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 11, 2023

The Phinai Fine and the Decriminalization of Various Offenses

Subscribe to Updates

A significant new procedural law for fines in Thailand results in the mass removal of certain types of fines for criminal penalties and alters procedures for certain administrative monetary penalties.

 

There are generally two types of fines imposed under Thai law: criminal fines and administrative fines. However, there will soon be a type of fine that exists outside of the criminal or administrative legal mechanisms: the phinai fine, which is neither a criminal penalty nor an administrative fine. Instead, a phinai fine—which must be paid to the state—is one assessed in lieu of criminal penalties for less-serious offenses.

Perhaps the closest equivalent to a phinai fine would be a “civil” fine, but there is no official translation of Thailand’s first law dedicated to these fines, the Act on Phinai Fine Proceedings B.E. 2565 (2022) (ACFP), which was published in the Government Gazette on October 25, 2022. Before proceeding further to discuss the significance of the new law, a note should be made regarding the term phinai. As there has been no official translation of the ACFP, there is currently no official translation of phinai. Under the ACFP, “to seek a phinai fine” (or prap pen phinai) was determined to have the specific meaning of ordering a phinai penalty offender to pay a phinai fine. The meaning of the term as defined reflects a type of phinai penalty, which is neither a criminal penalty nor an administrative fine. In the future, there is a possibility that the official translation of the ACFP may use a different term.

The passage of the ACFP provides Thailand with a special procedural law for all phinai fines, ultimately resulting in a significant change in the categorization and collection of fines and administrative monetary penalties. Other than two sections on administrative preparations that took effect the day after publication, the ACFP comes into full effect on June 22, 2023.

The ACFP clarifies that any proceedings related to seeking a phinai fine will not be considered as an administrative act, but also that a phinai fine is not a type of criminal penalty. By separating these types of proceedings from the usual administrative and criminal legal mechanisms, the ACFP provides a separate set of legal procedures applying to violations for which the law specifically imposes a phinai fine.

The imposition of a fine is a criminal sanction under criminal law in Thailand. Along with death, imprisonment, confinement and forfeiture of property, a fine is categorized as one of the five types of criminal penalties stipulated by section 18 of the Penal Code. For certain criminal offenses, this recent development would change the fines for those offenses to become phinai fines or (or kha prap pen phinai)—making the offenses no longer criminal. Moreover, certain administrative monetary penalties determined by law to proceed in a criminal court by filing a complaint could also be affected by the ACFP. These changes would eliminate the risk of having criminal records for offenders and provide clear prerequisites for the courts when administrative monetary penalty offenses are to be filed with the Courts of Justice.

The ACFP identifies 204 pieces of legislation—in three separate lists—that are affected by these changes. The first list consists of 168 laws, the second of 33 laws, and the third of 3 laws.

The most significant of these are identified below according to which of the three lists they fall under.

  • List 1. In these laws, criminal offenses that are punishable only by a fine will be considered as phinai fine offenses, with phinai fines replacing the previously stipulated fines one year after publication of the ACFP. Notable laws (as amended) on this list include:
    • Determining Offence Relating to Registered Partnership, Limited Partnership, Limited Company, Association, and Foundation Act B.E. 2499
    • Direct Sales and Direct Marketing B.E. 2545
    • Alcoholic Beverage Control Act B.E. 2551
    • Tobacco Product Control Act B.E. 2560
    • Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541
    • Trademark Act B.E. 2534
    • Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage Caused by Ships Act B.E. 2560
    • Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535
    • Social Security Act B.E. 2533
    • Land and Building Tax Act B.E. 2562
    • Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518
    • Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483
  • List 2. For the laws in this list, offenses subject only to a fine can be changed to a phinai fine offense only by a royal decree. Some of these laws (as amended) include:
    • Air Navigation Act B.E. 2497
    • Foreigners Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560
    • Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561
    • Immigration Act B.E. 2522
    • Factory Act B.E. 2535
    • Narcotics Code
    • Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535.
  • List 3. Administrative monetary penalties stipulated in the legislation on this list become phinai fines 365 days from publication of the ACFP. This list includes the following laws (as amended):
    • Community Forrest B.E. 2562
    • Thai Vessels Act B.E. 2481
    • Social Enterprise Promotion Act B.E. 2562

The ACFP also singles out two cases in which offenses will not become phinai offenses, despite being in laws in lists one and two and having only a fine as a penalty. The first of these is offenses limited to a fine imposed on a juristic person but for which the same offense has both imprisonment and a fine for an ordinary person. In the second scenario, if the offense is indicated as one that is subject to a greater penalty than a fine for repeat offenses—or there is any other reason stipulated by the law—then the offense will not be made a phinai offense.

One year after publication of the ACFP, local administrative organizations will no longer be able to issue a fine as a penalty under local legislation. Instead, offenses for which a fine may be imposed in local legislation will be considered as phinai fine offenses.

Outcomes

The ACFP reclassifies various violations as phinai fine offenses. This means that offenders subject to one of these phinai fines will not have a criminal record, as the underlying offense is no longer considered a criminal offense. Furthermore, this reclassification also applies to relevant offenses that were committed in the past—that is, people who committed one of the criminal offenses mentioned above will also benefit from the ACFP, as their previous criminal record for the offense – while not being completely expunged or erased—would no longer have any negative effect on the person. Additionally, anyone currently undergoing proceedings or being punished, criminalized, or imprisoned in lieu of the fine will be released.

Many of the laws affected by the ACFP are of special concern to businesses and include legislation relating to employment, factories, environmental issues, and insurance. The enactment of the ACFP has a far-reaching effect on the offenses or wrongdoing addressed in those laws. In order to have a full understanding of the sanctions provided in them, entrepreneurs and their counsel need to read those laws in conjunction with the ACFP. Conduct that was punishable by criminal penalties may no longer be a criminal offense, and the corresponding punishment may differ procedurally under the ACFP. In any case, conscientious legal advisors will be able to identify and explain the most relevant details of the ACFP, as well as its potential implications for your business.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More