Tag: Business

on by

Penal Code Amendment (No. 30): Criminalizing Sexual Harassment and Implications for Workplace Policies

On December 30, 2025, the Royal Gazette published the Penal Code Amendment Act (No. 30), B.E. 2568 (2025), marking a significant advancement in Thailand’s legal framework for addressing sexual offenses. This amendment introduces “sexual harassment”  as a distinct criminal offense, refines existing provisions to reflect contemporary societal dynamics, and emphasizes protection for individuals across all genders, ages, and identities. By elevating such acts from minor infractions to criminal liability, the law seeks to deter perpetrators, enhance victim support, and foster a safer society. The changes address limitations in prior legislation, which often treated harassment merely as a petty offense causing annoyance, insufficient for the severity and diversity of modern incidents.

Key Changes Introduced by the Amendment:

The amendment encompasses several pivotal modifications to the Thai Penal Code:

1.  Expanded Definition of “Rape”: The definition is broadened to include emerging forms of sexual violation, ensuring inclusivity for diverse gender identities and modern contexts.

2.  Abolition of the Offense of “Indecent Act by Intrusion”: This provision is repealed to modernize and streamline the legal structure.

3.  Establishment of Sexual Harassment as a Criminal Offense: A new, dedicated section defines sexual harassment broadly as any act—physical, verbal, auditory, gestural, communicative, involving stalking, or conducted via computer systems—with sexual connotations that causes another person distress, annoyance, embarrassment, or a sense of insecurity. This encompasses:

       •  Physical actions or contact.

       •  Verbal remarks, sounds, or displays.

       •  Persistent communication, following, or monitoring.

       •  Digital interactions, such as through emails, social media, or online platforms.

These updates recognize the evolving nature of sexual offenses, including those affecting individuals of all ages, genders, and sexual orientations, and account for the psychological and physical harm inflicted.

Penalties Under the New Provisions:

Penalties are structured progressively to reflect the offense’s severity, context, and impact:

•  General Cases: Imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, a fine not exceeding 20,000 baht, or both.

•  Repeated or Continuous Acts (disrupting the victim’s normal life): Imprisonment not exceeding 2 years, a fine not exceeding 40,000 baht, or both.

•  Acts in Public Places or Via Computer Systems: Imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, a fine not exceeding 60,000 baht, or both.

•  Acts Against Children (under 15 years): Imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, a fine not exceeding 100,000 baht, or both.

•  Acts by Persons in Authority (e.g., supervisors, employers, or those with power over the victim): Imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, a fine not exceeding 60,000 baht, or both.

This graduated approach underscores heightened accountability in cases involving vulnerability, repetition, public exposure, digital means, or power imbalances, particularly relevant in professional settings.

Broader Implications for Society and Business Operations:

The amendment responds to the increasing prevalence and complexity of sexual offenses in Thai society, where traditional laws proved inadequate. By criminalizing a wider array of behaviors, it aims to improve enforcement, provide stronger deterrence, and offer more effective remedies for victims. For businesses, the law has profound implications, especially given the elevated penalties for acts committed by authority figures. Organizations must adapt to avoid criminal liability for individuals, potential vicarious responsibility, reputational harm, or related civil claims.

Businesses, particularly those with employee hierarchies, customer interactions, or digital operations, should undertake the following preparations:

•  Policy Revision and Development: Update or create comprehensive anti-harassment policies that explicitly incorporate the new legal definition, including workplace-specific examples such as inappropriate comments during meetings, unwanted advances by supervisors, or harassing digital messages.

•  Training Initiatives: Implement mandatory, regular training programs for all employees, with specialized sessions for managers highlighting their increased responsibilities and risks under the law.

•  Robust Reporting and Investigation Frameworks: Establish multiple confidential reporting channels (e.g., HR contacts, anonymous hotlines) and impartial investigation procedures with clear timelines, ensuring protection against retaliation.

•  Risk Mitigation Strategies: Conduct assessments in high-exposure areas, such as supervisory roles or public-facing positions, and integrate policy references into employment contracts and handbooks.

•  Victim Support Measures: Provide resources like counseling, accommodations, and legal referrals to support affected individuals.

•  Ongoing Monitoring: Perform annual reviews of policies and maintain detailed records of compliance efforts as evidence of due diligence.

Consultation with legal and human resources experts is recommended to ensure alignment with complementary laws, such as the Labour Protection Act and the Gender Equality Act.

Developing Effective Workplace Harassment Policies:

In light of the amendment, workplace policies must be thorough and proactive. Essential components include:

1.  Precise Definitions and Illustrations: Mirror the statutory definition while providing contextual examples relevant to the organization’s environment.

2.  Comprehensive Scope: Extend coverage to employees, contractors, clients, and visitors, including remote work and work-related events.

3.  Accessible Reporting Mechanisms: Offer diverse, secure options with prompt acknowledgment and anti-retaliation safeguards.

4.  Fair Investigation Processes: Detail impartial, timely procedures involving trained personnel and thorough documentation.

5.  Disciplinary Measures: Outline consequences proportionate to the offense, up to termination, while addressing power dynamics.

6.  Preventive Education: Require ongoing training to promote awareness and cultural change.

7.  Support Services: Ensure access to assistance for complainants and respondents.

8.  Regular Evaluation: Commit to periodic audits and updates in response to legal or societal developments.

Leadership endorsement and cultural commitment are crucial for effective implementation.

Key Takeaways:

•  The 2025 amendment represents a landmark progression in Thailand’s approach to sexual offenses, criminalizing harassment in its various forms and imposing substantial penalties, effective from December 30, 2025.

•  It particularly heightens risks for those in positions of authority, necessitating urgent workplace adaptations.

•  Organizations that prioritize robust policies, training, and procedures will not only achieve compliance but also cultivate safer, more inclusive environments.

•  This reform aligns with global standards for victim protection and societal safety, encouraging proactive measures across all sectors.

•  Employers are advised to stay informed through official sources, such as the Royal Gazette and relevant ministries, for any additional guidance or interpretations. Prompt action will mitigate risks and contribute to a more equitable professional landscape in Thailand.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Advancing Thailand’s Legal and Regulatory Reform under the OECD Framework

On 2 December 2025, the Cabinet acknowledged a progress report on Thailand’s legal and regulatory development under the cooperation framework with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Since 2018, Thailand has engaged in cooperation with the OECD through the Country Programme, with the objective of enhancing the effectiveness, transparency, and overall quality of its legal and regulatory framework. The Office of the Council of State (OCS) serves as the principal authority responsible for driving legal reform and promoting Good Regulatory Practices in Thailand.

Evolution of Thailand’s Legal and Regulatory Reform under the OECD Country Programme

Phase I of the Country Programme

During the first phase of the Country Programme, Thailand focused on establishing the institutional and legal foundations for good regulatory governance by aligning domestic practices with OECD standards. Key developments included:

  • The adoption of OECD good regulatory practices to support the implementation of the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Law B.E. 2562 (2019); and
  • The implementation of capacity-building initiatives, including training programmes for government officials, to enhance regulatory quality and institutional effectiveness.

Phase II of the Country Programme

During the second phase of the Country Programme, the focus shifted toward enhancing regulatory quality to address emerging economic and social challenges, with particular emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens on citizens and businesses. Key areas of cooperation during this phase included:

  • The joint implementation of projects between Thailand and the OECD aimed at modernising the legal and regulatory framework;
  • The adoption of measures designed to reduce both the cost of living and the cost of doing business; and
  • The introduction of proportionality principles into Thailand’s regulatory impact analysis (RIA) framework to ensure that regulatory measures are commensurate with their intended objectives and impacts.

Overview of the OECD Assessment

The OECD assessment provides a comprehensive evaluation of Thailand’s regulatory policy framework, encompassing existing laws and regulations, institutional arrangements, governance structures, and regulatory instruments. It examines both ex-ante and ex-post regulatory impact assessments, as well as mechanisms for stakeholder consultation and engagement.

OECD Recommendations for Strengthening Thailand’s Regulatory System

The OECD proposes 15 key recommendations aimed at strengthening Thailand’s legal and regulatory framework and enhancing overall regulatory quality:

  1. Promote evidence-based policymaking – Systematically integrate RIA into policymaking processes at all levels and strengthen stakeholder engagement.
  2. Enhance transparency and accountability – Improve public reporting on the quality of RIAs and the conduct of public consultations.
  3. Share regulatory best practices – Encourage knowledge-sharing and peer learning among agencies with strong regulatory performance.
  4. Reinforce the role of the Office of the Council of State – Designate it as the central authority responsible for regulatory quality oversight and standard-setting.
  5. Build policy analysis capacity – Develop multidisciplinary competencies within the public sector, including economics, data analytics, and policy evaluation.
  6. Improve RIA and consultation guidelines – Establish clear and consistent standards regarding the evidence required for regulatory assessments.
  7. Initiate RIA at an early stage – Consider a range of policy options and define clear, measurable objectives from the outset.
  8. Introduce forward regulatory planning – Prioritize high-impact legislation and optimize the allocation of limited regulatory resources.
  9. Ensure ministerial accountability – Require formal ministerial sign-off on RIA summaries to reinforce responsibility for regulatory decisions.
  10. Clarify the timing of stakeholder consultations – Promote early engagement during the problem-definition stage of policy development.
  11. Extend public consultation periods – Increase consultation timelines in line with OECD good regulatory practices.
  12. Enhance the use of the central legal portal – Develop it into a two-way platform that supports transparency and facilitates public feedback.
  13. Review laws based on their impact – Allocate review resources strategically to maximize regulatory effectiveness and outcomes.
  14. Mandate post-enactment reviews – Ensure systematic and regular reviews of high-impact laws and regulations.
  15. Develop a whole-of-government regulatory delivery policy – Integrate risk-based regulation, targeted enforcement, and effective inter-agency coordination.

Implementation Approach for Thailand

Thailand will implement the OECD recommendations through a combination of short-term and long-term measures aimed at strengthening the effective enforcement of the Act on Legislative Drafting and Law Evaluation B.E. 2562 (2019).

Short-Term Actions

Short-term efforts will focus on planning, prioritization, and capacity-building, including:

  • The introduction of forward regulatory planning and enhanced public disclosure;
  • The prioritization of high-impact laws and regulations;
  • Improvements to public consultation processes; and
  • Training programs on good regulatory practices for relevant public officials.

Long-Term Actions

Long-term reforms will aim to strengthen analytical capacity and institutional oversight mechanisms, including:

  • The adoption of advanced regulatory impact assessment methodologies;
  • Stronger linkages between pre-enactment and post-enactment evaluations;
  • The establishment of dedicated regulatory support units; and
  • Enhanced transparency, monitoring, and reporting of regulatory outcomes.

Conclusion

The OECD assessment and recommendations provide a clear and coherent roadmap for further strengthening Thailand’s legal and regulatory system. Through the systematic and effective implementation of these 15 recommendations, Thailand can significantly enhance regulatory quality, transparency, accountability, and stakeholder participation.

These reforms will contribute to a more effective and responsive regulatory environment that supports sustainable economic and social development, while further aligning Thailand’s governance framework with OECD international standards and good regulatory practices.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Progress in Thai–U.S. Trade Negotiations

On 12 December 2025, Thailand’s Minister of Commerce announced that the United States had conveyed a positive signal regarding the advancement of bilateral trade discussions. Washington indicated its intention to request the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to commence technical-level negotiations on tariffs and trade matters with Thailand.

This announcement follows intensified high-level engagement between both governments. In recent discussions, the U.S. President identified trade as a principal priority, committing to accelerate negotiations and reaffirm previous undertakings. The Department of Trade Negotiations within Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce has confirmed that technical-level discussions between Thailand and the United States are currently underway, with the 19% tariff rate on Thai goods remaining in effect. However, the resumption of technical-level dialogue indicates that future adjustments may be possible, underscoring the importance for businesses to remain vigilant and prepared.

Furthermore, the Thai Minister of Commerce reported that during her meeting with the U.S.–ASEAN Business Council (USABC), American companies and USABC members consistently advocated for both governments to expedite trade negotiations to unlock additional commercial and investment opportunities. Accelerated progress would benefit U.S. companies operating in Thailand, Thai exporters, and American consumers by facilitating access to high-quality products at competitive prices. This is particularly significant for sectors where the United States maintains import dependency, including Thai jasmine rice and other agricultural commodities, as well as broader manufacturing and supply-chain operations connected to Thailand.

The development has been characterized as an encouraging indication that the U.S. administration shares Thailand’s commitment to strengthening economic relations through a stable and predictable trade and taxation framework, notwithstanding broader geopolitical considerations. According to the Minister, such a framework would support sustainable growth in bilateral trade and investment while providing enhanced certainty for cross-border business planning.

Implications for Investment Structuring and Risk Management

The renewed trade engagement between Thailand and the United States necessitates a reassessment of existing investment structures and contractual arrangements. Export-oriented enterprises and operations integrated into U.S.-linked supply chains should evaluate corporate structures, transfer pricing mechanisms, and long-term commercial agreements to ensure continued operational efficiency under both the current tariff regime and potential future modifications. Strategic legal and tax planning can assist investors in mitigating compliance and cost-related risks while maintaining flexibility to capitalize on more favorable trade conditions as negotiations advance.

Conclusion

These developments represent a favorable outlook for investors and businesses with exposure to Thai–U.S. trade relations. Renewed momentum in bilateral negotiations reinforces confidence in Thailand as a strategic trade and investment destination while emphasizing the critical importance of proactive legal and regulatory planning. Investors, importers, exporters, and multinational corporations are advised to monitor these negotiations closely, as forthcoming developments regarding tariffs, trade regulations, and approval processes may directly impact investment structures, operational costs, and market access opportunities.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Government Measures to Promote Film Production in Thailand: Key Incentives and Regulatory Requirements

On 2 December 2025, the Cabinet of Thailand approved the Measures to Promote Film Production in Thailand (the “Measures“), designating the Ministry of Culture as the principal authority responsible for their implementation. The Ministry of Culture is mandated to prescribe the relevant eligibility criteria, incentives, and implementation procedures in accordance with the Cabinet’s approval.

The Thai film industry is recognized as a creative industry with substantial potential in terms of both economic contribution and the promotion of Thailand’s national image on the global stage. Pursuant to the government’s strategy to enhance the competitiveness of creative industries, Thai films have been designated as a Flagship Creative Industry with the capacity to compete with foreign productions and stimulate economic activity across multiple related sectors.

Objectives of the Measures

These Measures are designed to support and strengthen Thai film production at both domestic and international levels and encompass the following objectives:

  • Promote high-quality Thai film production – To support the production of films that meet international standards, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of Thai films in the global market.
  • Enhance industry competitiveness – To strengthen the capabilities of Thai film operators through skills development, infrastructure improvement, and market access expansion.
  • Support cultural exports and soft power – To leverage film as a medium for promoting Thai culture internationally and reinforcing Thailand’s soft power presence abroad.

Benefits Under the Measures

These Measures provide financial support to eligible Thai film productions to encourage high-quality content, enhance industry competitiveness, and promote Thai culture internationally.

Main Benefit

Eligible film projects with a production budget of at least THB 15 million are entitled to financial support equivalent to 15% of qualifying production expenses per project.

Additional Benefits

Supplementary financial support can be granted if certain conditions are met, as set out below:

  • Creative Content Incentive – Film projects presenting innovative storylines or creative content addressing the issues as prescribed by the Subcommittee on the Promotion of Film Production in Thailand under the Ministry of Culture, the applicant shall be eligible to apply for an additional incentive of 5%.
  • High-Budget Production Incentive – Film projects with production costs ranging from THB 40 million to less than THB 50 million will receive an additional 2.5% incentive. Film projects with production costs of THB 50 million or more will receive an additional 5% incentive.
  • International Screening Incentive – Film projects screened in cinemas or broadcast on television in at least four foreign countries or released on a streaming platform accessible in at least four foreign countries (with at least one country located outside Southeast Asia), will receive an additional 5% incentive.

Applicant Qualifications

Applicants seeking benefits under these Measures must satisfy the following criteria:

  • Thai Ownership – The applicant must be a legal entity in which more than 50% of the shareholding is held by Thai nationals, with at least one-half of the directors or managers being Thai nationals.
  • Operational History and Compliance – The entity must have been in operation for a minimum of two years and be duly registered with the Department of Business Development and other relevant government authorities. The applicant must have filed corporate income tax and value-added tax returns and maintained audited financial statements.
  • Copyright Ownership or Rights – The entity must either (i) own the copyright in the film, which must qualify as a Thai work, or (ii) lawfully hold the relevant copyright or exploitation rights obtained from a Thai copyright owner.
  • Business Purpose – The entity must operate in the film industry or related sectors, with such business objectives expressly stated in its business registration certificate filed with the Department of Business Development or other relevant authorities.
  • Office in Thailand – The entity must maintain its principal office or an establishment in Thailand that serves as an operational business location or official contact point.
  • Production Expense Threshold – The relevant film project must incur production expenses of at least THB 15 million per project within Thailand.

Conditions of the Measure

These Measures are implemented under the Thai Government’s framework. The Committee for the Consideration of Financial Support under these Measures (the “Committee”) is responsible for reviewing all financial documents and verifying compliance with regulations prescribed by the Revenue Department.

  • Legal Compliance – Film projects must fully comply with Thai laws and must not be subject to any legal disputes.
  • Eligible Expenses – Financial support covers costs incurred during the pre-production, production, and post-production stages. Expenses related to marketing and publicity, overseas expenditures, interest, gifts, entertainment, or prizes are excluded.
  • Exclusive Incentive – Film projects that received financial support or were granted incentives under other measures implemented by the Thai government shall not be eligible to apply for or receive support under these Measures.
  • Approval Requirement – Film projects must be reviewed and approved by the Film and Video Review Committee under the Film and Video Act B.E. 2551 (2008) or otherwise comply with the criteria prescribed by the Ministry of Culture.
  • Eligible Productions – Eligible productions include Thai films, Thai television series, and Thai music videos.
  • Revocation of Benefits – Approved incentives may be revoked under the following circumstances:
    • The applicant fails to produce the film or submit the required documents within the prescribed timeframe.
    • The content of the film violates Thai law or misrepresents, undermines, or damages Thailand’s image or national institutions.

Procedures for Submission of an Application for Entitlement to Financial Support

Application Submission

Applicants who meet the above-mentioned qualifications are able to submit the documents to apply for eligibility to receive financial support up to 2 times per year during the following periods.

  • Round 1: 1 January – 31 March
  • Round 2: 1 July – 30 September

Review and Approval

The Committee shall review the applications and approve eligible applicants as recipients of financial support within 60 days from the date of submission.

Production Timeline

Applicants approved as eligible recipients of financial support must complete the film production within 2 years from the date of approval. Applicants shall initially advance and bear all production costs at their own expense and subsequently submit an application for reimbursement.

Claiming Financial Support

  • Upon completion of the film production, applicants shall submit all required supporting documents for the application for financial support to the Committee within 90 days from the date of completion, in accordance with the approved production period.
  • An auditor appointed by the Committee shall review the submitted documents within 90 days.
  • The Committee shall review all documents verified by the auditor and approve the reimbursement in accordance with the said Measures within 60 days from the date of receipt of such documents with the said Measures and disburse the reimbursement to the eligible recipient of the financial support.
  • An eligible recipient who has already been granted the principal incentive (i.e., 15% of production costs per film) under these Measures and who wishes to apply for additional incentives under these Measures shall submit the relevant supporting evidence within 3 years from the date of approval of the financial support.

Current Program Status

The Cabinet has approved the underlying principles of these Measures, and the Ministry of Culture is currently preparing the detailed implementing measures for submission to the Cabinet for final approval. However, due to the dissolution of Parliament, final approval will be deferred until the formation of a new Cabinet.

Conclusion

These Measures aim to enhance the quality and competitiveness of Thai films while supporting the development of industry professionals. These Measures are expected to stimulate investment, create employment opportunities, and promote Thai culture through films, series, and music videos to audiences both domestically and internationally. Overall, these Measures contribute to strengthening Thailand’s national image and advancing the creative economy.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Medical Data: Balancing Privacy and Legal Needs in Inheritance and Liability Cases

In Thailand, the disclosure of medical records involves a delicate balance between protecting patient privacy and enabling access for legitimate purposes, such as legal proceedings. A landmark 2025 ruling by the Official Information Board’s Appeal Committee (Social Affairs, Public Administration, and Law Enforcement Branch) illustrates this principle: a public hospital initially refused to release a deceased patient’s treatment history, but the board overturned the decision, ordering disclosure to support a civil lawsuit.

Case Summary: Authorized Representative Seeking Records for Tort Claim

The appellant sought the medical treatment records of “Ms. K.” (a pseudonym), their full sibling who had passed away. The hospital denied the request, citing privacy concerns.

On appeal, the Committee found that:

  • The appellant was acting under a power of attorney granted by “Mrs. B” (the mother of the deceased and a legal heir).
  • The records were needed to support a tort lawsuit alleging medical negligence that contributed to Ms. K.’s death.
  • Since the patient was deceased and unable to request the records herself, the authorized representative was exercising rights on her behalf.
  • This was pursuant to the Ministerial Regulation No. 2 (B.E. 2541 (1998)) issued under the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997), which allows designated representatives to access information when the data subject is incapacitated or deceased.

The Committee explicitly ruled that this did not constitute a request for “another person’s health information” under Section 7 of the National Health Act, B.E. 2550 (2007). After weighing the agency’s legal duties, public interest, and private benefits, the board concluded that disclosure was justified, with appropriate redactions for unrelated personal data.

This decision reinforces that authorized heirs or representatives can access deceased patients’ records for legitimate legal purposes without violating core privacy protections.

Key Legislation Governing Medical Record Disclosure:

  1. Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997) Public agencies, including state hospitals, must disclose official information upon request (Section 11). Exceptions include personal data where disclosure would unreasonably invade privacy (Sections 14-15). Appeals against refusals are handled by the Official Information Board, whose rulings are binding. Ministerial Regulation No. 2 (B.E. 2541) specifically permits representatives to act for deceased or incapacitated individuals.
  2. National Health Act, B.E. 2550 (2007) Section 7 protects health information privacy and restricts disclosure of “another person’s” data without consent. However, as clarified in this ruling, requests by authorized representatives of deceased patients fall outside this prohibition when tied to legal rights.
  3. Personal Data Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). Health data is sensitive personal data requiring strict protection. Exemptions apply for legal claims, compliance with law, or court processes. Disclosures mandated by the OIB under the OIA are generally permissible.
  4. Medical Profession Act, B.E. 2525 (1982), and Hospital Regulations. These impose confidentiality on healthcare providers but allow exceptions for legal obligations or authorized requests.

How These Laws Interact:

The system operates through complementary layers:

  • Patient/Representative Rights vs. Third-Party Requests: Direct access (by patients or proxies) is facilitated under the National Health Actม B.E. 2550 (2007)  and OIA regulations, while unrelated third-party requests face higher barriers.
  • Privacy vs. Justice: Hospitals often invoke Section 7 of the National Health Act, B.E. 2550 (2007) or PDPA to refuse, but the OIB can override when disclosure serves legal accountability (e.g., malpractice suits) without undue harm.
  • Deceased Persons’ Data: Post-mortem privacy persists, but heirs’ inheritance or liability claims create legitimate interests, resolved via representative powers under OIA regulations.
  • Enforcement Mechanism: OIA appeals provide an administrative remedy, binding on public agencies. Parallel court subpoenas or PDPA complaints may arise in complex cases.

This ruling sets valuable precedent for families pursuing medical negligence claims after a relative’s death. Individuals facing similar denials should document authorization (e.g., power of attorney from heirs) and appeal through the Official Information Commission (oic.go.th). Consulting legal experts or the Ministry of Public Health can further clarify rights in such sensitive matters.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Medical Advertising: Criminal Fraud Convictions for Doctor, Clinic Owner, and Agency in Misleading Stem Cell Campaign

In a landmark ruling delivered by the Criminal Court in 2025, three parties—a licensed physician, the owner of a private medical clinic, and the advertising agency they hired—were found guilty of criminal fraud under Section 341 of the Penal Code. The case centered on misleading online advertisements for stem cell therapy and anti-aging treatments. All three received prison sentences and fines, marking one of the strongest judicial responses to date against false medical advertising in Thailand.

Summary of the Court’s Findings:

The court determined that the defendants jointly created and published advertisements on Facebook and Line that contained the following false or exaggerated claims:

  • “Stem cell therapy can cure diabetes, high blood pressure, and knee degeneration permanently.”
  • “100 % success rate with no side effects”
  • “Patients will look 10–20 years younger after one treatment.”

The advertisements used before-and-after photos of patients (without proper consent or medical evidence) and included fabricated testimonials. When patients paid between 280,000 and 650,000 baht per course, they received only standard vitamin infusions or platelet-rich plasma (PRP), not the promised stem cell therapy.

The court ruled that:

  • The physician knowingly allowed his name and medical license to be used in the deceptive ads
  • The clinic owner approved and paid for the campaign despite knowing the claims were impossible to fulfill
  • The advertising agency designed the content, posted it, and collected the advertising fee, fully aware of the falsehoods

All three were convicted of fraud by deception, causing property loss to the victims (Section 341 Penal Code) and of violating the Medical Profession Act B.E. 2525 (1982) (using a physician’s name in misleading advertising) and the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (false advertising).

Sentences Imposed:

  • The doctor: 2 years imprisonment (suspended for 4 years) + 200,000 baht fine
  • The clinic owner: 2 years 6 months imprisonment (suspended for 5 years) + 300,000 baht fine
  • The agency director: 2 years imprisonment (suspended for 4 years) + 200,000 baht fine

The court also ordered all three defendants to pay compensation totaling 4.2 million baht to the 12 victim-patients who filed complaints.

Relevant Laws Applied in the Judgment:

  1. Penal Code, Section 341 – Fraud by deception causing property loss (maximum 3 years imprisonment and/or fine)
  2. Medical Profession Act B.E. 2525 (1982), Section 27 – Prohibits physicians from allowing their name to be used in false or exaggerated advertising.
  3. Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), Section 22 – Prohibits false, deceptive, or exaggerated advertising that may cause misunderstanding
  4. Medical Facilities Act B.E. 2541 (1998) – The clinic’s license was placed under review for allowing unethical advertising.

How These Laws Interact:

  • The Penal Code provides criminal punishment for the actual financial harm caused to patients.
  • The Medical Profession Act targets the doctor’s ethical breach and can lead to license suspension or revocation by the Medical Council.
  • The Consumer Protection Act allows the Consumer Protection Board to impose additional administrative fines and bans on advertising.
  • When all three laws are applied together, the court can impose both imprisonment and compensation, while the professional council and government agencies handle long-term sanctions (license loss, business closure)

Key Takeaways:

  • Shared Criminal Liability: For the first time, the entire chain—physician, clinic owner, and advertising agency—was held jointly criminally responsible for fraudulent medical ads.
  • No “Ignorance” Defense: Doctors cannot claim innocence by saying they merely lent their name; agencies cannot hide behind “client instructions” if they know claims are false.
  • Severe Consequences: Beyond fines and suspended sentences, defendants face civil compensation and potential professional sanctions (e.g., license revocation).
  • Patient Protection Strengthened: Victims can pursue remedies through criminal complaints, Consumer Protection Board filings, or Medical Council reports.
  • Deterrent Effect: The ruling signals stricter enforcement against exaggerated health claims, especially in high-value treatments like stem cells and anti-aging therapies.

Significance of the Ruling:

This judgment sends a clear message that misleading medical advertising is not merely an ethical violation but can constitute criminal fraud when it induces financial loss. Patients who have paid for treatments after seeing similar online ads are strongly encouraged to retain evidence (screenshots, receipts, chat records) and file complaints with the Consumer Protection Board, the Medical Council, and/or the inquiry officer.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Medical Professionals: Key Legislation

Thailand’s healthcare system operates under a robust legal framework designed to regulate the conduct, qualifications, and responsibilities of doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel. These laws aim to protect patient rights, uphold professional standards, and ensure public health safety. The primary legislation is administered by professional councils under the oversight of the Ministry of Public Health. This article provides a brief overview of the most relevant acts, their core provisions, and how they interact within the broader healthcare ecosystem.

1. Medical Profession Act, B.E. 2525 (1982)

This foundational law governs the practice of medicine by physicians. It establishes the Medical Council of Thailand as the regulatory body responsible for:

  • Issuing and revoking licenses to practice medicine.
  • Approving medical education programs and continuing professional development.
  • Enforcing ethical standards and disciplinary measures for misconduct.

The Act defines the scope of medical practice, prohibiting unlicensed individuals from performing medical acts. Violations can result in fines, imprisonment, or license suspension.

2. Professional Nursing and Midwifery Act, B.E. 2528 (1985), as Amended

This Act regulates the nursing and midwifery professions. It creates the Thailand Nursing and Midwifery Council, which oversees:

  • Licensing for nurses, midwives, and combined nursing-midwifery practitioners.
  • Setting standards for education, training, and the scope of practice.
  • Maintaining professional ethics and handling complaints or disciplinary actions.

The law delineates specific nursing duties, such as patient care, administration of treatments under medical supervision, and midwifery services. Unauthorized practice is penalized similarly to the Medical Profession Act.

3. Medical Facilities Act, B.E. 2541 (1998), with Amendments

Also known as the Sanatorium Act, this legislation governs the establishment and operation of hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare facilities. It requires:

  • Licensing for medical facilities.
  • Compliance with standards for infrastructure, equipment, and staffing.
  • Oversight to ensure safe and ethical service delivery.

This Act applies to institutions where doctors, nurses, and other personnel practice, imposing responsibilities on facility operators for overall compliance.

4. Act on the Practice of the Art of Healing, B.E. 2542 (1999)

This law regulates non-modern medical practices, including traditional Thai medicine, physical therapy, and applied arts of healing. It categorizes practices into branches (e.g., Thai traditional medicine, massage) and requires licensing for practitioners in these fields. It prevents overlap with modern medicine while allowing regulated traditional practices.

5. Other Supporting Legislation

  • Pharmaceutical Profession Act, B.E. 2537 (1994): Regulates pharmacists, often interacting with doctors and nurses in medication management.
  • Medical Device Act, B.E. 2551 (2008) and Narcotics/Pharmaceutical Laws: Govern equipment and controlled substances used by medical personnel.
  • Patient Rights Protections: Embedded in various acts and the National Health Act, B.E. 2550 (2007), ensuring informed consent and confidentiality.
  • Emerging protections: As of late 2025, drafts like the Act on Protection of Public Health Personnel B.E. …. aim to safeguard healthcare workers from violence or undue legal risks during duty.

Interactions Among These Laws

These acts form an interconnected system:

  • Professional vs. Institutional Focus: The Medical Profession Act, B.E. 2551 (2008)and Nursing/Midwifery Act, B.E. 2528 (1985) target individual practitioners’ qualifications and ethics, while the Medical Facilities Act, B.E. 2541 (1998)ensures the environments (hospitals/clinics) meet operational standards. Practitioners must comply with both—e.g., a licensed nurse working in an unlicensed facility could face indirect sanctions.
  • Scope of Practice Boundaries: Laws clearly define roles to prevent unauthorized acts (e.g., nurses cannot perform surgical procedures reserved for doctors). Overlaps are managed through collaboration, such as nurses administering treatments under physician orders.
  • Disciplinary and Legal Overlaps: Professional councils handle ethical breaches (e.g., license revocation), while civil liability (damages under the Civil and Commercial Code) or criminal charges (negligence under the Penal Code) are pursued in courts. A single incident, like malpractice, may trigger parallel proceedings.
  • Unified Oversight: All fall under the Ministry of Public Health, with councils promoting harmonized standards. This ensures multidisciplinary teams (doctors, nurses, technicians) function cohesively in patient care.

Understanding these laws is essential for medical personnel to avoid liability and maintain high standards. Resources from the Medical Council of Thailand and the Thailand Nursing and Midwifery Council provide detailed guidelines and updates.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Burden of Proof in Credit Card Fraud: A Landmark Thai Supreme Court Ruling

The Thai Supreme Court has reaffirmed a critical principle in credit card fraud cases: the burden of proof rests with the issuing bank, not the cardholder. This represents a departure from the general rule that the party asserting a claim bears the burden of proof. In doing so, the Court has clarified the allocation of risk between consumers and financial institutions in disputes involving unauthorized credit card transactions. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2624/2568 establishes an important precedent on liability for unauthorized credit card transactions and significantly strengthens consumer protection under Thai law.

Case Summary

This case arose from a claim filed by the issuing bank alleging that the cardholder failed to make payment on multiple outstanding debts arising from credit card transactions recorded under the cardholder’s account.

The cardholder consistently maintained that the credit card had not been used for the transactions recorded on the dates specified by the issuing bank. The cardholder further asserted that the credit card information had been unlawfully obtained and misused by a third party, as evidenced by a clear discrepancy between the signature appearing on the transaction records and the cardholder’s actual signature. The matter was subsequently reported to the inquiry officer.

man in gray sweater holding black smartphone

In the court of first instance, the cardholder was ordered to pay the outstanding debt. On appeal, although both parties sought review of the judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the cardholder’s liability and increased the amount payable, declining to consider the defense of unauthorized use on the grounds that it had not been properly raised before the Court of First Instance.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that the burden of proof properly rested with the issuing bank, given its superior control over credit card security measures and specialized expertise in transaction authorization systems. As the issuing bank failed to discharge this burden, the claim was dismissed and the cardholder was found not liable. The Court further noted that both the issuing bank and the merchant bore partial responsibility for failing to conduct adequate verification and to implement appropriate preventive measures.

The Burden of Proof Issue

Once credit card fraud is alleged, the key issue is whether the credit card system issued by the bank was sufficiently secure against copying or counterfeiting, and consequently, which party bears the burden of proof.

The Supreme Court held that matters relating to credit card security concern manufacturing, design, and operational processes that fall within the issuing bank’s specific knowledge and control. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 29 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008), the burden of proof rests with the issuing bank.

In this case, the issuing bank failed to adduce technical or expert evidence demonstrating the adequacy of its credit card security system. Moreover, evidence showed that other cardholders had lodged similar complaints involving counterfeit cards. As a result, the issuing bank failed to discharge its burden of proof.

Key Impact on the Consumer Protection Sector

1. Shift of the Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is shifted from the cardholder to the issuing bank, as the issuing bank possesses specialized knowledge and expertise in credit card systems and transaction security. Accordingly, cardholders are not required to prove technical matters beyond their reasonable capacity.

2. Enhancement of Bank Security Standards

Following this judgment, issuing banks are required to substantiate claims regarding system security with concrete technical evidence, rather than relying solely on general assertions or internal standards.

3. Promotion of Consumer Confidence

The judgment reinforces consumer protection based on principles of fairness, enhances public confidence in digital financial systems, and supports broader economic activity.

4. Precedent Value

This judgment establishes an important precedent affirming that issuing banks are responsible for implementing effective fraud prevention measures and ensuring the security of credit card systems. Future disputes involving credit card fraud may rely on this judgment in assessing bank liability.

Conclusion

Thai Supreme Court Judgment No. 2624/2568 marks a significant advancement in consumer protection law by placing the evidentiary burden on issuing banks in cases involving electronic payment fraud. The judgment reinforces fairness in the assessment of contractual obligations, strengthens protection for cardholders, and places increased pressure on financial institutions to enhance their security, authentication, and fraud monitoring systems.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DBD Intensifies Crackdown on Illegal Businesses: Public Urged to Avoid Nominee Arrangements and Mule Accounts

As of December 2025, the Department of Business Development (DBD)’s Division for the Prevention and Suppression of Illegal Businesses continues to ramp up its efforts to combat unlawful practices, particularly the use of nominee shareholders and juristic person mule accounts. Following the Division’s establishment in October 2025 and the subsequent rollout of stricter measures, the public and business operators are strongly advised to strictly comply with Thai laws to avoid severe legal consequences.

The DBD has emphasized that certain high-risk groups must exercise extra caution when involved in company registrations or shareholding. Registering a company or holding shares in circumstances that raise red flags—such as links to suspicious networks or lack of genuine business intent—can lead to suspicions of acting as a nominee or facilitating mule accounts, both of which are serious violations.

Furthermore, the Department is closely monitoring cases where companies appear to lack real operational substance, such as those without proper financial trails, active business activities, or verifiable capital sources. Foreign nationals or entities attempting to control Thai companies through hidden ownership structures are particularly at risk of investigation.

In cases where discrepancies arise—such as mismatches between reported shareholders and actual control, or unusual transaction patterns—companies and individuals involved may be required to clarify their positions promptly. Failure to demonstrate legitimate business operations could result in legal action, including fines, company dissolution, or criminal charges.

The DBD reiterates that nominee arrangements, where Thai nationals hold shares on behalf of foreigners to bypass foreign ownership restrictions, undermine economic fairness and national security. Similarly, registering juristic persons primarily to open bank accounts for fraudulent purposes erodes public trust and facilitates crime.

To protect yourself and ensure compliance:

  • If you are a shareholder or director, actively participate in the company’s operations and maintain proper records.
  • Avoid agreeing to hold shares or register companies on behalf of others without a full understanding and genuine involvement.
  • Businesses should regularly review their structures for transparency and report any suspicious approaches immediately.

The Division is committed to fostering a transparent and equitable business environment. Violations not only harm the economy but also carry heavy penalties. Citizens are encouraged to correct any irregular arrangements voluntarily and seek guidance from the DBD to align with the law.

For our earlier article on the establishment of the Division, refer to https://thelegal.co.th/2025/10/14/department-of-business-development-establishes-division-to-combat-illegal-business-practices/ : Department of Business Development Establishes Division to Combat Illegal Business Practices.

Related Article: https://thelegal.co.th/2025/10/14/department-of-business-development-establishes-division-to-combat-illegal-business-practices/

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Quick Big Win Program: Strengthening Thai SMEs Through Integrated Financial and Tax Measures

The Cabinet has approved a comprehensive policy package under the “Quick Big Win” Program designed to strengthen small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which form a cornerstone of Thailand’s national economy. With an allocated budget of THB 21.75 billion, the program delivers immediate and measurable economic outcomes through enhanced access to financing, reduced financial burdens, and improved SME competitiveness.

The program is implemented in coordination with relevant government agencies and state-owned financial institutions to ensure efficient and timely execution of all measures.

Policy Rationale

The policy framework provides Thai SMEs with essential support to facilitate economic recovery and sustain their vital role in driving production, employment, and investment. The program addresses critical economic challenges, including:

  • Escalating operational costs
  • Intensified competition from foreign businesses
  • Ongoing liquidity constraints affecting SME operations

Key Program Components

I. Financial Measures: Strengthening SME Liquidity

  1. SMEs Quick Big Win Credit Guarantee Program

Implemented by the Thai Credit Guarantee Corporation (TCG) with a budget of THB 10.5 billion, this program enables SMEs to access timely financing from financial institutions at competitive interest rates. The program minimizes additional fees beyond standard guarantee charges, thereby reducing both direct and indirect burdens for SMEs and participating financial institutions.

The program comprises three distinct components:

Credit Guarantee Program for General SMEs (SMEs Go Big)
Provides credit guarantees to general SME operators, facilitating access to adequate financing from financial institutions to support business operations and enhance lender confidence.

Credit Guarantee Program for Micro SMEs (SMEs Smart Win)
Offers tailored credit guarantees for micro-SMEs, enabling small-scale entrepreneurs to obtain formal funding with reduced barriers and improved financial inclusion.

Credit Guarantee Program for Contractors and Procurement-Related SMEs (SMEs Quick LG)
Supports SMEs engaged in construction, procurement, or contracting activities with government agencies, state-owned enterprises, and private sector entities through credit guarantees for Letter of Guarantee (LG)-based financing.

  1. Additional Financial Support Programs

Low-Interest Business Revival Loans by Government Savings Bank (GSB)
This initiative supports the revitalization of Thai businesses under the “Reinvent Thailand” framework, with eligibility criteria and loan conditions established in consultation with the Thai Bankers’ Association, the Thai Chamber of Commerce, and the Federation of Thai Industries.

Sustainable Thai Credit Program (Phase 3) and SME Thai Chaiyo Loan by Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC)
These programs provide targeted financial support to SMEs while promoting sustainable business practices.

Export Market Expansion Support by EXIM Bank
This program assists Thai SMEs in expanding into international markets without requiring government budget compensation.

II. Tax Measures: Promoting Fair Competition

1.    Revenue Department Initiatives

      e-Tax Project

Promotes SME adoption of electronic tax systems through support from larger corporate partners. The Revenue Department provides   

tax incentives, expedited VAT refunds, and compliance certification for eligible SMEs.

Fast Track Tax Refunds

Streamlines and accelerates corporate income tax refunds for low-risk taxpayers through a centralized Fast Track system utilizing   

PromptPay transfers.

2.   Customs Department Initiative

De Minimis Value (DMV) Adjustment
Effective 1 January 2026, import duties will be imposed on all goods purchased through online platforms from the first baht. This measure ensures a level playing field and enhances the competitiveness of domestic businesses.

III. Additional Support Measures

PromptBiz for Government Procurement
Connects government procurement and payment data with financial institutions, enabling SME contractors to access secure and expedited financing through verified contract and payment information.

SME Incentives in Public Procurement
Certified SMEs with annual revenue up to THB 500 million and e-Tax compliance receive additional scoring advantages in government contract evaluations, promoting equitable access to procurement opportunities and encouraging tax compliance.

Thai E-Commerce Platform Development
To reduce reliance on foreign platforms with high transaction fees, the government plans to establish a domestic e-commerce platform. This initiative will empower SMEs and local entrepreneurs, including agricultural producers, to conduct digital trade efficiently and contribute to national economic growth.

Program Benefits

The Quick Big Win Program delivers three primary benefits:

  • Enhanced Liquidity for SMEs Across Key Segments – Improved access to working capital and operational funding
  • Improved Competitiveness and Operational Efficiency – Reduced costs and streamlined administrative processes
  • Expanded Opportunities and Access to Funding – Broader participation in government procurement and export markets

Current Program Status

Following the dissolution of Parliament, the Quick Big Win Program remains fully operational. As the program received Cabinet approval on 2 December 2025, its implementation continues under the authority of the relevant government agencies and state-owned financial institutions in accordance with Cabinet resolutions.

Conclusion

The Quick Big Win Program represents a comprehensive governmental approach to strengthening Thai SMEs amid persistent economic challenges. By integrating credit guarantees, low-interest financing, tax facilitation, and fair-trade measures, the program directly addresses liquidity constraints while building long-term competitive capacity. Coordinated implementation among government agencies and state financial institutions ensures effective and timely delivery of support. These integrated measures expand access to funding, promote fair competition, and encourage digital transformation and sustainable business practices. The program reinforces the critical role of SMEs in sustaining production, employment, and investment, thereby contributing to Thailand’s economic recovery and long-term sustainable growth.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles