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

August 20, 2018

Thailand Passes New Anti-Corruption Law

Subscribe to Updates

A new anti-corruption law has come into effect in Thailand. Formally named the Act Supplementing the Constitution Relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018) (the “New Anti-Corruption Law”), it repeals and replaces the 1999 Organic Act on Counter Corruption and its various amendments (the “Old OACC”).

The New Anti-Corruption Law largely keeps in place the key 2015 amendments in the Old OACC that criminalize bribe-giving by legal entities. Under the new law, legal entities—including corporations—can be criminally liable for bribes given to Thai state officials, foreign state officials, and officials with intergovernmental organizations.  The legal entity is liable when the bribe is provided by an “associated person,” which can include employees, joint venture partners, agents, etc.

An important addition in the New Anti-Corruption Law is that the legal entities covered under the law now also include foreign juristic persons, meaning that it applies to organizations that are registered abroad but operating in Thailand. This would cover situations where a company may not have a physical presence in Thailand, but is using local agents to win government contracts, for example.

Similar to the Old OACC, the New Anti-Corruption Law also allows legal entities to reduce their liability if they have proper internal controls. In 2017, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (“NACC”), Thailand’s main anti-corruption enforcement agency, released a set of guidelines on what it deems to be appropriate internal controls under the law. These guidelines still apply under the New Anti-Corruption Law.

Punishment for bribery by corporations also remains the same in the new law. A legal entity can be punished with a fine of at least an equal amount of the benefit received from the corrupt act, but not more than twice the amount.

Another important change in the New Anti-Corruption Law involves NACC investigations. In the new law, the process by which the NACC can seek international cooperation in their investigations is streamlined. The NACC can also refer matters to its foreign counterparts. These changes are important, as anti-corruption investigations frequently cross borders and involve a number of countries and regulatory authorities. In these circumstances, the NACC can work with their foreign counterparts to obtain evidence and help build a criminal case against the bribe-givers and recipients in Thailand.

The New Anti-Corruption law also introduces a government-subsidized fund called the “National Anti-Corruption Fund.” The purpose of the fund is to support the NACC’s investigation costs, provide rewards to informants, and raise anti-corruption awareness in the Thai society.

The New Anti-Corruption Law comes in the wake of a number of high-profile corruption cases involving Thailand. Over the past few years, regulatory authorities in the U.S., U.K., and Japan have investigated corrupt activities involving multinationals paying bribes in Thailand. The New Anti-Corruption Law, and especially the expanded definition of legal entities, shows that the Thai government is seeking to further address the problem of corruption in Thailand. Companies doing business in Thailand should ensure compliance not just with international anti-corruption laws like the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and U.K. Bribery Act, but with Thai regulations as well.

Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
Read More
December 7, 2020
Thailand’s legal framework for preventing transactions that are deliberately designed to conceal the unlawful origin of funds is primarily contained within the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (AMLA), as amended. As international money laundering practices evolve and emerge over time, prevention measures must evolve with them. Therefore the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recently recommended amendments to the AMLA, along with the Counter Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Financing Act B.E. 2559 (2016) (CFTA), in order to be consistent with the latest international standards. The amendments passed through the public hearing stage on June 15, 2020, and the laws will now continue through the cabinet and parliament. Key Draft Amendments to the AMLA The definition of “financial institution” is expanded to include operators of many financial technology services, including: asset management and digital asset businesses; trustees in capital market trusts; derivatives businesses; authorized juristic persons under foreign exchange controls; personal loan businesses; nano- and pico-finance businesses; peer-to-peer lending businesses; crowdfunding platforms; regulated e-payment systems and services; non-bank credit card service providers; and additional businesses related to financial services or financial technology services at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations). The definition of “professions” (formerly known as “section-16 professions”) is expanded to include additional occupations and businesses, such as accounting, auditing, auto trading and leasing, legal consulting, and additional professions at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations). For cash transactions exceeding the prescribed threshold, parties in the listed professions are assigned recordkeeping duties in addition to their current reporting duties. The authority and power of the Anti-Money Laundering Office are expanded to include acting as a central financial intelligence agency to regulate, check, and rate the operations of companies and branches both within and outside of Thailand. Key
Read More
October 22, 2020
On 27 June 2020, Cambodia issued the new Law on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (‘the 2020 AML/CFT Law’), that abrogates both the 2007 law of the same name and the 2013 sub-decree that accompanied the former law. All other laws relevant to AML will remain in effect. Jay Cohen, Sochanmalisphoung Vannavuth, and Robin Spiess, of Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd., provide an overview of the 2020 AML/CFT Law, and how it differs from the 2007 in areas such as definitions and penalities.
Read More