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

October 2, 2019

Thomson Reuters Country Guides: Money Laundering – Thailand Chapter

Thomson Reuters Country Guides

This country profile looks at Thailand, which traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money.

Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No.

Any Egmont members?  Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group.

Regulation

The law, known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the Act), was passed in March 1999 with the aim of combating not only the drug trade, but other illicit activities, such as corruption, criminal fraud and prostitution.

There have been a number of changes and updates to the Act, the most recent one in late 2015, in which the Act was amended to include:
  • Additional predicate offenses such as offenses relating to human trafficking, online gambling and offenses relating to unfair practices relating to derivatives and agricultural commodity futures.
  • Broader scope of money laundering offense.
  • Non-disclosure obligations to applicable financial institutions and reporting entities.
  • Compulsory training to financial institutions and reporting entities’ employees responsible to monitor and ensure compliance with the Act.
  • Retention period.
  • Enhanced penalties.

Financial intelligence unit

Of the total number of transactions reported to AMLO annually, a relatively small portion result in further investigation for violation of the Act. That said, the trend is for more active participation and enforcement by AMLO in recent years.

Targeted crimes

Currently, the Act covers the transfer or conversion of funds or property obtained from the following predicate offenses:

  1. Offenses relating to narcotics
  2. Human trafficking and offense of sexuality and prostitution
  3. Fraud against the public
  4. Fraud involving financial institutions
  5. Abuse of position by a government official
  6. Extortion
  7. Trade in contraband
  8. Terrorism
  9. Gambling offences, including online gambling, with particular emphasis on large scale organization of gambling games
  10. Participation in racketeering groups or participation in a criminal association
  11. Receiving stolen property only as it constitutes assisting in the selling, buying, pawning or receiving, in any way, property obtained from the commission of an offence with the nature of business conduct
  12. Counterfeiting or alteration of currencies, seals, stamps and tickets with the nature of business conduct
  13. Criminal trading only where it is associated with the counterfeiting or violating of intellectual property rights to goods or the commission of an offense under the laws on the protection of intellectual property rights with the nature of business conduct
  14. Forgery of a document of right, electronic cards or passports with a nature of regular or business conduct
  15. The unlawful use, holding, or possessing of natural resources or a process of illegal exploitation of natural resources with a nature of business conduct
  16. The commission of an offense relating to murder or grievous bodily injury which leads to the acquisition of assets
  17. Restraining or confining a person only where it is to demand or obtain benefits or to negotiate for any benefits
  18. Theft, extortion, blackmail, robbery, gang-robbery, fraud or misappropriation with a nature of regular conduct
  19. Acts of piracy under anti-piracy law
  20. Unfair securities trading practice under the law on securities and stock exchange or unfair futures trading under the law on futures contracts or unfair practice which affect trading price of agricultural futures under the law on agricultural futures trading
  21. Offenses related to arms and arms equipment which is or may be used in combat or war under the law on arms control

Money laundering offense

Under the Act, it is a crime to transfer, convert or receive the transfer of funds or property arising from the above referenced criminal offences for the purpose of hiding or concealing the source of the funds.

Penalty:

  • Natural person: imprisonment for a term of one year to 10 years and/or a fine of 20,000 to 200,000 baht.
  • Juristic person: a fine of 200,000 to 1,000,000 baht.

It is also important to note that the March 2008 amendments include provisions targeted specifically at government officials, whereby the aforementioned fines and maximum prison sentences are doubled for government officials and can be tripled if certain categories of government officials are involved in a conspiracy to commit a money laundering offence. This represents a concerted effort to tackle the consistent problem of institutional corruption in Thailand.

Banking transactions are a primary activity subject to scrutiny under the Act, but other financial transactions are also covered. For example, an individual who secretly uses money from a drug sale to purchase shares of publicly traded stocks on the Stock Exchange of Thailand could be prosecuted under the Act. Furthermore, a corrupt government official who uses money obtained from a bribe to then purchase land runs the risk of being exposed, having the land confiscated and being subject to double-scale fines. Even property developers, who knowingly hold or accept money for concealment that they know is derived from one of the stated criminal offences, can be subject to enforcement under the Act.

Enforcement officials can seize, without a warrant, money or property connected with the commission of one of the enumerated criminal offences or a money laundering offence. In such cases, the owner of the seized property must be able to demonstrate that the property is unrelated to the commission of one of the enumerated crimes, or a money laundering offence, in order to recover the property.

Reporting requirements

A key provision of the Act is the requirement that financial institutions and other reporting entities that tend to be used as vehicles for money laundering report all cash transactions of 2 million baht or more. Property transactions in excess of 5 million baht must also be reported. Also required for reporting are all suspicious transactions that may be related to one of the enumerated criminal offences, are more complex than normal, lack economic plausibility, or appear to have been undertaken to avoid compliance with the anti-money laundering law. For such transactions, the financial institutions must require their customers to provide a detailed record of the transactions. The latter requirement is generally left to the practical discretion of the financial institution which must then choose between customer confidentiality concerns and compliance with the Act.

The AMLO has also implemented separate regulations which require all persons entering or leaving Thailand to declare currency in their possession where the amount meets or exceeds certain statutory minimum levels.

Failure to comply with the Act’s reporting requirements is punishable by a fine of up to 1 million baht and a daily fine of up to 10,000 baht a day through the period of violation or not acting correctly. Filing a false report is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of 50,000 to 500,000 baht.

Thailand has made great progress in its legislative efforts to combat illicit crime and the transfer of funds related to such crimes. While much has been done and the laws are in place, ultimate success depends on the practical enforcement of the law.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 28, 2026
Thailand’s Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee has issued a major update to the anticorruption standards required for private entities engaging in high-value state projects. The update, titled “Announcement re: Procurement Limits and Minimum Anticorruption Standards (No. 2),” replaces and amends key provisions of the original announcement dated September 25, 2024. Published in the Government Gazette on April 10, 2026, the new rules take effect on May 10, 2026, and apply to projects valued at more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 9.3 million). The key amendments to the anticorruption standards are detailed below. Expanded Definition of Conflict of Interest The 2026 regulation significantly broadens the scope of what constitutes a conflict of interest compared to the 2024 version, which focused primarily on basic kinship and business ties. Under the new rules, a conflict of interest includes using one’s position or authority to seek benefits for oneself, a group, close associates, or business, including through business relationships, kinship ties, or relationships with spouses or individuals living together as partners without marriage registration. The 2026 announcement also introduces specific examples that were largely absent from the 2024 text, such as holding shares in similar businesses that submit proposals for the same project, or submitting proposals for projects in which a relative, spouse, or unregistered partner is an “involved party” in that procurement. Continuous Compliance: The “Final Payment” Rule Under the 2024 rules, the coverage period for anticorruption policies was less strictly defined. The new regulation mandates a continuous timeline: policies or certifications must remain effective from the date of bid submission until the contractor receives the final payment installment under the contract. If a certification or policy is set to expire before the final payment, the contractor must submit a new self-audit form and supporting evidence to the state agency before the original
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
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
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