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​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More