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 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
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