New technologies and production processes in the food industry have led to novel foods becoming increasingly important to both food manufacturers and the consuming public worldwide. This is very much the case across a number of jurisdictions in Southeast Asia. “Novel foods” refer to new food production processes, foods, and ingredients that have not yet been commonly used for human consumption, so these innovative foods require safety assessments before companies can produce and market them. While rules for these safety assessments are already part of novel food regulations in several other jurisdictions—such as the novel food regulations in the United Kingdom and European Union adopted in 2003, and the major reform of food safety laws in the United States passed in 2011 under the Food Modernization Act—similar rules governing the assessment of novel foods are relatively new or yet to be introduced in many parts of Asia. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the laws and practices that apply to safety assessments and the process of bringing novel foods to market in jurisdictions in the region. This article provides some clarity in this regard by summarizing important practical information on novel foods and the relevant required safety assessments in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.   Indonesia Regulator National Agency for Drug and Food Control (NADFC); frequently referred to as BPOM (Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan). Relevant Measures BPOM Regulation No. 27 Year 2018 concerning Public Service Standards in BPOM; Decision of the Director of Processed Food Standardization No. HK.02.02.51.511.06.21.21 Year 2021 concerning Public Service Standard Directorate Processed Food Standardization Definitions General “food ingredients” are basic fresh or processed ingredients that can be used to produce food; novel food is any food ingredient not listed in BPOM’s positive list of ingredients. Official Fees None   Process and Timeline Before submitting an application for novel food safety assessment, the applicant or a representative should first consult with BPOM’s Directorate of Processed Food Standardization. This consultation can help the applicant identify the data requirements for submission. For obtaining approval of novel foods, applicants must submit the required items through the directorate’s online submission system. BPOM will then check the application to verify its completeness, and will contact the applicant within five working days either to confirm that the submission is complete or to direct the applicant to rectify any shortcomings. Once all requirements have been fulfilled, BPOM is to assess the application within 85 working days—or around 4–6 months in practice.   Required Documents The application requirements differ depending on the category of novel food. There are two main categories: Novel food substances, mixtures of substances, mixtures of food ingredients, or other ingredients Novel foods sourced from plants or animals Ingredient name(s) Ingredient specification Physicochemical properties Composition Production process Certificate of analysis Toxicity data Potential allergenicity Regulation or distribution in other countries Name of type of processed food (final food product) Purpose of adding ingredients Amount of ingredients added Composition of processed food Processed food production process Use or application of processed food Suggested consumption (if any) Ingredient name(s) Parts of plant or animal used Chemical and/or nutritional content of ingredients Ingredient specifications and composition Production process Certificate of analysis History of use as food Toxicity data Potential allergenicity Regulation or distribution in other countries Name of type of processed food (final food product) Purpose of adding ingredients Amount of ingredients added Composition of processed food Processed food production process Use or application of processed food Suggested consumption (if any) Thailand Regulator Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Relevant Measures Notification of the Ministry of Public Health (No. 376) B.E. 2559 (2016) Re: Novel Food Definitions “Novel food” is any substance used as food or food ingredients that either has been used widely for human consumption for less than 15 years based on scientific or reliable evidence, or has undergone a production process not currently used, where that process gives rise to significant changes in the composition or structure of the food that affect their nutritional value, metabolism, or level of undesirable substance Official Fees THB 3,000 (approx. USD 90)   Process and Timeline Seeking approval for novel foods consists of two stages. Novel food safety assessment registration In this stage, the applicant submits safety data to one of four safety assessment organizations accepted by the FDA. The maximum or estimated duration of this step depends on the organization: Bureau of Quality and Safety of Food, Ministry of Public Health – 95 business days; National Food Institute, Ministry of Industry – 93 business days Thailand Risk Assessment Center (TRAC), Mahidol University – 90 business days National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) – 7–12 months Novel foods that contain any ingredient derived from a genetically modified organism (GMO) must undergo a BIOTEC review. Novel food safety assessment registration considered by the FDA To apply for the FDA’s approval of a novel food, the applicant must submit the letter from the safety assessment organization, along with other relevant documents, to the FDA via their online system. The FDA will consider the application and make a determination within 40 business days.   Required Documents General product and ingredient information Information on history of consumption as food Finished product and ingredient specifications Certificate of analysis Storage Production process, synthesis, or extraction method Basic information on chemical substances used in production Characteristics and recommendations for consumption Safety information, usually including three toxicology studies: 90-day subchronic toxicity study using rats Test for induction of gene mutations in bacteria (Ames Test, OECD Guidelines 471) In vitro assay to detect chromosomal aberrations (OECD Guideline 473), in vitro micronucleus assay (OECD Guidelines 487), or mouse lymphoma TK assay with colony sizing (OECD Guidelines 476) Nutritional data Results of safety assessments by international agencies or recognized countries.   Vietnam Regulator Vietnam Food Administration (VFA) Relevant Measures No specific regulations or guidance on novel foods and ingredients; however, both imported and domestically produced food products must comply with the Law on Food Safety as well as the following measures on genetically modified organisms

Following Myanmar’s recently announced notification requiring conversion of all foreign currency transfers and balances to Myanmar kyat (MMK), the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) has issued additional detailed guidance to banks on how to manage transfers, outbound remittances, and various other transactions involving balances in foreign currency. The CBM also announced that the union government and ministries are exempt from the foreign currency conversion requirements. The developments came on April 5, 2022, when the CBM issued Directive No. 5/2022, exempting these government bodies from the requirement, and Directive No. 6/2022, which provides instructions for banks licensed as authorized dealers (ADs) permitted to exchange currencies. The directive makes AD-licensed banks responsible for handling the conversion process by (1) transferring the amount in question to the concerned company’s account, (2) converting the amount to MMK at the CBM exchange rate, and (3) depositing it in an MMK-denominated account. The conversion process must be carried out within one working day of receiving the following types of funds: Export earnings Other earnings (including from services) Foreign currency investments (excluding foreign currency allowed by the CBM’s Foreign Currency Management Committee) The conversion process is also required for the following two types of funds, which require the AD-licensed bank to perform additional checks: Loans for investment. AD-licensed banks may only proceed with the conversion process after determining that CBM approval has been obtained in accordance with section 29(a) of the Foreign Currency Management Law and Rule 48 of the Foreign Currency Management Rules. Unilateral transactions. AD-licensed banks may only proceed with the conversion process after determining that CBM approval has been obtained in accordance with the rules 54 and 55 of the Foreign Exchange Management Rules. As noted in the previous notification instituting the foreign exchange requirements, outbound transfers of foreign currency by resident individuals and entities in Myanmar are to be carried out with the permission of CBM’s Foreign Exchange Supervisory Committee. Directive No. 6/2022 stipulates that this includes (but is not limited to) the following: Payment for imports (including advance payments) Payment for service fees and other expenses Remittance of dividends accruing from foreign investment, and return of investment capital Transfers for investment in foreign countries Making loan and interest payments to lenders in foreign countries Transferring expenses and fees as stipulated in rule 27 of the Foreign Exchange Management Rules After obtaining the Foreign Exchange Supervisory Committee’s permission for an outbound transfer, AD-licensed banks are to sell foreign currency according to the CBM exchange rate, and can charge fees of MMK 3 per USD 1.

As Thailand has paid more and closer attention to anticorruption issues, a number of measures have been introduced and implemented over the years, including the establishment of the Complaint Center for Foreign Investors (CCFI) in 2015. The CCFI was set up by the Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) to promote transparency and integrity in the Thai public sector and enhance the confidence of foreign investors conducting business in Thailand. Though the CCFI has been in operation for many years, many foreign investors conducting business in Thailand have either remained unaware of it or have been reluctant to use it because of concerns that acting against Thai public officials could cause problems for their businesses or in their personal lives. However, recently the PACC has made a renewed push to promote the CCFI as a suitable channel for foreign investors to lodge complaints when they face unfair services or treatment, or face requests for benefits from Thai public officials. Lodging a Complaint with the CCFI The CCFI was established to administer the PACC’s responsibilities under Section 58/2 of the Executive Measures in Anti-Corruption Act B.E. 2551 (2008), which authorizes the PACC to notify the superior of any state agency appearing to have regulations or procedures that fail to comply with the Licensing Facilitation Act; are deemed by the PACC to cause a nuisance or damages to a public service clientele; or cause severe detriment to a government service. Practically, this means that when investors have a complaint that fits the scope described in the law, they can contact the CCFI, which will take action by getting the relevant agency or government authority to examine the issue. In cases concerning agency regulations and procedures, this will be the head of the relevant agency, but if the circumstances indicate malpractice in the public sector, the PACC will report to the Council of Ministers and the National Anti-Corruption Commission to take action in accordance with their authority. For CCFI notifications to a government agency, the head of the relevant agency will proceed with the examination and must report the results back to the PACC within 60 days of receiving the notification. If the agency finds that improvement or amendments are required, the agency must also notify the PACC of how long these actions will take. Complaints to the CCFI may be made orally or in writing, and investors can contact the CCFI through a number of channels: Telephone: 1206 Email: [email protected] Website: www.pacc.go.th If a complainant asks the CCFI to keep his or her identity confidential, the PACC is prohibited from disclosing the relevant information. Furthermore, all complainants and providers of statements or information to the PACC have the right to be protected from disclosure of their name or identity for their safety and to prevent unfair treatment from public officials. Foreign investors seeking information or assistance with a complaint to the CCFI are encouraged to contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +66 2056 5555.

On April 3, 2022, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued far-reaching requirements for nearly all individuals, companies, and other organizations in Myanmar to convert foreign-currency income received from abroad to kyat (MMK) within one working day of its receipt. These requirements are effective immediately for all transfers, and apply retroactively to foreign currency balances already in the country. CBM Notification No. 12/2022 and Directive No. 4/2022, issued in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management Law, instruct Myanmar banks that hold an authorized dealer (AD) license on converting foreign currency. Together, the notification and the directive stipulate that all foreign-denominated income received by “internal residents” from abroad into a foreign currency account opened at an AD-licensed bank must be exchanged into MMK within one working day, unless subject to regulatory exclusions. “Internal residents” include locally registered companies, organizations, and offices; Myanmar branches of foreign companies; and individuals residing or established in Myanmar for at least 183 days (excluding foreign diplomatic staff and foreign civil servants). As noted above, the notification and the directive have retroactive effect on foreign-currency accounts holding funds that had already entered Myanmar. This means that for the purposes of these regulations, these foreign-currency amounts are treated as if they were transferred into Myanmar after the date of issuance (i.e., April 3, 2022), and are to be converted to MMK in accordance with the new rules. The conversions are to be made at the official exchange rates set by the CBM, which for US dollars is currently USD 1 to MMK 1,850. Additionally, foreign-currency transfers out of Myanmar must be performed through AD-licensed banks with the permission of the CBM’s Foreign Exchange Supervisory Committee. Noncompliance with the notification or directive is punishable under the Foreign Exchange Management Law with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both. Exceptions to the conversion requirement and outbound remittances of foreign currency are expected at a later stage. For more details on these foreign exchange developments, or on any aspect of financial regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected]

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing safety measures, many Thai retailers have shifted their sales toward online platforms. Unsurprisingly, counterfeiters have followed suit. The online sale of counterfeit healthcare and other life sciences products (e.g., food, cosmetics, and medical devices) is an area of significant concern, as it is particularly prevalent, damaging, and complex in relation to Thailand’s laws. This article outlines this type of counterfeiting activity in Thailand and explains some important tools brand owners have for fighting it. Counterfeiting Operations Although illicit operations seek to avoid being identified by authorities and brand owners, investigations by law enforcement and Tilleke & Gibbins on behalf of clients have yielded some insights into how these illegitimate sellers typically operate. Often, consumers are first exposed to these counterfeit life sciences products by paid social media advertisements that link to social media accounts set up by sellers impersonating brand owners. This brand impersonation may include unauthorized use of a trademark or trade name as part of the account name, and unauthorized reproduction of official advertisement artwork or product descriptions, taken directly from the official social media account. From the fake social media account, consumers are usually directed to a merchant website that contains consumer reviews, which are entirely fabricated. While not every counterfeiting operation follows this exact blueprint, employing some variation of these methods lends counterfeiting platforms the ability to proliferate through multiple iterations, as well as believability in the eyes of consumers. How Brand Owners Can Take Action Life sciences brand owners often discover that their products have been targeted by counterfeiters when a counterfeit item injures or negatively impacts a consumer. Thinking that the product is genuine, the consumer may then complain to the brand owner, or worse, file a complaint with the authorities. Many times this has resulted in brand owners being surprised by an inquiry from Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or police looking to investigate a case by interrogating the brand owner and other relevant parties. Once they are aware of the counterfeiting situation, brand owners can fight the counterfeiting operation via a number of legal pathways. The typical methods that counterfeiting operations employ (as described above) likely violate provisions of many different laws. Furthermore, in most cases, the counterfeit items are produced in or imported into Thailand without marketing approval from the Thai FDA, which is an offense under the FDA laws for different product classes, such as the Food Act, Cosmetics Act, or Medical Device Act. Aside from producing or importing, the marketing of unsafe products amounts to an even more serious offense under these laws, punishable by fines and imprisonment. Additionally, unauthorized use of a registered trademark is trademark infringement under the Trademark Act, while unauthorized use of an unregistered trademark may violate the Penal Code. Unauthorized reproduction of an advertisement image or a product description may be enforced under the Copyright Act. Thailand’s intellectual property laws are enforced through the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and the Economic Crime Suppression Division of the Royal Thai Police. Furthermore, infringement online may trigger the Computer Crime Act, which can lead to website blocking by court order. Petitions under the Computer Crime Act must be filed with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society through the review of the IPR Enforcement Affairs Office of the DIP. Brand owners tend to view the variety of relevant laws and enforcement authorities differently. Some may appreciate the freedom to strategize using the enforcement options the laws provide; others may find those options simply overwhelming. However, experienced advisors in Thailand will be able to help in either scenario—either by executing the selected strategy efficiently and effectively, or by helping brand owners sort through their options and recommending the method with the highest likelihood of success. Key Takeaways for Brand Owners First, brand owners can be confident that the Thai authorities take their anticounterfeiting duties seriously. This is shown most clearly by the frequent Thai FDA and police press conferences declaring successful raids and apprehension of suspects. The press conferences are reported almost weekly, with one of the most recent (March 18, 2022) involving THB 70 million worth of allegedly infringing cosmetic products. Second, cooperation with the authorities is always wise. The authorities expect to be provided with any helpful information that the brand owner can give, including identification of the counterfeit products and further witness statements. Besides helping authorities in their enforcement activities, cooperation is also the best way to establish the brand owner’s non-involvement with the allegedly defective or counterfeit products. Finally, participating in enforcement, either through cooperation with authorities or through private actions, is encouraged. Although online infringers are elusive, making instant success unlikely, continuous enforcement sends a strong message to the market, contributes to a good reputation among consumers, and raises infringers’ risks and costs (e.g., the risk that the paid ads may be taken down). With vigilance and persistent action, the fight against counterfeiters of healthcare and life sciences products is a battle of attrition that will prove beneficial in the long run.

Trade dress, which refers to the visual appearance of a product and packaging, as well as the product’s placement at its point-of-sale (store layout), was at the center of an infringement case that recently obtained the highest damages award ever given for a trademark case in Thailand. Trade dress is an important branding consideration because it can create a commercial impression and enable the public to recognize the original source of goods and services, distinct from other traders. Trade dress comes in many different forms, but only a few of them find solid protection in Thailand, and only through creative use of existing intellectual property protections. For instance, a unique packaging design in the form of an unfolded paper box could be eligible for trademark registration. A distinctive product configuration or external design of a container might be eligible for registration as a three-dimensional trademark, or even as a design patent if it features lines or colors giving a special appearance to a novel product that has an industrial application. In addition, a product’s configuration could be subject to copyright protection as a “sculpture work” if it shows a figure with tangible volume. However, in Thailand, trade dress does not yet receive explicit recognition under the country’s Trademark Law—unlike in some other jurisdictions whose trademark laws permit the registration of trade dress. The protection and enforcement of trade dress in the form of “store layout” in particular has been a constant challenge in Thailand, given the lack of explicit laws and precedence. Consequently, brand owners may have a hard time protecting their trade dress in relation to their creative and unique store layout designs, despite a great deal of effort and financial investment. But now this appears to be changing: In December 2021, Tilleke & Gibbins successfully secured a precedent judgment on the store layout form of trade dress from the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court). Precedent Trade Dress Case for Store Layout The popular Thai bubble-tea chain Fire Tiger is a successful business of Ruay Sabai Sabai Co., Ltd., a Thailand-based food and beverage company. Fire Tiger is a pioneer in the use of eye-catching trade dress in the industry. For use in all Fire Tiger stores, Ruay Sabai Sabai designed a gold-colored sculpture of a tiger’s head featuring a wide-open mouth as a product-serving channel as part of a store design that resembles a tiger cage. They also developed Fire Tiger’s logos, unique menu designs, and other creative marketing ideas to support their bubble-tea business. These distinctive creations were deployed in Fire Tiger branches and quickly gained consumer recognition and media attention. Ruay Sabai Sabai operates over 15 Fire Tiger stores in Thailand and has expanded their franchise business in Southeast Asia, with further outlets soon to open in Europe and North America. Fire Tiger’s various marks have been registered in Thailand and overseas, and their tiger-head sculpture has also been recorded with the Copyright Office of the Department of Intellectual Property. In 2019, Ruay Sabai Sabai became aware of a competing chain of bubble-tea stores using a similar trade name and trademark containing the word “fire” plus the name of another animal. Moreover, the competitor’s stores were using a similar gold-colored sculpture of an animal head with an open mouth in a golden cage for their product-serving channel, and the menu designs and marketing ideas also showed similarities to those of Fire Tiger. The competitor expanded rapidly, amassing over 200 franchise licensees throughout Thailand within a short period. Ruay Sabai Sabai’s attempts to contact the competitor to resolve the dispute amicably all went ignored, so in view of the damage they sustained, Ruay Sabai Sabai filed a civil lawsuit against the competitor with the IP&IT Court on November 30, 2020. The litigation process took just over a year, and on December 23, 2021, the IP&IT Court announced its judgment, concluding that the competitor’s use of the word “fire” along with an animal name as its store name and in naming its bubble-tea products (in Thai and English languages), beverage cups bearing an animal head in the same position as on Fire Tiger’s cups, and an animal-head sculpture with an open mouth as a serving channel could cause the general public to understand that the competitor’s bubble-tea stores originated from Fire Tiger, or that the competing bubble-tea products are derived from the same source. Since the competitor was the same type of business as Fire Tiger, the court believed that the actions noted above would deceive the public into believing that the competitor’s goods or business, including the franchise businesses, are associated with Fire Tiger. This constitutes infringement as passing off under the Trademark Act, and the court agreed that the infringement caused damage to Ruay Sabai Sabai. The IP&IT Court awarded damages of THB 10 million (approximately USD 303,000) with interest to Ruay Sabai Sabai, together with monthly damages of THB 100,000 (approximately USD 3,030) from the filing date of the complaint until the competitor ceases its passing-off actions. The amounts awarded by the IP&IT Court in this case are the highest handed down for a trademark case in Thailand. Protection of New Types of IP in Thailand The judgment in the Fire Tiger case confirms that trade dress in the form of store layout can be protected in Thailand. Even in the absence of explicit legislation in the Thai Trademark Act governing trade dress protections in Thailand, the IP&IT Court recognizes the efforts and financial investment of IP owners and is open to interpreting the law in concurrence with international standards by making use of the existing laws offering protection to brand owners. It is hoped that this case will act as a precedent in many more cases, giving IP owners more comprehensive protection over their creative output and investment in their IP assets. This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

For years, an inadequate compensation mechanism has been a limitation in resolving IP infringement disputes in Vietnam through civil measures. This limitation was once again highlighted in an appellate trial at the Superior People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on February 21, 2022, in which the appellate court reviewed a judgment of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City dated April 28, 2021. Outline of the Case The facts of the case are quite simple. A Ho Chi Minh City-based company that provides educational equipment was discovered by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism to be using, without authorization, a specialized computer program from a company based in the United States. The inspection agency issued a decision to administratively sanction the Vietnamese company. The sanction included a small fine of VND 30 million (approximately USD 1,315) and the forced removal of the infringing computer program, which the infringer readily complied with. Thus, the administrative aspect of the case was completed. The company behind the software then filed a civil case against the infringer at the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City. Among the plaintiff’s claims, the most important was the amount of compensation for damages: over USD 500,000, equivalent to the value of the full-module computer program that was found to be illegally installed and copied on the defendant’s computer. In fact, the plaintiff has sold software licenses for this full module version through resellers in Vietnam for the same amount. In addition to claiming compensation for damages, the plaintiff also demanded that the defendant make a public apology and pay an additional VND 300 million (USD 13,150) to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees. Court Judgments The first-instance court determined that the defendant had indeed infringed the IP rights of the plaintiff and required the defendant to make a public apology, but it rejected the plaintiff’s entire claim for damages on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to prove the damages it had suffered, such as loss of property, or decrease in income, profit, or business opportunities (Article 204.1(a) of the Law on Intellectual Property). Disagreeing with the first-instance judgment, the plaintiff appealed the case to the Superior People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City. The appeal judgment upheld the first-instance judgment on February 21, 2022. The contents of both the first-instance and appeal judgments show that both levels of the court have a very conservative way of understanding and applying the law: They did not accept the plaintiff’s claim that the damages could be calculated based on the loss of business opportunities, namely the possibility to sell that very computer program to the defendant for an amount equivalent to the price other customers in the same market had previously paid. Proving Damages In practice, it is impossible to mechanically require plaintiffs to prove damages in the same way for different IP rights. If viewed only in terms of annual income and profits, it is entirely possible that both the income and profits of the plaintiff will not decrease but may even increase in the year the violation occurs. In addition, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove a direct connection between an increase or decrease in the income and profits of the plaintiff, which is a Nasdaq-listed business with billions of dollars in sales, and a single software infringement case in Vietnam. It is impossible to prove damages through profits gained by the defendant from the use of unauthorized computer program when the plaintiff has no access to the defendant’s financial figures and governance documents. It is also impossible to dissect in detail how much revenue or profit the use of a particular computer program has generated for the defendant among dozens of factors that can affect these indicators. The simplest and fairest approach, then, is to calculate the damages based on the value of the computer program itself, when it has been sold to similar customers. As a parallel, when a thief steals a luxury car instead of purchasing it from the dealer, the damage can be considered to be the price that consumers have paid for the car in the locality where the theft occurred. In fact, this approach is already prescribed by the current IP Law of Vietnam. Under Article 205.1(a) and (b), when a plaintiff can prove that an act of IP infringement has caused material damage, it has the right to request the court to decide the level of compensation based on one of the following grounds: The total material damage calculated as a monetary amount, plus the profits gained by the defendant as a result of the IP infringement if reduced profits of the plaintiff have not yet been included in the total material damage; or The licensing price for the IP object, on the assumption that the plaintiff had transferred the IP usage right to the defendant under a license agreement with a scope corresponding to the act of infringement committed. If the plaintiff has the right to choose the basis for compensation, then the court is obligated to consider this basis. In this case, the court made fundamental mistakes in its interpretation and application of the law, leading to a case with fairly simple details being tried in a wrong and completely different direction than reality would dictate. The plaintiff in this case is now requesting the Supreme Court to review the case according to cassation procedures, which aim to correct errors in the interpretation and application of the law in the effective judgments of lower courts. It is hoped that the correct perception of the grounds for compensation for damages in intellectual property cases will be properly considered by the Supreme Court. This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

As many countries have experienced firsthand, corruption and bribery can have severe and far-reaching effects throughout a country’s political and economic systems. They not only impact the financial status and administrative ability of the countries involved, but at the same time, can also create and perpetuate a negative image of those countries to current or potential trade or investment partners. Recognizing the importance of minimizing or eliminating the damaging effects of bribery and corruption, many countries have made—and continue to make—efforts to strengthen their anticorruption and antibribery capabilities. Thailand has enacted relevant laws and enforced anticorruption measures in both the public and private sectors. Under Thai law, a bribe can take the form of property or a benefit. “Property” can be tangible (such as money, a car, a house, etc.) or intangible (such as copyrights, patents, etc.), while a “benefit” can be a gift, a discount, entertainment, healthcare costs, a job promotion, and so on. This article discusses the key provisions related to criminal offenses committed by private parties under three anticorruption laws in Thailand: Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018) Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act, B.E. 2560 (2017) Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies B.E. 2542 (1999) Organic Act on Anti-Corruption The key provision of the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (OAAC) is Section 176, which prohibits giving, offering, or promising property or a benefit to a public official, foreign public official, or official of a public international organization with the intent to induce the official to wrongfully perform his or her duty. Violations are subject to criminal liability, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,000), or both. If the offender is a person associated with a company that does not have appropriate internal control measures to prevent bribery—and the offense was meant to benefit that company—the company would be deemed to have committed the offense and could face a fine of one to two times the damages caused or benefit received. “Company” in this instance refers to a company established under Thai law or established under a foreign law and operating in Thailand, while “a person associated with a company” includes representatives, employees, agents, affiliated companies, and any other person acting on the company’s behalf. The required “appropriate internal control measures” are evidenced by the following conditions: Anticorruption must be emphasized as an important policy issue by the company’s top management. The company must apply anticorruption measures to parties who have business relations with it. The company’s human resources management guidelines must correspond to the anticorruption measures. The company must have measures for reporting offenses or suspicious incidents. Public Procurement Act The purpose of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act (“Public Procurement Act”) is to establish rules for the procurement activities of public officials. As such, the public procurement must be worthwhile (i.e., priced reasonably for meeting the project’s objectives), transparent, verifiable, and effective. Under the Public Procurement Act, “public procurement” refers to operations related to the acquisition of supplies through a sale, hire, lease, or exchange transaction. The “supplies” referred to under this law include goods, services, construction work, consultancy work, and design or construction supervision work. Section 19 of the Public Procurement Act provides that a business operator who would like to engage in public procurement for a project valued at THB 500 million (approx. USD 15 million) or more must put in place an anticorruption policy and have appropriate anticorruption measures—similar to the measures mentioned above with respect to the OAAC. Section 120 of this law imposes criminal liability for violations on both the public officer responsible for the public procurement and the private person (individual or corporate entity) involved in the corruption. Punishments can include imprisonment for one to ten years, a fine of THB 20,000–200,000 (approx. USD 600–6,000), or both. Submission of Bids Act The Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies (also known as the “Submission of Bids Act” or the “Collusion Law”) addresses corruption by means of bid rigging. Bid rigging takes place when two or more bidders agree to submit their separate bids with the objective of fixing the price to take advantage of a government agency, to avoid a real and fair price competition, or to gain any benefit for the bidders. The law defines “submission of bids” as submitting an offer in order to get a contract with a government agency for purchase, hire, exchange, lease, disposal of property, acquisition of a concession, or acquisition of any other rights. Bid rigging can take the following forms: Cover bidding is when bidders agree to submit their offers with the intention to let the agreed bidder win the bidding. To ensure that they will not be awarded the contract, the losing bidders may submit offers with higher prices or more difficult conditions for performing the work. Bid suppression can occur when bidders agree not to submit any offer or agree to initially submit an offer and withdraw it later, so that a certain bidder can win. Bid rotation refers to bidders agreeing to rotate the winning bidder—for example, bidder A will win one project, and bidder B will win the next one. The key offenses—each detailed in its own section of the act—are as follows: Collusion among bidders who dishonestly submit a bid (bid rigging). Giving money, property, or any other benefit to induce a person to dishonestly participate in submission of a bid. Dishonestly using force or coercion to get a person to participate in submitting a bid. Using deception to prevent others from submitting a bid. Submitting a bid (whether too low or too high) making it impossible for the bidder to fully perform its obligations under a contract with the government agency. These offenses, depending on their seriousness, are punishable by various terms of imprisonment. Apart from imprisonment, offenders (both individuals and corporate entities) may be subject to a fine of 50%