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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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.
September 11, 2020
Cambodia’s new Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism Law (the “2020 AML/CFT Law”) came into force in June 2020, abrogating the 2007 law of the same name and the accompanying sub-decree from 2013.The 2020 AML/CFT Law differs in three major ways from the 2007 law: (1) more specific definitions, (2) a requirement for reporting entities to introduce enhanced due diligence measures, and (3) increased penalties for non-compliance.Altered Definitions of Legal Terms
September 10, 2020
By recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Thailand is preparing to amend the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (AMLA) and the Counter Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Financing Act B.E. 2559 (2016) in order to be consistent with international standards. The public hearing on the draft acts was completed on June 15, 2020, and the laws will now continue through the cabinet and parliament. Key Draft Amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Act