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​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
Read More