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

February 9, 2026

Who Pays for Fraud? Thailand’s Supreme Court Shifts Credit Card Liability to Banks

Subscribe to Updates

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 bank’s argument that the unauthorized transactions could not have resulted from system vulnerabilities.

Finding 3: Inadequate Evidence Collection

The court also noted the bank’s failure to obtain crucial evidence. The signature on the receipt from the disputed transaction differed significantly from the signature on the customer’s credit card, making CCTV footage from the merchant necessary to determine who was actually using the card for the transaction.

The bank argued that it could not obtain this footage because it was not the “injured party” and only the police could request it. However, the bank made no effort to ask the police, the customer, or the court to facilitate obtaining the footage. This lack of diligence led the Supreme Court to conclude that the bank had failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the authenticity of the transaction.

Implications for Financial Institutions

Thailand’s Supreme Court ultimately emphasized that banks providing credit card services have a duty to monitor and verify card usage to prevent harmful conduct such as fraud and unauthorized access. When customers dispute transactions, banks must conduct thorough investigations and explain their findings to the customer, rather than relying solely on contractual clauses to shift the burden to cardholders. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s claim, ruling that the customer was not liable for the unauthorized transactions.

This precedent establishes a more rigorous standard of proof for banks in cases involving unauthorized credit card transactions. The court’s findings—particularly regarding the lack of expert testimony, the vulnerabilities acknowledged in the terms and conditions, and the insufficient effort to obtain crucial evidence—underscore that banks must now demonstrate a higher level of diligence and responsibility. They are expected not only to maintain secure systems but also to actively investigate disputed transactions and present credible, comprehensive evidence to support their claims. The ruling confirms the principle that, in Thailand, the burden of ensuring the integrity of credit card usage rests primarily with the bank. This is a strong stance in favor of consumer protection, and raises expectations placed on financial institutions in similar disputes.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
On September 15, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) released for public consultation a draft circular on reporting and information disclosure in the pilot crypto asset market. The draft implements Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP on the Pilot Implementation of the Crypto Asset Market in Vietnam and provides further detail on how licensed crypto asset service providers (“CASPs”) will be supervised once the market becomes operational. The draft indicates a data-intensive supervisory model, with licensed CASPs serving as the first line of market oversight. Public Disclosure Requirements The draft imposes detailed public disclosure requirements on CASPs, aimed primarily at market transparency. CASPs and crypto asset issuers must make disclosures in both Vietnamese and English, retain reported and disclosed information for at least 10 years, and keep information published on their websites accessible for at least five years. For CASPs, disclosure obligations arise both periodically and when specific events occur. A CASP must announce any crypto asset to be admitted to trading on its website at least seven days before trading begins and publish periodic financial statements. Certain extraordinary events and information requested by the MOF must generally be disclosed within 24 hours. CASPs must also provide ongoing market information. During trading hours, they must publish key trading data, including prices and volumes, daily highs and lows, average prices, the three best bid and offer levels, and transactions by foreign investors. By 9:00 a.m. each trading day, they must publish specified information on the previous day’s trading activity. Regulatory Reporting Requirements Separate from public disclosure, the draft requires CASPs to provide regulators with detailed information enabling ongoing supervision of their operations and the market. For market activity, CASPs must report decisions to admit or remove a crypto asset from trading within 24 hours, submit previous-day trading data to the State Securities Commission
Read More
September 28, 2026
Thailand has expanded the mandatory use of the Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP) system to cover submissions of procurement appeals to all government agencies subject to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (Government Procurement Act). The expansion, which was set out in an official circular dated September 16, 2026, from the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Ruling Committee, takes effect on October 1, 2026. Notable Changes Under the expanded framework, bidders challenging an e-bidding or selective-method procurement result must file their appeal exclusively through e-GP within seven working days of the result being announced by the Comptroller General’s Department. While the system accepts filings around the clock during that window, submissions on the final day must be fully completed by 16:30 according to the e-GP system clock—merely starting a draft or uploading materials before the cutoff does not count as a confirmed submission. Government agencies that disagree with an appeal, in whole or in part, will also report their findings and supporting documents to the Appeals Committee through e-GP using the prescribed Appeal Opinion Report, also within seven working days of receipt. Withdrawals of appeals must likewise follow prescribed e-GP steps that vary depending on whether the matter is still under agency review, has been forwarded to the Appeals Committee, or has already been resolved. Excluded Categories Certain categories of procurement are not subject to the new guidelines on filing appeals electronically. These include: Procurement of supplies for confidential government use. Procurement conducted by government agencies operating overseas where the bidder is a foreign legal entity with no legal representative in Thailand, or where the bidder is a non-Thai national. Consulting service procurement under chapter 7 of the Government Procurement Act Design or construction supervision procurement under chapter 8 of the Government Procurement These exclusions apply
Read More
September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More