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

November 12, 2019

Tilleke & Gibbins Contributes Five Chapters to Asia-Pacific Investigations Review 2020

Subscribe to Updates
Global Investigations Review

Mainland Southeast Asia is firmly in the sights of businesses around the globe, with its burgeoning middle class and vibrant economies.

Each country presents an attractive option for foreign direct investment (FDI). Cambodia’s sustained economic expansion owes much to its successes in the tourism and garment sectors, while industry and construction are poised to play bigger roles in the near future. The government in Laos is aiming to make the country “land-linked” (as opposed to landlocked) by supporting infrastructure projects that build on the economic success the country has already met through mining and natural resources. Myanmar has captured much of the world’s attention with its remarkable legal, social, and economic reforms in recent years already bringing an influx of foreign investment. Thailand has probably the most advanced of the region’s economies, with successive governments consistently seeking to enhance the country’s standing as a destination for FDI. Finally, FDI is a cornerstone of Vietnam’s economy, which is well known as one of the fastest growing in Asia.

Such broad opportunity can come with significant compliance risks. Tilleke & Gibbins experts in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam have written about these risks, and the necessary actions and strategies for mitigating them, in contributions to the 2020 edition of Asia-Pacific Investigations Review. The individual chapters can be accessed through the links below.

The Cambodia chapter of the guide is written by David Mol, an advisor in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office. He examines anti-corruption laws, compliance and regulations, private corruption, corporate liability, whistleblowing, and foreign corruption statutes, as well as providing some important context for the operation of this legal framework.

In the Laos chapter, Dino Santaniello, a consultant in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vientiane office, addresses the influx of foreign direct investment, the government’s anti-corruption plan, economic sectors on the rise, and possible infringements of the UK Bribery Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The Myanmar chapter of the guide is written by Nwe Oo, a senior attorney-at-law in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Myanmar office, and Sher Hann Chua, a consultant in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Thailand and Myanmar offices. They cover anti-corruption compliance, as well as private corruption, enforcement mechanisms, anti-corruption laws, and the impact of international anti-corruption laws in Myanmar.

The Thailand chapter, written by Michael Ramirez, a senior member of Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution team, covers corruption and domestic anti-corruption legislation, international law and extraterritorial effect, enforcement of bribery laws, whistleblowing, and the impact overseas anti-corruption laws may have on the country.

In the Vietnam chapter, John Frangos, a partner in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution team, presents an overview of each of the four primary compliance risks in Vietnam (anti-corruption, regulatory compliance, employee fraud, and corporate criminal liability) and discusses topics such as how foreign investors can minimize their risks, anti-corruption legislation, and bribery risks—including considerations of the FCPA and UKBA.

The full publication is available for purchase at the Global Investigations Review website.

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More
January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More