The Royal Thai Police (the police) is the main investigating authority empowered by the Criminal Procedure Code to conduct an investigation on criminal cases. However, in certain cases, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), often referred to as the Thai FBI, is empowered to conduct investigations on 'special cases' as prescribed by the Special Case Investigation Act BE 2547 (2004), which include certain cases under the Revenue Code, customs law, excise law, the Foreign Business Act, the Computer Crime Act, the Board of Investment Commission Act, the Copyright Act, the Patent Act and the Trade Competition Act.

The police and the DSI have similar investigatory powers, although the DSI has additional powers in certain areas. In exercising their powers, both entities are subject to the Criminal Procedure Code and the protections provided to alleged offenders under its provisions.

Specific legislation may also empower government authorities to investigate matters under their supervision. For example, the new Customs Act BE 2560 (2017) (the Customs Act) empowers the Customs Department to conduct searches and seizures;2 the new Trade Competition Act BE2560 (2017)3 empowers the Office of the Trade Competition Commission (OTCC) to summon any person to give statements, facts, or make a clarification in writing, and to conduct searches and seizures for examination purposes; the Foreign Business Act BE2542 (1999) (FBA) empowers officials of the Ministry of Commerce to investigate by issuing an enquiry letter or summoning a person to give oral testimony;4 and the Organic Act on Counter Corruption BE2542 (1999) empowers the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to investigate allegations that a political office holder or a government official is unusually wealthy, corrupt or guilty of malfeasance in office.

In practice, businesses generally cooperate with government authority investigations to avoid more excessive measures or future inspections. It is also the case that Thai laws generally provide penalties for failure to cooperate with government requests or to facilitate the conduct of investigations. Nonetheless, if a business considers that the measures taken by the government authority are unreasonable or unlawful, it may take an adversarial stance against the authority. In addition, businesses may reserve the right to challenge the inspectors' authority to take certain documents on the grounds of either relevance under the terms of the warrant or authority or, to a lesser extent, legal privilege (for documents held by lawyers).

Even though it is unclear to what extent political agendas or domestic priorities have an impact on investigations, governmental authorities often perform in accordance with the policies of the government. For example, in February 2015, the European Union put Thailand on formal notice for not taking sufficient measures to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, making the elimination of IUU fishing a priority issue. Therefore, the government has requested that the relevant authorities (the Marine Police Division, the Royal Thai Navy and the Customs Department) give it their full cooperation in supporting implementation of the IUU fishing elimination plan formulated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, and, in March 2018, the government appointed special arrest teams to inspect fishing-related crimes at sea.5 This is a case in point of how political agendas or domestic priorities affect governmental authorities and any resulting investigations in Thailand.


i Self-reporting

Thai laws generally do not include a self-reporting requirement in the event of wrongdoing. It is also generally the case that self-reporting does not reduce applicable penalties.

Individual regulators may introduce their own self-reporting mechanism, for example, the Customs Department's voluntary audit programme (VAP). The VAP is a self-reporting or self-review programme initiated to foster good relationships between the Customs Department and the business sector, by allowing businesses to pay deficit duty and the Customs Department to consider waiving penalties and surcharges. While the VAP is not supported by a specific legislative provision, case law6 supports the potential waiver of penalties in the event that the plaintiff has provided documentation and evidence to the post-audit officer that indicates no intent to evade tax. The key limiting factor for use of the VAP is that it is not valid if the Customs Department believes there was an intent to evade tax.

The existence of settlement programmes may encourage self-reporting, particularly as a settlement would typically indemnify the offender against any further prosecution on account of the offence and may also provide a significant reduction in penalties. For example, Section 256 of the new Customs Act provides a mechanism for the settlement of alleged offences upon payment by the alleged offender of the amount as negotiated and agreed between the alleged offender and the Customs Department. The settlement amount represents a substantial reduction of the total fines payable in the event of a successful prosecution of the offence. Leniency programmes are currently not well developed under Thai law.

ii Internal investigations

Thai businesses may conduct internal investigations as they deem appropriate and there is no requirement to share the results of an internal investigation with any government body.

The Labour Protection Act BE 2541 (1998) provides that, during the investigation of an offence allegedly committed by the accused employee, the employer is not permitted to suspend an employee from work unless there are work rules or an employment agreement specifying that the employer has the right to do so. If there is such language in the work rules or employment agreement, the employer shall issue a written order of suspension to the accused employee stating the offence allegedly committed and a suspension period not exceeding seven days. The employer shall pay the employee not less than 50 per cent of the working day wages received by the employee prior to the suspension. If it appears that the employee is not guilty, the employer shall pay wages to the employee equivalent to the wages of a working day starting from the date of suspension. There is no law requiring that the employer provides the employee with legal representation during the investigation.

Investigations are typically conducted by internal counsel with support from external counsel in certain situations, for example, when the case involves violations of law or regulations. If a lawyer has been retained for the purpose of the internal investigation, the confidential information that the lawyer received from or provided to the client in the internal investigation shall not be disclosed. The disclosure by a lawyer of any confidential information about a client may be a violation of Section 323 of the Criminal Code.7

iii Whistle-blowers

Thailand does not have a specific law on whistle-blower protection, although it has been implemented under certain legislation (i.e., the Securities and Exchange Act and the Organic Act on Counter Corruption). Section 89/2 of the Securities and Exchange Act8 provides that employees who give information, cooperate or give assistance by any means to the competent authorities under the Act shall not be subjected to unfair treatment by the employer. Similar language appears in Section 103/2 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which provides a protective measure to assist a person who discloses information regarding the dishonest performance of duties, unusual wealth, or other information that is beneficial for the performance of the NACC.9 In practical terms, whistle-blower reports of potential illegal conduct are rarely submitted to government authorities.

Legal protection for witnesses is prescribed by the Witness Protection Act,10 in which the witnesses and relatives in criminal proceeding shall receive special protection measures in respect of cases related to offences under the laws on narcotics, money laundering, anti-corruption, customs, etc. In addition to corruption cases, Section 103/6 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption provides immunity from prosecution to the person who provides information that can be used to determine there has been a commission of an offence by a State official.11

In relation to the incentives programme for whistle-blowers, only specific legislation may empower government authorities to grant rewards for public participation in crime prevention. For example, Section 255 of the new Customs Act12 empowers the director general of the Customs Department to order the payment of money as bribe and reward to customs officials and third-party whistle-blowers for reporting under any offences thereof. Section 103/3 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption empowers the NACC to grant a reward to informants who report information concerning corruption, unusual wealth or other beneficial information to NACC officials.13 Another example is that the Office of the Narcotics Control Board is empowered to grant rewards to informants who give information in drug cases.14


i Corporate liability

As the concept of piercing the corporate veil is not explicitly provided for by law, shareholders of a limited company or partners in a limited partnership have liability up to the amount of the unpaid value of shares or capital invested in the company or the partnership, as the case may be. Under Thai law, a juristic person (i.e., an entity recognised by law, such as a company or partnership) may be subject to both civil and criminal liability.

With regard to civil liability under the tort regime, to consider whether a juristic person is liable for the conduct of its employees, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) provides that an employer is vicariously responsible for its employee if the employee's action is attributable to his or her employment.15 Vicarious liability can be established only for the relationship between an employer and an employee under an employment agreement with remuneration. Therefore, if such a link could be established, a juristic person employer will almost always be responsible for the actions of its employee, unless it can prove that the action is not attributable to the course of employment. The court usually interprets 'course of work' in an expansive manner to include, for instance, conduct that does not relate to work but occurs during working hours, or does not follow directions given by the employers but the ultimate objective of the action is for the benefit of the employers. This interpretation places a high burden on a company. Another key point to consider is that, even though the employee's conduct is not attributable to the 'course of work' of an employer, a company may still be held liable under the principle of 'agency by estoppel' enshrined in the CCC.16 For example, the company may be held responsible for the conduct of the employee that is not considered as the 'course of work' of an employer if the company explicitly or implicitly accepted such conduct.

At present, there are no general legislative provisions that define the principles governing the criminal liability of a juristic person. As a juristic person is represented and managed by a director or directors who are elected by the shareholders, where a company has conducted an unlawful act, it can only be subjected to a particular penalty17 (e.g., a criminal fine) owing to its nature. Certain laws explicitly impose criminal liability on a juristic person if it breaches its duties. For example, the Securities and Exchange Act BE2535 (1992) imposes a fine on any company that violates the regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In an exceptional circumstance, the Supreme Court has ruled that a company is criminally responsible for manslaughter.18 In this case, the court held that the juristic person and its representative acted in gross negligence for failure to comply with the ministerial regulations. Although its employee was the person driving a gas tanker that was involved in an accident and caused a gas leakage and explosion resulting in high casualties, the court decided that the action arose through gross negligence. The Court also applied a standard of care higher than a reasonable man test. This case resembles corporate manslaughter liability under English law.

There is no specific legislation prohibiting a company and an individual from being represented by the same counsel. In practice, if there is a risk that the interest of the individual and the interests of the company may conflict, it is advisable that separate counsel be appointed.

ii Penalties

The range of sanctions available against businesses in Thailand include fines (both administrative and criminal), confiscation of property and revocation of licences, based on the offence committed.19

Recent legal amendments have clarified that, when an offender is a juristic person, if the offence of the juristic person derives from an order or an action of a director or a manager or any person who is responsible for the operations of the said juristic person, or where the said person has the duty to issue an order or to take an action but failed to do so and thereby caused the said juristic person to have committed the offence, the said person shall also be liable for the punishment provided for the offence.20

Apart from criminal penalties, a juristic person may be subject to administrative fines if he or she violates or does not comply with an administrative order imposed by an administrative agency. The general regulation governing administrative fines is the Administrative Procedure Act BE2539 (1996), which determines the maximum administrative fine of not exceeding 20,000 baht per day unless a specific governing regulation stipulates otherwise.21

In addition, the government authority that grants a licence to the juristic person to conduct a specific type of business may exercise its power to suspend or revoke the licence if the licensee does not comply with the law or the conditions prescribed in the licence. The result of this can be damaging and can potentially lead to a further criminal offence if the business continues to operate without a proper licence. Also, revocation of the licence may lead to debarment as it will disqualify a person from applying for a new licence in the future.

iii Compliance programmes

Recent developments in this area indicate a greater recognition of the importance of compliance programmes as a defence to or as a mitigating circumstance for criminal liability; nevertheless, the area remains largely untested.

In mid 2015, amendments to the Organic Act on Counter Corruption introduced new language in Section 123/5 imposing liability on a juristic person where the offender has committed an offence in the interests of that juristic person. Interestingly, this provision introduced into law the defence of having 'appropriate internal control measures to prevent the commission of the offence', which is a significant advance towards recognising the importance of internal corporate compliance measures.22 There is as yet no indication as to how the defence will be interpreted by the courts. The 'Guidelines on Appropriate Internal Control Measures for Juristic Persons to Prevent Giving Property or Other Benefits to State Officials, Foreign Public Officials and Agents of Public International Organisations'23 require juristic persons to have appropriate internal control measures in place that stipulate that companies should internally adopt measures to prevent bribery from the top-level management, conduct risk assessments, adopt measures for high-risk and vulnerable areas, carry out anti-bribery programmes for business partners and associated subsidiaries, keep accurate books and accounting record systems, human resource management policies for anti-bribery measures, report suspicions of bribery and conduct periodic evaluation of anti-bribery effectiveness. If a company has an appropriate 'internal control' in place, liability can be mitigated; however, internal control measures do not guarantee that juristic persons will not be liable as it depends on the enforcement of said measures.

iv Prosecution of individuals

Thai criminal law recognises the concept of 'principals', 'instigators' and 'supporters' of an offence. Under the provisions of the Criminal Code, two or more persons may be subject to the same penalty for an offence, while a supporter would be liable for two-thirds of the penalty.

For example, a private-sector entity or individual may become involved in an NACC investigation and any subsequent proceedings if the private party has allegedly participated in or aided in the commission of such offence, either as an instigator or supporter of the alleged violation and accused official, including where such person has provided some property or benefit to the political office holders or officials to induce them to act contrary to their duties.24 A recent example in which private entities or individuals were investigated and sued as co-defendants, with the accused officials, was the 'fire truck scandal', which involved the procurement of fire-fighting vehicles and equipment by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration from a consortium. Another example is the Rubber Seed case, in which three private companies, a number of their respective directors and those authorised persons who signed key documentation, were sued as 'supporters' of the commission of the offence.

An employer is not required to dismiss an employee convicted of a criminal offence; however, if that employee is sentenced to imprisonment by a final court judgment, the employer may terminate employment without the requirement to pay statutory severance to the employee. It is generally the case that an employer may dismiss an employee, provided that all required statutory severance payments and notice provisions have been met, although the employee may nevertheless choose to allege that the dismissal was unfair and seek payment of additional compensation.25 There are only limited circumstances in which an employer can terminate the employment without making the required severance payment to the employee.26


i Extraterritorial jurisdiction

According to the Criminal Code, Thailand recognises the territorial principle on a criminal offence that is either partially or wholly committed in Thailand, or has consequences in Thailand. Thailand has adopted the passive personality principle in 13 categories of offences aiming to protect public security, economic security, personal integrity and property.27

In addition, Thailand exercises the universal jurisdiction principle regarding crimes committed outside Thailand and specific offences that are considered threats to national and international security, or known as transnational crimes, such as human trafficking, terrorism financing, piracy, sexual offences, as well as corruption of government officials and money laundering as prescribed in the Criminal Code and certain specific legislation. For example, Section 6 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act provides the universal jurisdiction principle over any person who has committed a money laundering offence whether inside or outside Thailand.28

With respect to investigative powers, specific investigation authorities, such as the NACC and the Anti-Money Laundering Board, are empowered by their respective legislation to conduct investigations on offences committed outside Thailand.

ii International cooperation

Thailand cooperates with other countries according to both informal cooperation via diplomatic channels and formal cooperation as prescribed in international agreements or treaties. Thailand has entered into international agreements with certain countries on both civil and criminal matters.

With respect to civil matters, the Civil Procedure Code provides that a Thai court may request a foreign court to conduct civil proceedings on its behalf. At present, Thailand has entered into an agreement on judicial cooperation with six countries.

With respect to criminal matters, the Act on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters BE2535 (1992) provides that the government of Thailand, as coordinated by the Attorney-General's Office, may request assistance from foreign states, and vice versa, regarding investigation, inquiry, prosecution, forfeiture of property and other proceedings relating to the criminal matters. At present, Thailand has entered into mutual legal assistance treaties with seven countries. The DSI recently used a mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States by requesting the investigation of a witness who resides in the United States. In this case, the US Department of Justice instructed the FBI to obtain testimony as per the DSI's request. The testimony obtained from the FBI's investigation was later admitted in a Thai court.

In addition, Thailand is a member of Interpol, which connects it to the global police information system, enabling the exchange of information on criminal conduct; however, the information so obtained would be subject to the investigation principle prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code that the evidence derived by any unlawful means shall not be admitted in court.29 Thailand commonly cooperates and coordinates with other countries in the areas of trafficking in persons and people smuggling, child exploitation, drug trafficking, cybercrime, economic crime, terrorism, arms smuggling and intellectual property crime;30 for example, the co-investigation between Interpol and Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam on cybercrime.31 Another example is the strengthening of border security networks to prevent the movement of criminals and terror suspects within ASEAN.32 Thailand has also joined the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purpose to reach international standards of exchange of information to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion.33

At present, Thailand has entered into 11 extradition treaties covering 15 countries. According to the Treaty on Extradition, the contracting states are not obliged to extradite their own citizens to other states. Grounds of refusal are statute of limitations, lack of the same criminal offences, political offences, violation of right to a fair trial, insufficiency of evidence and double jeopardy.

iii Local law considerations

In the case where multiple jurisdictions are implicated in an investigation, the local law in Thailand that may need to be taken into consideration is the data privacy law. The draft of the Personal Data Protection Act is expected to be submitted for Cabinet approval in May 2018 and enactment by the end of the year. The general concept of personal data protection can be found in various legislation, such as the Telecommunications Business Act BE2544 (2001), the Financial Institution Business Act BE2551 (2008) and the Lawyers Council Regulation on Lawyer Conduct BE2529 (1986). The scope of data privacy protection depends on the relevant provisions prescribed under specific legislation.

For example, the Financial Institution Business Act BE2551 (2008) provides that any business information obtained from a financial institution, such as a commercial banking business, is to be kept confidential except for the case of disclosure for investigation or proceedings conducted by the government authority.34 Additionally, Clause 11 of the Lawyers Council Regulation on Lawyer Conduct BE2529 (1986) provides that lawyers with certified licences shall not disclose any confidential information about the client that has come into their possession in the course of performance of their duties as a lawyer unless approval has been obtained by the client or through a court order. Therefore, even though the concept of data privacy has been acknowledged in Thailand, the disclosure of this information for the purposes of investigation or court trial is an exception. However, the exception provided under these laws is not clear as to what extent an investigation conducted by an international investigation body or the investigation agency of other jurisdictions shall also be covered. In our view, international cooperation either through diplomatic channels or international agreements would be an option for a multiple-jurisdiction investigation.


As reported in the 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Thailand is ranked at 96 of 180 countries with a score of 37 out of 100,35 which indicates that corruption remains an important issue.

In recent years, there have been some interesting cases relating to the investigation of alleged corruption in Thailand, for example the Rolls-Royce case, in which there is an accusation that Rolls-Royce made illicit payments over more than 20 years to officials in the Thai state-owned enterprises; the Krung Thai Bank case, in which the executives of the bank were sentenced to 18 years in prison by the Supreme Court for approving more than 9.9 billion baht in loans to one real estate developer company, even though the company was already listed with the bank as a non-performing debtor with non-performing loans; and the Rai Som case, in which a well-known TV host and managing director of Rai Som and the company's financial officer were sentenced by the Appeal Court to imprisonment of 13 years four months for the embezzlement of advertising revenue from the Mass Communications Organisation of Thailand for supporting official malfeasance under Sections 6, 8 and 11 of the Act on Offences Committed by Officials of State Organs or Agencies BE2502 (1959).

As shown by the recent amendment to the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, the existence of a strong internal compliance measure may provide a defence or factor mitigating the application of penalties. In addition, the NACC's 'Guidelines for Internal Control Measures in Preventing Bribery of Public Officials, Foreign Public Officials, and Agents of Public International Organisations,' which became effective in December 2017, aim to assist juristic persons in establishing appropriate measures to prevent bribery and cultivate a culture of corporate governance in the private sector.


Regulatory authorities, such as the police and the DSI, and tax authorities such as the Revenue and Customs Departments and the local authorities, have extensive powers of search and seizure under Thai law. It is also common for raids to be conducted at the onset of government investigations; therefore, there is a need to prepare the relevant personnel for such a possibility.

It is advisable for a company to prepare a 'telephone tree' and assign an inspection coordinator, as well as replacements, if there is the risk of a raid. The inspection coordinator should be familiar with the action plan and act as the main contact when investigators arrive, which is usually without notice.

Investigators typically present a search warrant upon arrival at the premises and that search warrant will specify the time period for conducting the raid. Some laws allow searches without a warrant, but in practice a warrant is usually provided. While the phrase 'dawn raid' is often used, it is typically the case that a raid would be conducted during daylight hours or, even more commonly, during business hours. Investigators will generally ask for an authorised director of the company and may already have an affidavit of the company that contains these details, as such names are a matter of public record on file with the Department of Business Development of the Ministry of Commerce.

External legal counsel should be called to assist during the raid. It is preferable that officials be asked to wait until the arrival of the designated external lawyers, although there is no guarantee that they will do so. During the raid, each inspector should be accompanied at all times by an external or in-house lawyer or such person as has been designated by the company. In the event that an inspector has questions, the inspector should be asked to put their questions in writing. In the event that the inspectors request a company representative to sign notes or documents, the representative should only sign to acknowledge that a record was taken and a copy received on the relevant date, and not that the representative agrees with or accepts any information set out in the record.


1 Melisa Uremovic and Visitsak Arunsuratpakdee are partners at R&T Asia (Thailand) Limited.

2 See Section 157 of the Customs Act. Available at www.customs.go.th/data_files/a48902e107a80bbbfc83d38742957569.pdf.

3 See Section 63 of the Trade Competition Act BE 2560 (2017). Available at http://otcc.dit.go.th/

4 Section 30 of the FBA: The Registrar and competent officials have the following powers: (1) to address in writing enquiries or summons requiring any person to give explanations on any facts and furnish documents or evidence necessary for factual examination ...

5 Thailand's Roadmap on IUU Fishing. Available at www.thaigov.go.th/news/contents/details/11350.

Thailand's Response to the Comments of Human Rights Watch on the Protection of Labour in Fisheries Sector. Available at www.mfa.go.th/main/en/news3/6886/88578-Thailand%E2%80%99s-Response-to- the-Comments-of-Human-Right.

6 Judgment of the Supreme Court No. 8952/2543.

7 Section 323 of the Criminal Code: Whoever knows or acquires a private secret of another person by reason of his functions as a competent official or his profession as ... a lawyer ... and then discloses such private secret in a manner likely to cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding six months or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both. Available at https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/tha/criminal-code-as-of-2008/Thailand_Criminal_Code.pdf.

8 See Section 89/2 of the Securities and Exchange Act. Available at www.sec.or.th/EN/SECInfo/LawsRegulation/Documents/actandroyal/1Securities.pdf.

9 Section 103/2 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption: In the case where the NACC deems that any case warrants a protective measure to assist a person making the accusation, an injured person, a person making a request, a person making a complaint, a person giving a statement or a person who informs a clue or any information relating to the dishonest performance of duties, unusual wealth or other information which may be beneficial for actions to be taken pursuant to this Organic Act, the NACC shall inform the relevant agencies to take action for a protective measure against such person. Such person shall be deemed as a witness being entitled to the right for protection under the law on protection of witnesses in criminal cases. The NACC shall also submit a view as to whether the situation warrants a general measure or a special measure under such law for those persons ...

10 Section 6 of the Witness Protection Act: In a case where a witness loses his/her security, a competent official from criminal investigation, interrogation, prosecution or the Witness Protection Bureau as the case may be shall design for the witness protection measures as deemed appropriate or as requested by the witness or other concerned party. Where necessary the said person may request a police officer or other official for protection and this must be subject to the witness's consent ...

11 Section 103/6 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption: Any person or accused who took part in the commission of offence with a State official as other accused, if he or she gives a statement, or informs a clue or provides information which is substantive and can be used as witnesses and evidence in the determination of fault in the commission of offence of such other State official, the NACC may deem it appropriate to keep that person as a witness without being prosecuted, pursuant to the criteria, procedures and conditions as prescribed by the NACC.

12 See Section 255 of the Customs Act. Available at Available at www.customs.go.th/data_files/a48902e107a80bbbfc83d38742957569.pdf.

13 Section 103/3 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption: The NACC shall provide for a reward to a person under Section 30 or may provide for any other remuneration or benefit to a person under Section 103/2, Paragraph 1, as the case maybe ...

14 The Prime Ministerial Office Regulation Re: Rewards in Narcotics Case BE2537 (1994).

15 Section 425 of the CCC: An employer is jointly liable with his employee for the consequences of a wrongful act committed by such an employee in the course of his employment.

16 Section 821 of the CCC: A person who holds out another person as his agent or knowingly allows another person to hold himself out as his agent, is liable to third persons in good faith in the same way as such person was his agent.

17 Bunyat Sucheeva, Bot Bundit (Law Journal of the Thai Bar), Volume 33, BE2519, Part 1, pp. 1–6.

18 Judgment of the Supreme Court No. 3446/2537.

19 According to the judgment of the Supreme Court No. 787-788/2506, the Supreme Court ruled that the criminal penalties that can be enforced against a corporate entity are limited to fines and the confiscation of property. However, there are also provisions in specific legislation that include the revocation of licences as a related penalty.

20 Act Amending Provisions of Laws Relating to Criminal Liability of Juristic Person Representatives BE2560 (2017) came into effect on 12 February 2017 to amend the presumption of liability provisions in 76 acts.

21 Section 58 of the Administrative Procedure Act BE2539 (1996): The administrative order which stipulates the doing or omission of certain act, its violation or non-observance by the person who is subject to such administrative order provides that the official may exercise any of the following administrative enforcement measures: (1) the official who personally enters into the handling of the subject matter or designates other persons to act on his behalf in which case the person who is subject to such administrative order shall be reimbursed for the expenses and extra money at the rate of 25 per cent per annum of the said expenses; (2) there shall be paid the administrative penalty in reasonable amount, but such penalty shall not exceed twenty thousand Baht per day ...

22 Section 123/5, Paragraph 2 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption: If the offence under paragraph one is committed by any person related to any juristic person and the action is taken for the benefit of such juristic person, and the juristic person does not have in place appropriate internal control measures to prevent the commission of such offence, the juristic person shall be deemed to have committed the offence under this section and shall be subject to a fine of one to two times of the damages caused or benefits received.

23 The 'Guidelines on Appropriate Internal Control Measures for Juristic Persons to Prevent Giving Property or Other Benefits to State Officials, Foreign Public Officials and Agents of Public International Organisations', issued by the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, came into effect on 16 December 2017.

24 Section 66 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption: a principal, an instigator or a supporter, including a person who gives, asks to give or promises to give property or other benefits to the person under paragraph one [i.e., the official] with a view to inducing him to act or omit or delay an act resulting in a dishonest act in the performance of duties.

25 Section 49 of the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Labour Court BE2522 (1979): In the dismissal case, if the Labour Court considers the dismissal unfair, it shall order the employer to reinstate the employee at the same level of wage at the time of dismissal. However, if the Labour Court thinks that such employee and employer cannot work together, it shall fix the amount of compensation to be paid by the employer which the Labour Court shall take into consideration the age of the employee, the working period of the employee, the employee's hardship when dismissed, the cause of dismissal and the compensation the employee is entitled to receive.

26 See Section 119 of the Labour Protection Act. Available at https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/49727/125954/F-1924487677/THA49727%20Eng.pdf.

28 See Section 6 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act BE2542 (1999). Available at www.amlo.go.th/amlo-intranet/en/files/AMLA%20No%201-4(1).pdf.

29 Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code: Any material, documentary or oral evidence, likely to prove the guilt of the innocence of the accused, is admissible, provided it is not obtained through any inducement, promise, threat, deception or other unlawful means; such evidence shall be produced in accordance with the provisions of this Code or other laws governing production of evidence.

30 Interpol, Mission and Crime priorities. Available at https://www.interpol.int/Member-countries/Asia-South-Pacific/Thailand.

31 'Interpol, cybercrime operation across ASEAN unites public and private sectors'. Available at www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2017/N2017-051.

32 'Interpol, training looks to enhance border security in Southeast Asia'. Available at www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2017/N2017-054.

33 'Thailand joins the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes'. Available at www.oecd.org/countries/thailand/thailand-joins-the-global-forum-on-transparency-and- exchange-of-information-for-tax-purposes.htm.

34 See Section 154 of the Financial Institution Business Act BE 2551 (2008). Available at https://www.bot.or.th/English/AboutBOT/LawsAndRegulations/SiteAssets/Law_E24_Institution_Sep2011.pdf.

35 Thailand, Corruption Perceptions Index 2017. Available at www.transparency.org/country/THA.