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

June 23, 2020

Updated Deposit-on-Arrival Information and Pricing Policy for Foreign Travelers to Cambodia

Subscribe to Updates

On June 11, the Ministry of Health (MOH) released a notice on an updated pricing policy for COVID-19 tests, quarantine, and treatment services for foreign travelers arriving in Cambodia. This served to update and further detail an MOH announcement made on June 8 requiring that all foreign travelers entering Cambodia pay a deposit of USD 3,000 to designated commercial banks upon arrival at airports. This requirement was implemented on Monday, June 15, and is meant to ensure that all foreign travelers are able to pay for any required COVID-19 tests and other healthcare.

The June 8 announcement notes that the deposit can be made by cash or credit card, though initial reports indicate that payment methods are currently limited to cash and electronic funds transfer. Travelers who are unable to pay the deposit upon arrival could face immediate deportation. After the passage of the two-week quarantine or other relevant period, travelers may collect the remaining portion of their deposit that was not spent on necessary tests, quarantine facilities, transportation, and other services.

The June 11 notice outlined a payment structure for three potential subsets of travelers: those who quarantine upon arrival solely for the length of time necessary to obtain their negative COVID-19 test results, those who are forced to quarantine for 14 days due to being in proximity to a traveler on the same flight who tested positive for COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19 upon arrival and must seek medical attention.

Fees for Foreigners Waiting for Initial COVID-19 Test Results

The pricing structure for services provided to foreign travelers includes transport from the airport to an isolation facility (USD 5), one COVID-19 test upon arrival and another within two weeks of arrival (USD 100 per test), lodging at designated hotels and quarantine centers (USD 30 per day), and three meals each day (USD 30 per day).

The designated hotels and quarantine centers, according to informal reports, include the Tian Yi International Hotel, Hotel Kolab Sor, and OK Boutique Hotel in Phnom Penh. Travelers do not have the option of choosing the hotel in which they would prefer to quarantine. Some hotels’ rates for meals and accommodations have been reported, and they differ slightly from the rates shared in the June 11 notice. According to unofficial reports, hotels are mandating double occupancy for each quarantine-designated room—even for solo travelers.

If all passengers test negative for COVID-19 upon arrival in Cambodia, their passports will be returned and they will be released from government custody. However, all are expected to self-isolate for the following two weeks. MOH self-isolation guidelines entail wearing a mask, refraining from leaving accommodations unless necessary, and physical distancing of approximately two meters. After 13 days in Cambodia, travelers should visit either the Khmer-Soviet Friendship Hospital in Phnom Penh or a provincial referral hospital for follow-up tests to confirm the absence of COVID-19.

The following official costs will be applicable to all foreign travelers arriving in Cambodia:

Fees for Government-Enforced Quarantine

If any traveler tests positive for COVID-19 upon arrival, all passengers on the same flight will be required to quarantine at designated government centers or hotels.

In the event of an enforced 14-day quarantine, the daily rates from the waiting period will continue and the following additional fees will be chargeable:

Therefore, including the room and board costs detailed earlier, for those travelers who test negative for COVID-19 upon arrival but who were on the same flight as someone who tested positive, a 14-day enforced quarantine at a designated facility is priced at approximately USD 84 per day.

Fees for COVID-19 Treatment in a Public Hospital

For those foreign travelers who test positive for COVID-19 upon arrival in Cambodia, a minimum of four COVID-19 tests (priced at USD 100 per test) must be administered, and each patient must pay USD 75 per day for lodging, food, and laundry services. The following associated fees may also apply:

The MOH has reiterated that, in addition to the USD 3,000 deposit, all foreign travelers to Cambodia are required to provide proof of health insurance providing coverage in Cambodia for up to USD 50,000, as well as an original and official medical certificate (signed and sealed with a stamp, certifying that the traveler is negative for COVID-19) issued within 72 hours of flying to Cambodia.

Travelers should also note that there has been confusion regarding the parameters of the 72-hour requirement. Some airlines have prevented travelers from boarding their flights to Cambodia because they would not arrive in Cambodia within 72 hours of their initial COVID-19 tests. The Cambodian embassy in Washington, DC, has indicated that it would defer to airlines’ judgment on interpreting the MOH requirements for travel. Travelers should therefore contact their airline for particulars on requirements.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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