery labor laws. Domestic workers and other employees of individual employers where the work performed is not part of a business operation (e.g., housekeepers, gardeners, drivers). This group has actively demanded inclusion in the social security system. Workers employed in street-stall businesses operating fixed street stalls (kan kha phaeng loi). The rationale for including street-stall workers is that their employers have fixed, identifiable places of business that can be inspected. Accordingly, workers engaged in itinerant street hawking (kan kha re) remain excluded. The expanded coverage would apply to both Thai and foreign employees who possess valid identity documents and work permits, including migrant workers who have been granted special permission to work in Thailand. The Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) does not restrict social security registration based on nationality, allowing these workers to register as insured persons under section 33. Employer Obligations and Employee
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More