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​ 

September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
June 25, 2025
In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,
Read More