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​ 

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 8, 2025
As Thailand transitions into an aged society, retirement policy and workplace protections for older workers have come into sharper focus. With public sentiment increasingly open to working beyond the traditional retirement age, questions about employee rights and employer obligations are more relevant than ever. In October 2025, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul proposed increasing the statutory retirement age to 65 for government officers, citing Thailand’s aged-society status and the potential social and economic benefits of longer working lives. While academics and stakeholders have raised concerns about systemic impacts, public opinion remains divided, with many workers signaling a willingness to continue working beyond the current norm. Against this backdrop, it’s worth revisiting what the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) requires in regard to retirement and severance pay. This article explains the current legal landscape under the LPA, with a focus on retirement and severance pay for employees over 60, recent judicial developments, and practical options for structuring postretirement engagements. Retirement as Termination Under the LPA Under the LPA, retirement—whether set by agreement between employer and employee or unilaterally stipulated by the employer—is deemed a termination of employment. As a result, employees who retire under such terms are entitled to severance pay. The law also adds a default rule: if there is no agreed or prescribed retirement age, or if the prescribed retirement age exceeds 60, an employee aged 60 or older may declare an intention to retire. The declaration takes effect 30 days after notice, and the employer must pay severance accordingly. In short, retirement triggered by agreement, the employer’s work rules, or an employee’s valid notice is treated as a termination, and statutory severance pay is owed. Hiring or Rehiring Employees Over 60 Practical issues arise when an employer’s work rules set a retirement age that does not
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
December 3, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter to Litigation 2026, published by Chambers and Partners. Litigation 2026 provides an overview of litigation procedures and practices across numerous jurisdictions. The guide is a key reference for businesses, in-house counsel, and legal professionals seeking to understand and compare litigation frameworks around the world. The Thailand chapter delivers analysis of 14 core areas of litigation, including: General characteristics of the legal system and court structure Litigation funding options and requirements Procedures for initiating lawsuits and pre-trial steps Discovery processes and injunctive relief Trial procedures and rules on evidence Settlement mechanisms and enforcement Damages and judgment considerations Appeal processes and cost issues Alternative dispute resolution and arbitration Developments and future outlook for dispute resolution in Thailand Each section offers practical guidance on navigating Thailand’s litigation landscape, providing useful context for international businesses and legal practitioners involved in dispute resolution matters. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides deliver expert commentary on key practice areas across jurisdictions, allowing readers to compare legislation, procedures, and practical considerations relevant to business operations. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the full Litigation 2026 guide is available free of charge on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More