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 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
September 2, 2025
On August 26, 2025, the Thai cabinet approved a one-year postponement of mandatory contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund. Originally scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2025, the enforcement date has been deferred to October 1, 2026. The decision to delay the implementation stems from ongoing economic uncertainties in Thailand, driven by several external and domestic factors. These include increased trade tariffs imposed by the United States, the recent rise in the national minimum wage, and continued geopolitical tensions resulting from unresolved disputes with neighboring countries. These challenges have placed significant pressure on both businesses and the labor market, prompting the government to offer temporary relief through this deferral. As a result of the postponement, the following regulations will now come into effect on October 1, 2026: Royal Decree determining the Commencement Period for Savings and Contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund; Ministerial Notification specifying the Rates of Savings and Contributions; and Ministerial Notification outlining the Criteria and Procedures for Employers to Provide Assistance in Cases of Termination of Employment or Death. The Labour Welfare Fund Committee has formally endorsed the postponement. Contribution Rates Unchanged Although the implementation has been delayed, the contribution rates remain unchanged: October 1, 2026–September 30, 2031: Employers and employees each contribute 0.25% of the employee’s wage to the fund. From October 1, 2031, onward: Contributions increase to 0.5% of the employee’s wage for both parties. All other rules and conditions concerning the Employee Welfare Fund remain in full effect.
Read More