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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 24, 2025
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), a division of Thailand’s Office of the Judiciary, has taken a step toward harmonizing the tools available for dispute resolution. On August 8, 2025, the institute formally launched the TAI Mediation Center (TAI-MC). Although the amendments to TAI’s Arbitration Rules that will govern the TAI-MC have not yet been finalized, the framework now under consideration suggests that TAI is positioning itself to become a more attractive venue for commercial dispute resolution. In the regime contemplated under the current version of the amendments, TAI proceedings will adopt an “arbitration-annexed mediation” mechanism—commonly termed the “Med-Arb” model—while preserving the procedural safeguards indispensable to arbitral neutrality. Mediation will be entrusted to a separate, dedicated mediator appointed under the TAI-MC who is precluded from serving on the arbitral tribunal in the same matter. By clearly separating the functions of mediator and arbitrator, the institute eliminates any risk that confidential information disclosed during mediation could influence the adjudicatory outcome if the parties do not settle. Only when all parties subsequently make a request may that same mediator assume arbitral duties in the case. The parties will retain substantial autonomy in selecting the mediator. They may either designate a mediator by mutual consent or invite the TAI-MC to appoint one from its authorized panel. TAI has announced its intention to curate that panel with particular emphasis on commercial expertise and cross-cultural negotiation skills, supplemented by ongoing professional training. Where the parties cannot agree on remuneration, the mediator’s fee will default to a tariff comparable to the TAI-MC’s cost schedule, which under the current version of the amendments will be approximately THB 45,000 for disputes in which the aggregate claims do not exceed THB 10 million, with incremental increases tied to higher claim values. This predictable cost matrix is aimed at enhancing
October 24, 2025
In Vietnam, litigation is generally treated as a last resort in dispute resolution. Businesses often strive to avoid court proceedings, given the potential for disrupted relationships, higher costs, and lengthy timelines. Yet, litigation is sometimes unavoidable, whether to secure a remedy or respond to a claim. Familiarity with Vietnam’s court system and procedures is therefore crucial for any party involved in such matters. Civil Litigation in Vietnam offers a concise overview of the country’s civil court system and litigation process. The guide a highlights essential points for navigating legal disputes in Vietnam, whether as a plaintiff or a defendant. Tilleke & Gibbins also publishes a similar guide for Thailand. The full Civil Litigation in Vietnam guide is available as a PDF through the button below.
October 20, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Yangon office have contributed Employment and Employee Benefits in Myanmar: Overview, a Q&A-style guide published by Thomson Reuters Practical Law. The resource provides a concise overview of key legal and practical considerations for employers operating in Myanmar and reflects the country’s most recent regulatory developments in employment law. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Scope of employment regulation: Application of Myanmar labor laws to foreign nationals and Myanmar citizens working abroad. Employment status: Classification of workers, statutory employment rights, and requirements for official employment contracts. Regulation of the employment relationship: Mandatory contract provisions, collective agreements, and procedures for amending employment terms. Wages and working hours: National minimum wage updates, overtime rules, and leave entitlements. Termination of employment: Notice requirements, severance payments, and protections against dismissal. Discrimination and harassment: Statutory protections and remedies under Myanmar labor law. Health and safety: Employer obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Law and related regulations. Tax and social security: Income tax rates for resident and non-resident employees, and mandatory employer and employee contributions. Intellectual property and post-employment restrictions: Ownership of employee-created IP and enforceability of non-compete clauses. Practical Law, a leading legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a wide range of comparative guides for jurisdictions and practice areas worldwide. Its Employment and Employee Benefits series provides practical insights into employment law regimes across numerous countries. To view the latest version of the Myanmar overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in a free trial for full access.
October 15, 2025
Myanmar’s National Committee for Setting the Minimum Wage has introduced another MMK 1,000 daily allowance for private-sector workers, bringing the total minimum daily wage to MMK 7,800 (approx. USD 3.72). Notification No. 1/2025 marks the third such increase in recent years as the government continues adjusting compensation across both public and private sectors. Although the notification was issued on October 14, 2025, it takes retroactive effect from October 1, 2025. Current Minimum Wage Structure In May 2018, the committee established a base minimum wage of MMK 4,800 (approximately USD 2.29) for an eight-hour workday (MMK 600 per hour), applying to all workers regardless of location or job type. The committee has subsequently announced additional daily allowances for private-sector workers: MMK 1,000 effective October 1, 2023, and another MMK 1,000 effective August 1, 2024. With the latest MMK 1,000 daily allowance from October 1, 2025, the total additional allowance reaches MMK 3,000, resulting in a new combined minimum daily wage of MMK 7,800. Alignment with Public Sector Increases The new allowance aligns with increases granted to government personnel. The Ministry of Finance and Revenue’s Notification No. 110/2025 previously granted monthly increases of MMK 30,000 to service and Tatmadaw personnel starting in October 2023 and August 2024. With the latest increase effective October 1, 2025, the total monthly allowance for these personnel now amounts to MMK 90,000. Daily wage employees in government departments received MMK 1,000 increases in the same periods, totaling MMK 3,000 in daily allowances—mirroring the private-sector adjustment. Key Implementation Details The latest announcement confirms several important aspects of the allowance structure: Employees are entitled to the base wage and additional allowances during their entitled leave and holidays, in accordance with the 1951 Leave and Holidays Act. The MMK 3,000 daily allowance is excluded from overtime calculations, which must