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​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More