Tracing the Truth: Corporate Fraud and Asset Recovery in Thailand

Insights from Legal and Investigation Experts

Introduction

Corporate fraud is on the rise in Thailand.

As businesses face heightened regulatory scrutiny and stricter enforcement, companies operating in Thailand—especially those in finance, manufacturing, real estate, construction and digital assets—find themselves under growing pressure to identify and address fraudulent activities before they escalate into regulatory or criminal matters.

An effective and robust internal fraud investigation process is essential for mitigating risks, ensuring compliance and maintaining corporate integrity. Many companies are implementing internal compliance programs, whistleblower mechanisms and forensic accounting techniques to detect and investigate potential fraud.

A related challenge in Thailand (and across Southeast Asia) is asset recovery. Once fraud is discovered—or if the corporation wishes to recover its losses—tracing and recovering those assets becomes a complex and often international undertaking.

In this article, Vorapong Sutanont (BRG), Emi Rowse (Igusa) and Niruch Winiyakul and Ninpim Nawavatcharin (Kudun and Partners (KAP)) explore five key areas:

• Common and Emerging Fraud Schemes in Thailand (BRG)
• Thailand’s Legal Framework (KAP)
• Emerging Trends and Challenges in Fraud Investigations in Thailand and Southeast Asia (BRG)
• Asset Tracing: Key Challenges and Common Scenarios (BRG and KAP)
• Practical risk management strategies and best practices to safeguard businesses (KAP)

 

1. Common and Emerging Fraud Schemes in Thailand

Internal Fraud

Asset misappropriation (such as kickbacks, theft of assets, larceny and fraudulent disbursement) is common; committing this type of fraud is relatively easy compared to other schemes. Due to hospitality culture and economic pressure, both the government and private sector in Thailand are susceptible to bribery and corruption schemes. However, our investigative experience has observed a paradigm shift: traditional fraud schemes are evolving into more technologically threatening operations, such as financial statement fraud, confidential information (CI) and intellectual property (IP) thefts and online scamming fraud.

The theft of CI and IP by middle management (or former employees) is a major threat to organisations in the digital era. CI and IP are intangible assets which the organisation possesses and protects with its information technology (IT) security protocols, but fraudsters can find ways to compromise CI and IP, such as sharing corporate files via personal email accounts through cloud providers, syncing the company’s MS OneDrive from external devices or printing out CI and IP at home. Many companies only become aware of theft months (or even years) after the fact, resulting in loss of evidence and trails of information leakage. Forensic technology plays an imperative role in detecting and gathering digital evidence of IP and CI theft.

Cyber and External Fraud

The blooming of technology and remote work has become a catalyst for online scams, especially evolving scams known as “whaling” (or “whale phishing”). Using spearphishing techniques and social engineering acts, whaling scams target members of C-suites of large companies who have authoritative access to the entity’s funds or confidential information. The criminal puts more effort into the scam to yield implausible sums of money (hence the term “spearfishing” a whale). A recent case in Thailand involving a chief financial officer being obsequious with a criminal via a romance scam and bogus banking website resulted in substantial financial loss to the company.

Financial Statement Fraud and Forgery

Notably, financial statement fraud schemes orchestrated by senior management (i.e. the C-suite) of listed companies have surged. Driven by the global economic downturn, the pressure to boost revenue and profitability to embellish oneself as the vicarious uptick of the K-shaped curve is the key driver for management to “window dress” financial statements to continue attracting investment interest. This scheme is typically complex, converging multiple parties (C-suite, employees, related entities or even third parties) and causing significant financial losses for the company, investors and the capital market overall. Our investigative experience has revealed that, alarmingly, many employees often inadvertently know about the scheme but do not speak up, believing that uncovering the truth will negatively impact their employment. This concealment often involves the shuffling of funds and imposture of fictitious accounting records contrived over a period of years. Our investigations into these schemes have uncovered webs of deceit and manipulation with many fraudsters and accomplices portraying themselves as victims.

In a nutshell, traditional fraud schemes evolve and adapt to societal and technological landscapes. In the current digital age with economic downturn, CI and IP theft, cybercrime and financial statement misrepresentation, and other fraud schemes will be an unavoidable predicament for all organisations.

As fraud schemes in Thailand continue to evolve—from insider threats to sophisticated digital scams—businesses must navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment. The next section outlines how Thailand’s legal framework responds to some of these risks, offering tools for both punishment and prevention.

2. Thailand’s Legal Framework on Corporate Fraud

Thailand has established a comprehensive legal structure to combat corporate fraud, encompassing various statutes and regulations targeting fraudulent activities.

Thai Criminal Code

The Thai Criminal Code outlines key provisions related to asset misappropriation and fraudulent conduct:

1. Asset Misappropriation (Section 353) addresses situations where individuals entrusted with managing company assets, such as directors or managers, unlawfully appropriate assets for personal use. An example includes an authorised director transferring company funds to personal accounts without proper authorisation.
2. Fraudulent Activities (Section 341) criminalises deceptive actions intended to unlawfully obtain property or induce actions detrimental to others. It covers acts involving giving false statements or concealing facts to gain others’ property. In contrast, fraud directed towards the public (i.e. via online platform) falls under Section 343.
3. Forgery and Use of Forged Documents (Sections 264–268) pertain to the creation and utilisation of forged documents, including invoices, financial statements, purchase orders, quotations and official filings.

Notably, offences under Sections 341 and 353 are compoundable and subject to a three-month statute of limitations for initiating criminal proceedings.

Computer Crime Act BE 2550 (2007)

Computer Crime Act BE 2550 (2007) and its amendment in 2018 (CCA) establish the foundational framework for combating offences in the digital era. The CCA criminalises unauthorised access to computer systems protected by security measures[1] and data,[2] safeguarding the integrity and confidentiality of digital information. It further prohibits the transmission of falsified or concealed computer data or electronic mail intended to cause disturbance to the normal operation of another person’s computer system.[3] Moreover, it imposes criminal liability for disseminating falsified or forged data that results in damage to others including public scale,[4] encapsulating contemporary cyber-fraud schemes including phishing, spearphishing, whaling and business email compromise.

Securities and Exchange Act BE 2535 (1992)

Entities listed on the stock exchange and market participants are also governed by Securities and Exchange Act BE 2535 (1992) (“SE Act”) and regulations set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SE Act prohibits dissemination of false information in securities offerings, financial reports or disclosures.[5] For instance, a chief executive officer presenting inaccurate earnings reports or withholding critical information from shareholders would be in violation of the SE Act. The SE Act also addresses unfair trading practices, such as insider trading and market manipulation, which can lead to criminal or civil penalties.[6]

The SEC can impose civil penalties, including fines and bans, or refer severe cases for criminal prosecution. If the company (as defined by the SE Act, which includes limited company and public limited company governed by the SE Act) disseminates fraudulent accounting or financial statements or conceals material facts that should have been stated, this can result in SEC sanctions, criminal charges[7] and civil liabilities[8] to either the SEC or investors.[9]

Anti-Money Laundering Act BE 2542 (1999)

Fraudulent activities often involve the laundering of illicit proceeds. The Anti-Money Laundering Act BE 2542 (1999) (AMLA) designates offences like fraud as predicate offences, enabling authorities to charge individuals who conceal or transfer proceeds from such crimes with money laundering. The AMLA empowers authorities to freeze and confiscate assets derived from fraudulent activities. Further, companies and financial institutions are mandated to monitor and report suspicious transactions, with noncompliance potentially leading to penalties.[10]

Additional Relevant Regulations

Other laws may be applicable depending on the specifics of the case. For instance, fraudulent public fundraising without appropriate licensing may fall under the Emergency Decree on Loans of Money Relating to Fraudulent and Pyramid Schemes BE 2527 (1984). In cases involving government contracts, the Government Procurement Fraud Act BE 2542 (1999) imposes penalties for fraudulent activities in public bidding processes. For fraud involving CI and IP theft, the relevant intellectual property legislations—such as Copyright Act BE 2537, Trade Secret Act BE 2545, Trademark Act BE 2534 and Patent Act BE 2522—may apply.

In summary, Thailand’s legal framework against corporate fraud is extensive, encompassing criminal penalties, securities regulations, anti-corruption measures and anti-money laundering statutes.

With this legal backdrop in place, the next step is understanding how fraud is investigated in practice.

 

3. Emerging Trends and Challenges in Fraud Investigations in Thailand and Southeast Asia

Legal and regulatory responses must be matched with agile investigative approaches. In this section, we share key trends observed on the ground that reflect how fraudsters adapt—and how investigators must stay one step ahead.

Gathering digital evidence

In this technological era, business activities mostly have shifted from hardcopies to digital platforms; hence, digital forensics become key investigation activities in vindicating fact and digital evidence gathering. BRG professionals have been involved with numerous engagements in which the technical analysis from digital forensic rummage (such as communication review, metadata analysis, log activities analysis and computer artefacts review) has played a crucial role in detecting vestige fraudulent actions and impartial accomplices. For example, we have retrieved irreparable—and analysed remnants of—audit logs to detect unauthorised access and key information theft from companies’ cloud networks. Digital forensic procedures must be executed professionally and correctly to preserve the integrity of digital evidence.

Engaging and Collaborating with Forensic Experts

Many organisations choose to engage external forensic experts to exploit their experiences and pertinent insights, as well as technological advantages in this specialty, even though overall expenses are relatively higher than using internal resources who may conduct cursory review. On the strategic cost-reduction side, clients may assign their employees to collaborate and take over certain tasks from the forensic experts which they think may result in lower professional fees. However, based on our experience, such employees may lack the requisite experience which may result in loopholes in the investigation or the investigation taking more time than necessary. In addition, many organisations are moving toward engaging boutique (or specialised) forensic firms over financial audit-based firms to avoid potential conflicts or independence concerns which could result in rescinded client service engagements.

Involving Cross-Border Investigation

In the borderless business world, fraud cases in Thailand may involve entities or individuals in different jurisdictions which inevitably have distinct investigation procedures. For example, one of our recent fraud cases involved the fraudulent asset’s movement from Thailand to a tax haven jurisdiction in which the asset ownership information was precluded for the outsider. Our network firm then provided on-the-ground intelligence support, aligning with the jurisdiction’s laws, to help with fact-checking and record retrieval processes. Other cross-border cases may involve fraudsters being expats and fraud occurring at affiliates or joint-ventures in other jurisdictions.

Focusing on Prosecution and Litigation Process

Prosecution of cases and litigation are likely to rise due to increased scrutiny by the government and relevant parties may need to rely on facts derived from forensic investigation. Fraudsters, their former employers and new employers all can be subject to litigation risks. For example, IP theft can result in litigation between the former employer (owner of the IP) and both the former employees (who stole the information) and their new employers (who used that information).

In addition, the recent decree amending the SE Act enables SEC regulators to directly investigate listed companies for some specific offences in a manner similar to that of police officers. In our experience, listed companies initiate investigations mostly to gather facts and evidence so they can explain and justify themselves to the regulators in advance, which helps alleviate negative impacts on their reputation, especially the potential lapse of their corporate and independent directors’ fiduciary duty of care obligation, or sometimes with exculpatory evidence.

4. Asset Tracing: Key Challenges and Common Scenarios

Tracing and recovering assets in the aftermath of fraud is one of the most complex yet critical aspects of corporate investigations. BRG’s investigative experience has shown that this process often begins with meticulous data gathering—both digital and physical—to uncover the financial footprint of wrongdoers.

In one case, our digital forensics team found a deleted MS Excel file detailing a fraudster’s wealth during the prior decade, including investments in cryptocurrencies, mutual funds and offshore bank accounts. Frequently, we conduct intelligence reviews to identify the fraudster’s ownership in local or offshore entities, whether directly or through nominees. Tracing and recovering assets may present even greater difficulties due to:

• Unorthodox assets classes—such as cryptocurrencies, nonfungible tokens (NFTs) and other digital assets—allow fraudsters to move assets freely and swiftly around the world.
• Offshore accounts: assets are moved to other jurisdictions beyond the reach of Thai authorities. One of our cases involved money being transferred to the fraudster’s offshore account which was later moved and distributed to multiple accounts in that jurisdiction. Even though the fraudster had been caught in Thailand, tremendous effort was required to track and sequestrate those monies.
• Legal limitations: for the private sector, obtaining the fraudster’s asset information generally requires police authority or a court subpoena which has complex procedures and takes time. Even after a court judgment, legal enforcement may take time to initiate and complete.

Overall, the success of asset tracing and recovery relies on information gathering (internally and externally) to put together pieces of information, like solving a jigsaw puzzle, to visualise the palpable path of assets and identify the ultimate beneficiary owner. BRG professionals can conduct forensic data analytics to sift through large volumes of disparate accounting transactions and corporate records to highlight possible channels of nominees disguised as business vendors or entities with common corporate shareholders or board members, coupled with physical business intelligence visits. Such efforts are performed by our network offices to support clients in tracing and recovering assets as part of our cross-border investigation procedures.

Understanding the practical contexts in which fraud occurs—and how asset tracing supports recovery efforts—is essential for companies seeking to respond decisively.

The following examples illustrate common scenarios in Thailand where these tools and approaches play a critical role in uncovering hidden assets.

Corporate Fraud and Executive Misappropriation

In cases where senior management, employees or partners engage in fraudulent behaviour such as kickback schemes or asset diversion, timely asset tracing is critical to recovery.

Based on our experience, typical red flags in Thailand include uncommonly high prices of purchased items or low-priced products sold to business partners without justification, as well as conflict-of-interest situations such as where newly introduced business partners are close associates or executives’ family members.

In a recent case handled by our firm, a Thai company uncovered a serious conflict of interest involving its vice president which involved fraudulent procurement decisions favouring his wife’s company over other suitable suppliers over several years. These transactions resulted in systematic financial loss to the company and undue benefit to a related party, raising red flags of self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty. Our firm assisted in conducting an internal investigation and advised the company on both termination procedures for the relevant employees and potential criminal claims for misappropriation.

White-Collar Crime and Regulatory Investigations

In white-collar cases involving public-sector fraud or corruption, regulators such as the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) and Department of Special Investigation (DSI) are empowered to freeze and forfeit assets under the AMLA even before criminal conviction.

Nonetheless, private entities may pursue parallel civil recovery by leveraging the same evidence. This often involves cross-referencing financial trails, digital records and property holdings tied to fraudulent acts.

Enforcing a Thai Civil Court Judgment

Securing a favourable judgment in court is only half the battle. For judgment creditors in Thailand, especially a corporate plaintiff, the true challenge lies in the enforcement phase (i.e. converting a court judgment into actual monetary recovery). This process, governed by the Civil Procedure Code, requires more than legal due diligence as it demands strategic asset tracing. However, the court and enforcement officers will not independently locate the debtor’s assets. It is the creditor’s responsibility to identify and provide details of the debtor’s assets for the court to act upon.

Bankruptcy and Creditor Enforcement

When a debtor is subject to bankruptcy or reorganisation proceedings, creditors must act swiftly to identify and protect assets before they are diluted or transferred.

Under the Thai Bankruptcy Act, certain fraudulent transfers made prior to insolvency can be clawed back—but only if traced and evidenced in court. The court may instruct the official receiver to (1) enter into the debtor’s premise or place of business to inspect the asset or documents, or (2) inquire the debtor or issue a summons demanding the debtor’s appearance for inquiries.

Recognition of Foreign Judgments or Arbitral Awards

Global operations often entail cross-border disputes. Multinational businesses often initiate arbitration proceedings that are seated outside of Thailand. If the award creditor seeks to recover assets located in Thailand, tracing those assets is the first step.

Thailand is a contracting state to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and has adopted UNCITRAL Model Law, as well as the New York Convention, for Thai Arbitration Act BE 2545 (2002) (“Arbitration Act”). As a result, the Thai courts may enforce arbitral awards, provided the requirements under the Arbitration Act are met.

Conversely, Thailand is not party to any convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, so they are not as easily enforceable. Accordingly, a foreign civil judgment (e.g. compensation for fraud act) cannot be enforced in Thailand without bringing fresh proceedings in the Thai courts and using the foreign judgment as supporting evidence.

 

5. Practical risk management strategies and best practices to safeguard businesses

The challenges of tracing and recovering assets—particularly across borders and digital platforms—highlight the need for strong internal systems. To prevent fraud from taking root in the first place, companies must proactively implement robust risk management and compliance measures.

Structuring the Internal Investigation

In Thailand’s increasingly stringent regulatory environment, businesses must be prepared to respond swiftly and effectively when internal fraud is suspected. Establishing a structured internal investigation process is essential. This process should involve assembling a multidisciplinary team consisting of internal and/or external legal counsel, finance and human resources (HR) professionals to promptly define the investigation’s scope, ensure impartiality and preserve and collect the relevant documentary and electronic evidence (emails, text messages, financial documents, meeting minutes, CCTV footage, etc.) and suspend normal document destruction or IT purge cycles.

Compliance with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)—particularly when collecting, storing or transferring employee information, including cross-border data transfers—is crucial during such investigations to mitigate challenges from the regulators and/or data subjects (the employees).

Evidence Collection and Employee Interviews

Upon detecting potential corporate fraud, it is imperative to initiate a prompt internal investigation to secure critical evidence such as documents, emails and access logs before they can be altered or destroyed.

Interviews with implicated employees should be meticulously planned to avoid allegations of duress or violations of labour rights. Engaging external investigators and legal counsel can enhance compliance and objectivity. Recording interviews—with prior written consent from the interviewees to comply with the PDPA—is advisable to protect against claims of coercion or unfair procedures, especially when termination or legal action may ensue.

Conduct Fraud Risk Assessments

It is important to identify where the company is most vulnerable. Management should periodically assess operations for fraud risk indicators, such as irregular high work value for the procurement or unusually close supplier relationships. By examining internal processes for weak points, companies can implement targeted safeguards. These include background checks for employees in sensitive roles and periodic job rotation to disrupt entrenched relationships or routines that may facilitate misconduct.

Establishing and Reinforcing Whistleblower Mechanisms

Internal whistleblowing has played a pivotal role in uncovering many corporate frauds. Companies should establish confidential reporting channels (hotlines, secure email or third-party lines) for employees and even suppliers to report suspected fraud or unethical conduct. Clear policies protecting whistleblowers from retaliation are vital to ensure people feel safe when making a report. Many corporate frauds are uncovered by internal anonymous whistleblowers, so having a mechanism in place can mean earlier discovery before huge losses are incurred by the company. Based on our experience, companies must do more than just have policies in place; the company’s regular review and follow-through of the policy and training of employees all contribute to the success of a whistleblowing program.

Due Diligence on Business Partners/Suppliers/Contractors

Fraud schemes in Thailand frequently exploit close or concealed relationships between internal staff and external parties. Companies in Thailand should conduct appropriate due diligence on all significant business partners, suppliers or contractors before entering into formal agreements. Basic steps include verifying corporate registration and shareholder structure through the Department of Business Development (DBD), reviewing financial statements and investigating any familial or personal potential nominee links with company staffs.

In past corruption matters we have handled, internal employees have used proxies such as personal drivers to act as nominee directors in related entities, deliberately concealing conflicts of interest. These schemes were only uncovered through corporate filings and systematic checks.

Site inspections or remote video verifications are also effective in confirming the legitimacy of counterparties, particularly in cases involving new vendors. In cross-border transactions, engaging local legal counsel to conduct background verification is not only prudent but can prevent exposure to complex fraud involving foreign entities.

Pursuing Legal Recourse

When fraud is discovered, companies should act properly to mitigate the loss and harm. Filing a police complaint is necessary to initiate a formal criminal investigation conducted by the officers and may serve as leverage to recover defrauded assets or prompt cooperation from wrongdoers. In parallel, civil proceedings may be pursued to claim damages from liable person or entities.

By implementing these measures, businesses can significantly reduce their fraud exposure and better position themselves to handle incidents that do occur. Companies should work closely with external lawyers and investigators to ensure anti-fraud controls stay effective and aligned with the latest regulatory expectations.

 

Conclusion

In today’s high-risk environment, ignoring fraud risks is no longer an option. As this article has shown, successful fraud management in Thailand requires a holistic approach: understanding how schemes evolve, navigating the legal framework, conducting thorough investigations and adopting practical, preventative strategies.

Companies that act early and decisively can avoid the steep costs—financial, reputational and legal—associated with corporate fraud. Whether responding to a whistleblower tip or preparing for a regulatory inspection, the key is to stay informed, prepared and agile. In this regard, collaboration between legal counsel, forensic experts and internal teams is essential. With the right tools and mindset, businesses can not only mitigate fraud risks but also turn compliance into a competitive advantage.

A version of this article was originally published by Kudun & Partners on October 31, 2025 (https://www.kap.co.th/thought-leadership/tracing-the-truth-corporate-fraud-and-asset-recovery-in-thailand-insights-from-legal-and-investigation-experts/).

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, position or policy of Berkeley Research Group, LLC or its other employees and affiliates.

 

---

[1] Section 5 of CCA.

[2] Section 7 of CCA.

[3] Section 11 of CCA.

[4] Section 14 of CCA.

[5] Section 240 of SE Act.

[6] Sections 242, 296, 296/2 and 317/1 of SE Act.

[7] Sections 281/10, 300 and 312 of SE Act.

[8] Section 317/1, op. cit.

[9] Section 82 of SE Act.

[10] Sections 13, 16 and 62 of AMLA.