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 19, 2021

Thailand Changes its Statutory Interest Rate

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has made significant changes to its statutory interest rate framework for the first time in almost a century. Since 1925, the statutory interest rate codified in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (the CCC) has remained at 7.5% per year. But with Covid-19 having an unprecedented impact on the Thai economy, the Thai Government, via emergency decree, has reduced the statutory rate. While the decree is largely aimed at providing relief to hard-hit SMEs and individual debtors, the amendments have broader implications for doing business in Thailand.

Main Changes

The new interest rate revisions are contained within the Emergency Decree Amending the Civil and Commercial Code B.E. 2564 (2021) (the Emergency Decree), which was published in the Government Gazette on April 10, 2021 and came into effect on April 11, 2021. The Emergency Decree amends Sections 7 and 224 of the CCC, which stated the previous statutory interest rate of 7.5% per year.

The Emergency Decree makes three major changes. The first involves a reduction of the statutory interest rate from 7.5% per year to 3% per year in Section 7. The new 3% annual rate is subject to review every three years by the Ministry of Finance. The interest rate is subject to further change later by a royal decree.

The second change concerns money debts under Section 224 of the CCC. The previous version of Section 224 stated, among other things, that a money debt based on a default bears interest of 7.5% per year. Under the Emergency Decree, the new actual statutory default interest rate is the statutory interest rate stated in Section 7 with an additional rate of 2% per year. The result is a 5% annual statutory default interest rate. Since the statutory default interest rate is based in part on the Section 7 rate, any future change to the Section 7 rate will also affect the statutory default interest rate.

The third change relates to installment payments, and is made pursuant to a newly enacted Section 224/1 of the CCC. The Emergency Decree provides that the default interest rate can only be applied to the defaulted installment amount – not the unpaid principal. This is markedly different from the previous practice of charging default interest on the unpaid principal, in addition to the defaulted installment payment amount. Moreover, under the new Section 224/1, a contract clause that applies the default interest rate to the non-defaulted principal is null and void. As such, contract parties can no longer agree on charging a default interest rate on the full unpaid principal.

Implications

The new changes to the statutory interest rate framework affect financial loans, judgment debts (e.g. compensation for tort liability), and different types of commercial contracts. However, under the Emergency Decree, if an agreement already specifies the interest rate or a default interest rate, or if another specific law provides otherwise, the existing agreement and law would prevail. In other words, the parties can “contract out” of the statutory rate. However, parties cannot opt to apply any default interest rate on total unpaid debts, regardless of any default. The new amended statutory interest rate framework applies to defaults and debts that are due on or after April 11, 2021.

Tilleke & Gibbins is continuing to monitor the latest legal developments regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. For more details, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected]

Related Professionals

Industries

Aviation

Consumer Products

Energy

Insurance

Life Sciences

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 25, 2026
Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees. The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest. Scope and Key Provisions Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin. Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas: Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information. Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces. Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches. Personal Data Protection Penalties The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows: Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of
Read More
August 25, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) is studying potential new regulatory measures for digital platform services that could significantly expand the country’s digital platform governance framework. The ETDA has already conducted one public consultation session on the proposed measures and will hold additional sessions on August 25 and September 2, 2026, covering five types of platform services under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services B.E. 2565 (2022). The measures under study are preliminary and may be changed based on consultation outcomes. Foundational Measures Applicable to All Platform Types Seven baseline obligations would apply across all digital platform categories: Transparency reports. Platforms must prepare and publish statistical reports on platform governance activities, including the number of content items removed or restricted and appeal outcomes, in a comparable format. Notice and action mechanism. Platforms must establish minimum standards for channels to report potentially illegal content or goods, conduct case-by-case review, provide explanations when content is removed or restricted, and maintain an internal appeals channel. Rights over automated decision-making. Users significantly affected by automated decisions are granted rights to request an explanation, request human review, and contest the decision. Service level agreements (SLAs). Platforms must publish minimum standards for response times, processing timelines, progress notifications, and remedies for incidents on the platform. Labeling of AI-generated content. Content generated or modified by AI must carry visible labels and machine-readable metadata, with exceptions for creative works that disclose AI use in a nonmisleading manner. Prohibition of dark patterns. User interface designs that deceive, coerce, or distort user decision-making are prohibited, including hiding critical information, creating false urgency, or making service cancellation unreasonably difficult. Business user fairness. Platforms must meet minimum standards for the treatment of sellers, workers, and content creators, including advance notice of term changes, explanation of account suspensions or visibility reductions,
Read More