Updated Deposit-on-Arrival Information and Pricing Policy for Foreign Travelers to Cambodia

June 23, 2020

Updated Deposit-on-Arrival Information and Pricing Policy for Foreign Travelers to Cambodia

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

Robin Spiess

International Intern

Cambodia

+855 23 964 210

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

April 18, 2024

In-Court Arbitration in Thailand: A Tool Worth Exploring?

In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by

April 17, 2024

Navigating Document Formality Challenges in Vietnam

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding

April 11, 2024

Litigation Funding in Thailand

Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any

April 4, 2024

Thailand’s Criminal Court Establishes Cybercrime Division

On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].

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

Industries

Practices

June 23, 2020