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​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only