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​ 

July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More
July 14, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published guidelines establishing a risk-based framework for the responsible use of artificial intelligence by telecom licensees. Released on July 2, 2026, the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Telecommunications Services address governance structures, ethical principles, lifecycle management, and consumer protection obligations. Scope and Legal Context The nonbinding guidelines apply to holders of telecom business licenses under Thailand’s telecom licensing laws, but only with respect to the use of AI in providing licensed telecom services. Entities without such licenses are not directly subject to the guidelines, though they may be affected as third-party AI solution providers to licensees. The guidelines supplement and should be read alongside existing laws, including the Cybersecurity Act, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), the Computer Crime Act, and the NBTC Notification regarding Measures to Protect Telecommunications Service Users’ Rights Regarding Personal Data, Privacy Rights, and Freedom of Telecommunications, as well as forthcoming AI governance legislation being drafted by the ETDA. AI Governance Structure Licensees are expected to establish committees, working groups, or designated officers at both policy and operational levels to set strategic direction for AI use, formulate governance policies and tools, and oversee risk management. Roles, responsibilities, and accountability should be clearly defined for all personnel across every stage of the AI lifecycle—including for third-party AI solution providers and outsourced service providers, whose obligations should be explicitly documented in service agreements. Core Principles The guidelines identify six core principles that licensees should adhere to when deploying AI: Compliance with laws, ethics, and international standards: AI should respect privacy, dignity, and human rights, and content filtering for inputs and outputs should be considered. For example, the AI should not be designed and developed to be used in generating false information, supporting illegal activities, or causing
Read More
July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each
Read More