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

January 23, 2017

Thailand: New Law on Interest Overcharging

Subscribe to Updates

The first enactment of Thailand’s Interest Overcharging Law, which came into effect in 1932, prohibited any person from loaning money to another person and subsequently charging them interest at a rate that exceeded the rate prescribed by the law.

Eighty-five years later, Thailand finally promulgated a new law focused on this topic called “The Act Prohibiting the Collection of Interest at an Excessive Rate B.E. 2560 (2017)” on January 15, 2017. The new law was made effective the following day, repealing the 1932 version.

A key element of this new law is the enhanced stringent penalties imposed on any person who loans money to an individual and then levies interest on repayments at a rate exceeding that permitted by law. This action will result in the offender facing criminal sanctions amounting to imprisonment for no more than two years, a fine of not more than THB 200,000, or both. These penalties are significantly stricter than those meted out under the previous Act, which only imposed up to a one-year imprisonment term, a fine of not more than THB 1,000, or both.

The enactment of this new legislation is aimed at preventing and suppressing loan shark debts and usury loan problems, whereby a lender charges the borrower unreasonably high interest rates. This mostly occurs between individual lenders and individual borrowers (i.e., an informal debt), which can later cause social and criminal problems within society.

Apart from prohibiting the practice of overcharging interest, the legislation also deems that any act which has the intention of concealing such borrowing/loan activities, in any of the following ways, should also be subject to legal sanctions:

  • Interest overcharging;
  • Including any false statements concerning the loan amount, or other matters relating to evidence pertaining to loan evidence, or other negotiable instruments, in order to conceal interest overcharging actions; or
  • The lender prescribes to take or accept benefits other than the interest (whether in the form of money, property, or by any other means), which show that he/she will gain excessive benefits that are more than those typically accrued by the normal practice of a lender and an individual that borrows money.

Nonetheless, it should be observed that the interest rates permitted by Thai laws can differ. For example, loans for consumption under the Civil and Commercial Code must not exceed 15 percent per year, while loans with commercial banks could be higher, as permitted by specific legislation, such as the Interest Rates for Loans from Financial Institutions Act B.E. 2523 (1980) and the BOT’s notification subject on interest, fees, surcharge for personal loan.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public feedback on a proposed overhaul of the regulatory framework for licensed money changers authorized by the finance minister, under the Exchange Control Act, to buy and sell foreign banknotes separately from commercial banks and specialized financial institutions. The BOT published the draft principles on August 19, 2026, for public consultation, with comments accepted through September 18, 2026. If adopted in its current form, the new framework would substantially raise licensing standards, require existing licensees to undergo a review and upgrade process, temporarily freeze new applications in 2027, and reduce application intake rounds from 2028 onward, with significant implications for both existing operators and prospective new entrants. The overhaul initiative stems from the BOT’s recognition of a need to prevent the use of licensed money changers as channels for financial crime. The stated objectives are to build public confidence, ensure the safety of financial service users, and align the supervisory framework with the current risk profile of the business and evolving market conditions. Upgraded Licensing Standards The BOT intends to significantly revise the licensing framework, including requirements relating to registered capital, branch management, operational standards, and customer transaction limits. Detailed criteria have not yet been released and are expected to be subject to further consultation. All existing licensees will be required to upgrade to meet the new standards and submit evidence of compliance for BOT review on a case-by-case basis. Existing licensees that are unable to satisfy the upgraded requirements may face regulatory consequences, subject to the final framework and BOT review process. Freeze and Reopening The BOT will temporarily stop accepting new license applications throughout 2027 to focus resources on inspecting and upgrading existing money changers. Any party wishing to obtain a new money changer license must submit its application by
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More