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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a