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 21, 2015

Thailand’s New Debt Collection Law Provides a Measure of Protection

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Debt collection has long been associated with deceptive and unscrupulous practices. In Thailand, it is not uncommon to hear stories of collectors tricking debtors into paying by giving false information or even resorting to abusive language, violence, and blackmail.

In an effort to stamp out these practices, the National Legislative Assembly has passed the Debt Collection Act. The new law, which will take effect on September 2, seeks to establish fair and standardized collection rules. It applies to all debt collectors, from institutional lenders such as banks to individual creditors. Importantly, however, while it applies to individual debtors, debtor companies are not protected by the law.

Under the law, the way creditors collect debts will be more tightly regulated. Debtors will also have increased protection and rights.

The law defines “debt collector” as a creditor who makes a loan to a debtor. The debt can be legal or illegal. In other words, even loan sharks are subject to the Act.

Further, a creditor’s authorized representative (such as an attorney), a debt collection agency, and its authorized representative are all categorized as “debt collectors.” A “debt collection business” means any business hired to collect a debt, directly or indirectly. Lawyers who collect debts for clients are not considered a “debt collection business.”

A “debtor” means any natural person obligated to pay a debt. This includes an individual debt guarantor.

Under the law, debt collectors can only communicate with the debtor or another person authorized by the debtor (such as a lawyer). A collector can only contact third parties to acquire information or learn the debtor’s location. The collector is also limited to identifying himself or herself and inquiring about the debtor’s whereabouts to a third party. The collector cannot tell the third party that the debtor owes a debt unless the third party is a spouse, parent, or child of the debtor.

The collector is also required to communicate confidentially with the third party. He or she cannot use any language, symbol, mark, or business name of the debt collector on any correspondence that may indicate the communication is related to debt collection.

The collector can contact the debtor only between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday to Friday and between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on holidays. The collector can also only contact the debtor at a place indicated by the debtor.

Attorneys for debt collectors must state their names, agency, creditors’ names, and the debt amount. If the collector seeks to collect the debt in person or demands performance, he or she must show his or her power of attorney to the debtor. If the debtor pays the debt, the collector must give the debtor evidence of payment such as a receipt.

When collectors try to collect a debt, they cannot do the following:

  • Threaten to use violence against the debtor or any action that injures the body, property, or reputation of the debtor;
  • Notify and disclose any debt of the debtor to third parties who are not related to the collection;
  • Use profane or other language that insults the hearer or reader;
  • Use false information to deceive a debtor—for example, by falsely claiming to have a court order or be a state official or lawyer, or by falsely threatening to seize the debtor’s assets or salary.

In addition, and much like when contacting third parties, collectors cannot disclose that the nature of their communication is to collect a debt. They cannot contact debtors by postcard, open letter, fax, or any other “non-discreet” method that shows the communication is related to collection.

Moreover, even if the communication is discreet, the collector can only indicate the collector’s business name—as long as it does not indicate the business is a debt collector.

The collector cannot collect any fees or expenses over an official limit set by the Committee Governing Debt Collection, appointed under the Act. Also, the collector cannot convince a debtor to pay by check if the collector knows the debtor cannot afford the debt.

Failure to comply with the law is a criminal offense. Anyone who is aware of a violation can report it to a district office or police station. A collector who threatens or causes injury to a debtor’s person, property, or reputation can be fined up to THB 500,000 and/or jailed for up to five years.

Individual directors, managers, and representatives of corporate debt collectors can also be criminally liable. If a juristic person violates the law, and the offense falls within the scope of duty of the director, manager, or representative, these individuals can be punished for the same offense as that committed by that juristic person.

While the best way for debtors to minimize the risk of dealing with unscrupulous collectors is to borrow from reputable lenders, the Debt Collection Act provides a measure of protection for those who do not have this option. Prudent lenders should understand the law.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
In the Thailand contribution to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, four members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok labor and employment team outline key aspects of dispute resolution in Thailand. Their analysis, part of Lexology Panoramic’s comparative guide covering jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the following areas: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as