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 18, 2012

Thailand: Strengthening Anti-Corruption Measures and the Public Procurement Process

Subscribe to Updates
TRACE International

Thailand’s ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) is further evidence the Kingdom intends to ramp up its anti-corruption measures in a bid to facilitate the prosecution of offenders and increase transparency in its public procurement process.

The ratification of the UNCAC on March 31, 2011, seven years after Thailand’s signing made it the 149th State Party of the UNCAC, has significantly led to the first amendment of the Organic Act on Counter-Corruption (OACC), which is the core anti-corruption legislation, in 10 years.

The UNCAC requires that national legislation be amended to comply with its principles, and the Thai government has moved towards implementing the required changes. One significant amendment has been to allow the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), one of the country’s anti-corruption agencies, to set up conditions under which contractors of large public projects must provide detailed income and expenditure accounts, and submit such information to the Department of Revenue for checking, thereby raising the transparency levels of what had previously been opaque procurement contracts.

Thailand is renowned for its lack of transparency with respect to procurement contracts with government agencies, and numerous cases have been exposed over the past decade highlighting such fallibilities in its public procurement system. For example, the scandal surrounding the Suvarnabhumi Airport scanners is just one notable case.  In most instances, these scandals involved foreign companies or individuals, who were required to face charges in their home countries.

However, due to the involvement of numerous agencies, and the lack of enforcement in general, most alleged corrupt public servants in Thailand are still under investigation, and the foreign companies or individuals responsible for handing out the bribes have yet to face any legal action in Thailand.

An NACC study revealed that only 15 cases of allegedly corrupt activities were brought to court in Thailand between 2000 and 2011.

The most recent scandals, which were widely disclosed by Thai news organizations, involved a burglary at the house of the former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, and the flood aid package scandal.

The first case involved the former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, Supoth Sablom, who claimed on November 11, 2011, that his home had been burgled. Two of the burglars who were arrested claimed to have found THB 1 billion (around USD 34 million) in his house, although they had only been able to make off with THB 200 million (around USD 6.8 million). Sablom denied these claims, and the case remains under investigation. The NACC has frozen THB 18 million recovered from the burglars, and stated that connections had been found linking the money and some project contractors from the Ministry of Transport. As of today, however, the names of the foreign companies involved have still not been disclosed to the press.

With regard to the flood package scandal in November 2011, the Department of Special Investigation (equivalent to the FBI) claimed several officials from the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation were involved in a number of suspicious procurements of aid packages from two private limited companies. This case has been forwarded to the NACC, and it joins the list of cases still pending further investigation.

The two above cases do not fall under the transparency requirements laid out by two recently adopted notifications that apply only to  government contracts executed from January 1, 2012:

  • The Notification re: Rules and Procedures Concerning the Preparation and Disclosure of Revenue and Expense Accounts of Projects in which Individuals or Juristic Entities Are Contractual Parties with Government Agencies.
  • The Notification re: Filing of Revenue and Expenditure Statements of Projects Owned by Individuals or Juristic Entities who are State Agencies’ Contractual Parties.

Under these notifications, private sector entities (including individuals, Thai companies, and foreign companies with a local presence) that enter into procurement contracts with government agencies (including state enterprises) are required to prepare, and electronically submit, annual revenue and expense accounts to the Revenue Department, as well as their Corporate Income Tax Returns for juristic entities.

The introduction of a relatively low threshold for reporting means that all government procurement contracts with a minimum value of THB 500,000 (around USD 17,050) will be subject to the disclosure requirement. Businesses will also be required to submit one revenue and expense account for each contract, and must retain supporting documents for at least five years.

The notifications also state that government agencies should set a condition requiring businesses that enter into procurement contracts to receive and make payment via a current account, with the exception of payments below THB 30,000 (around USD 1,020), which can be made in cash.

However, it remains questionable whether these new transparency requirements are sufficient to reduce corrupt procurement contract-related activities in Thailand, as the proliferation of laws to consider, and numerous enforcement agencies, render it difficult for forceful actions to be taken.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 3, 2025
Recent high-profile corporate fraud and accounting scandals have brought increased scrutiny to governance, compliance, and enforcement practices in Thailand, highlighting the legal and practical challenges facing companies operating in the country. As regulators and law enforcement authorities sharpen their focus on financial misconduct, cybercrime, and corruption, businesses must navigate a complex and evolving investigative landscape. Tilleke & Gibbins’ investigations and compliance team examines these issues in the Thailand chapter of The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations – Tenth Edition, published by Global Investigations Review (GIR). The chapter provides a detailed overview of Thailand’s legal framework for corporate investigations, offering practical guidance for companies and counsel responding to regulatory and criminal scrutiny. The Thailand chapter covers key topics including corporate criminal liability, enforcement priorities, internal investigations, data protection considerations, dawn raids, whistleblowing, cyber-related investigations, and cross-border cooperation. It also addresses emerging issues such as cybersecurity enforcement, economic sanctions compliance, and anticipated developments affecting investigations in Thailand. The chapter is authored by John Frangos, Chitchai Punsan, Alongkorn Tongmee, Michael Ramirez, Piyawat Vitooraporn, and Michelle McLeod. The Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below, and the full guide can be accessed on the GIR website.
Read More
September 11, 2025
Thailand traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money. Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No. Any Egmont members? Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group. Regulation The relevant law, known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the Act), was passed in March 1999 with the aim of combating not only the drug trade but also other illicit activities, such as corruption, criminal fraud and prostitution. There have been a number of changes and updates to the Act, the most recent one in late 2015, in which the Act was amended to include: Additional predicate offences such as offences relating to human trafficking, online gambling and offences relating to unfair practices relating to derivatives and agricultural commodity futures. Broader scope of money laundering offence. Non-disclosure obligations to applicable financial institutions and reporting entities. Compulsory training to financial institutions and reporting entities’ employees responsible to monitor and ensure compliance with the Act. Retention period. Enhanced penalties Additionally, discussions did take place mooting further changes to the Act, set out in 2020 and 2021 drafts. Proposed changes included suggestions to expand the definitions of financial institutes, predicate offences and professions, as well as to impose greater reporting and due diligence responsibilities on companies subject to the Act. However, recent amendments to the Act in 2022 only included minor procedural and substantive changes that did not materially alter or expand the Act. The most notable amendments were changes to an injured party’s rights to claim damages caused by a predicate offence and the rights of beneficiaries claiming assets seized by the government in connection with a predicate offence. Financial intelligence unit Of the total number of transactions reported to AMLO annually,
Read More
August 1, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Corporate Governance 2025, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This respected guide offers comprehensive, jurisdiction-specific overviews of corporate governance laws and practices around the world. Each jurisdictional chapter follows a clear Q&A format, providing practical insights into critical issues such as: Sources of corporate governance regulation Shareholders’ rights, powers, and responsibilities Structure and duties of management bodies Stakeholder involvement in governance Transparency and reporting requirements ESG and sustainability-related obligations Cybersecurity and technology-related disclosures The Vietnam chapter was authored by Tram Ngoc Bich Nguyen, Truc Thi Thanh Tran, Dung Thi Phuong Le, and Quang Minh Vu, members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ corporate and commercial team in Ho Chi Minh City. The authors provide detailed analysis of Vietnam’s corporate governance framework, including recent developments such as the 2025 amendments to the Law on Enterprises requiring disclosure of ultimate beneficial ownership and the increasing emphasis on sustainable business practices and responsible corporate conduct. The chapter also discusses practical considerations for foreign investors in Vietnam, such as overlapping signing authorities between key company officers, enforcement of shareholders’ agreements, and disclosure obligations related to ownership and management roles. The complete Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF below. The Vietnam chapter—and the full Corporate Governance 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More