8 Issue 3
SGA Bulletin is intended for informational purposes
only. It does not constitute legal advice. Legal, business
and other information is subject to change and no warranty
is either expressed or implied.
more information please contact:
Siam Global Associates Co., Ltd.
Suite 606 Nai Lert Building
87 Sukhumvit, Klongtoey
Vadhana, Bangkok 10110 Thailand
Tel: (66) (02) 650 3510 (-12)
Fax: (66) (02) 655 0655
Thailand Law Firm and
Layout and Design: Thitima Kingsang
Thai Law Research: Somwaral, Chacris
Department Imposes Limit on 30 Day Tourist Visas
8 September 2006 the Royal Thai Police Commandant issued Order
No. 608/2549 imposing a time limit on the number of days visitors
from visa-on-entry countries will be permitted to stay in
Thailand on 30 day on-entry visas. The new order specifies
that within a six month period, passport holders from visa-on-entry
countries will be permitted to enter the country several times
on individual stays which do not exceed 30 days, or 90 days
in total from the first time the passport holder arrived in
Thailand. The new order does not prohibit these same
tourists from re-entering the country with a 60 day tourist
visa issued abroad and then extending this visa for an additional
30 days in effect staying in Thailand for the whole six month
period. The new order also limits the number of days
of that a passport holder from a country without a Thailand
embassy can stay in Thailand to thirty, limits international
sports competitions and international conference visas to
30 days and limits the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) visa to 90 days. This order will go into effect
on 1 October 2006.
Registration Requirement for Companies with Foreign Shareholders
20 July 2006 the Ministry of Commerce issued Regulation
No. 102/2549 which will require Thai shareholders in certain
categories of mixed venture companies to show their source
of capital when registering a new company. The new regulation,
which will go into effect on 15 August 2006, is intended to
discourage the practice of nominee shareholders by requiring
all Thai shareholders to present evidence of genuine financial
stake. Regulation No. 102/2549 will require all Thai shareholders
in the following types of partnerships and limited companies
to submit evidence of their source of capital when registering
a new company: (1) Partnerships or limited companies in which
foreign shareholders hold over 40% of the shares. (2) Partnerships
or limited companies in which foreign shareholders hold less
than 40% of the shares, but a foreigner is the director of
the company or partnership. The following types of documents
may be submitted by the Thai shareholders as evidence of the
source of capital: (1) Copy of a bank book or bank statements
retroactive for 6 months (2) A document issued a bank certifying
the financial status of the shareholders (3) Copy of evidence
showing the source of money for investment.
Requests Doubling of Income Tax Waiver
Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) asked the government to
double the tax waiver for personal income taxes in order to
stimulate domestic consumption. The Finance Ministry currently
exempts taxes on the first 100,000 baht earned in a year.
Annual incomes of 100,000 to 500,000 baht are taxed at the
rate of 10% The new proposal would give consumers with an
annual income of 200,000 baht or more an extra 10,000 baht
of spending money by extending the income tax exemption to
the first 200,000 baht earned in a year.
Debtors Exempted from Paying Income Taxes
13 August 2006, His Majesty the King issued a Royal Decree
under the provision of the Revenue Code governing the exemption
of revenue. The 26 December 2004 disaster in six provinces
in Southern Thailand affected the ability of debt repayment
requiring financial institutions and other creditors to restructure
debt. In order to promote debt restructuring, debtors
are exempted from income tax, value added tax, specific business
tax and duty stamps on income obtained from proceedings related
to debt restructuring in the period between 1 January 2005
and 31 December 2006.
of Labor issues New Occupational Safety Standards
16 May 2006 Ministerial Regulation, "Specification of
Occupational Safety, Hygiene and Environment Management Standards"
will require employers of 13 categories of businesses ranging
from rock mines to department stores to adhere to more stringent
occupational safety standards. Besides mandating such
basic safety measures as making occupational safety handbooks
readily available and requiring employers to warn employees
if they are working in a dangerous area, the new regulation
is designed to achieve a higher standard of occupational safety
by requiring employers to hire safety supervisors and/or special
occupational safety committees. Whether a supervisor
and/or occupational safety committee is required is dependent
on both the number of employees and the hazards of work.
Operators of rock mines are legally required to appoint a
staff member to be a supervisor of occupational safety if
they employee as few as two employees. Department store
managers, on the other hand, must appoint a supervisor of
occupational safety only if they employee 20 or more people.
The regulation specifies the level of education required for
both supervisors and committees. Occupational safety
committees, which are required only of establishments with
fifty or more employees, will have responsibilities including
reviewing occupational safety plans and policies, reporting
guidelines related to problems in occupational safety and
conducting monthly safety surveys and review of accident statistics.
Business Operators Required to Make Bi-Annual Disclosures
1 March 2006 regulation requires future market contract business
operators to disclose balance sheets, statements of income
to the Securities and Exchange Office on a bi-annual basis.
The balance sheets, statement of income, and a report from
an auditor must also be published in at least one local daily
newspaper. Future Business Operators were first required
to disclose their financial statements in the accounting period
that ended on 31 March 2006.
Entertainment Places Amended
An amendment to the Act on Entertainment
Places issued on 8 May 2006 established new requirements for
the application for an entertainment business license as well
as new entertainment business regulations. The amendment
mandates that entertainment business owners keep stricter
records on their staff. Licensees are required to keep
2 copies of profile cards on each of their staff members.
The profile card (complete with their ID number) must fixed
on the right hand side of their shirt during work hours.
The card shall have a red background if the employee is a
service partner, entertainer, bath service provider, masseur
or scent service attendant. Other employees shall wear
a blue profile card.
Court Opinion No. 1529/2548
Koarobtum v. Credit Swiss First Boston (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
The defendant is suing Credit Swiss First
Boston (Thailand) Co. Ltd. for terminating an employment contract.
Credit Swiss First Boston (Hong Kong) Co.
Ltd., Credit Swiss First Boston (Singapore) Co. Ltd and the
defendant Credit Swiss First Boston (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. are
branches of one company that have incorporated in different
countries. The plaintiff was formerly employed by Credit
Swiss First Boston (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. and was later transferred
to work with Credit Swiss First Boston (Singapore) Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff signed a contract with Credit Swiss First Boston
(Singapore) Co. Ltd. dictating the plaintiff's place of employment,
position, salary, bonuses, expenses, vacation, other welfare
and provisions for termination of the contract. This
is a written employment contract between the plaintiff's employers,
Credit Swiss First Boston (Singapore) Co. Ltd., and the plaintiff.
Although the three companies are subsidiaries of the same
parent corporation, each company is a juristic person with
its own authority, duty and responsibility. In this
case, Credit Swiss First Boston (Singapore) Co. Ltd. has terminated
the employees' contract. The plaintiff is not the defendant's
employee. There is no evidence that Credit Swiss First
Boston (Thailand) Co. Ltd. has acted on the behalf of Credit
Swiss First Boston (Singapore). The plaintiff therefore
has no right to sue the defendant.
Court Opinion No. 2733/2548
petitioner is the descendent of the nephew of the deceased and is
requesting the right to be the administrator of the deceased's estate.
to Section 1629 of the Thailand Civil and Commercial Code, the full
blooded brothers and sisters of a deceased person inherit the decedent's
estate. The great aunt of the deceased, who was the sibling of the
deceased, preceded the deceased in death and was therefore unable
to claim her share of the inheritance. Section 1639 of the Thailand
Civil and Commercial Code specifies that if the inheritor dies before
receiving their heritage, then the heritage is the estate of their
descendent. In this case, the descendent of the decedent's sister
also preceded the decedent in death, therefore the inheritance becomes
the estate of the decedent's descendent. Therefore the petitioner
has a right to request to be an administrator of the decedent's
estate according to Section 1713 of the Thailand Civil and Commercial
Court Opinion No. 3739/2548
Srichan v. Hudchawinyou
Re: Consent in Marriage, Consent
is representing the ex-wife of the first defendant and the
mother of the second and third defendants. She is claiming
that the adoption of her children by the deceased second wife
of the first defendant was not legal. The grounds for
her claim are an incomplete marriage certificate between the
first defendant and his second wife and a lack of consent
from the biological mother.
The first page of the defendant's marriage
certificate is not signed by the defendant. It is signed
only by the wife of the defendant who is deceased. However,
a Memorandum with the same date and time as the marriage certificate
lists the opinion of an officer that both members of the couple
intended to register their marriage. Therefore, the
courts rule that the defendant's missing signature on the
first page of the marriage certificate does not invalidate
After the defendant and his first wife were
divorced, his first wife gave the custody of the children
to the defendant in a divorce court. Later, the second
wife of the defendant adopted the children of the defendant's
first wife. According to the Section 22 of the Act of
Family Registration, the consent of the parents is required
for the adoption of a minor. It is not specified that
this consent must be made in writing or that a signature of
the parent must be obtained. Although the mother of
the children claims that she did not give her consent, she
did not voice an objection for 29 years. Therefore the
court upholds the legality of the adoptions of the first defendant's
children by his second wife.
Court Opinion No. 3285/2548
The Public Attorney of Khoanken
Province v. Nai Chalermchai Krachaim and Company
Re: Copyright Violation
The defendants were charged with violating
a copyright on a computer program.
According to Section 4 of the Copyright Act,
the unauthorized showing, distribution and publication of
copyrighted computer programs is a violation of copyright
law. The plaintiff filed an order against the four defendants
for uploading a computer program created by violating a copyright
law onto a computer that is used for making a profit.
In other words, the four defendants uploaded the computer
program onto a computer which is used by the public.
Therefore the defendants are not publicly disseminating an
illegal copy of a copyrighted computer program for profit
and commercial business, a crime according to Section 70 Paragraph
2 Section 31 (2) of the Copyright Act. Even if the plaintiff
had the evidence supporting his claim, the four defendants
could not be guilty.
Opinion No. 2500/2548
Castle Ridge Ltd. v. Department
of Intellectual Property
Re: Trademarks and Intellectual
The plaintiff is suing the Department of Intellectual Property for the revocation of the trademark "Choanpoypeepekor".
The plaintiff filed a court order for the
revocation of the trademark "Choanpoypeepekor".
The plaintiff did not base his petition on a claim to the
trademark, but rather on the premise that no one should be
able to claim this phrase as a trademark. The plaintiff
did not sue the company with the registered trademark, but
rather sued the Department of Intellectual Property for the
revocation of the trademark.
This is the second time the plaintiff's petition
has been heard by the court. However, individuals may
be given permission by the court to file more than one petition
if they can prove valid cause. The plaintiff submitted
satisfactory supplementary lists and evidence therefore the
court heard the plaintiff's petition.
"Choanpoy" and "Peepe"
are the names of Chinese herbs which can be used to remedy
coughs and abate phlegm. These two words were combined
with the word, "Kor" which means cough for the name
of the trademark, "Choanpoypeepekor". Because
the name of this trademark is only the name of the herbs and
the word cough with no modification, it is illegal. Therefore
the trademark registration is revoked.
Court Opinion No. 3635/2548
Tongkom v. Department of Revenue
Code of Revenue; Business Tax on Sale of Property
The Plaintiff is claiming she should not
have to pay taxes on the sale of commercial property based
on a five year time period set forth in the Clause 5 of the
Code of Revenue.
The Plaintiff sold land to Por within five
years of the date the land was transferred to her from her
father. According to section three of the Royal Decree
under the Code of Revenue (Issue No. 244) dealing with the
sale of immovable property that is to be used for commercial
purposes or to make a profit, the following types of transactions
are liable to taxation, "(5) the sale
of immovable property used for commercial purposes, but not
including agriculture (6) the sale of immovable
property that is not with regard to (1) (2) (3) (4) or (5)
that was carried out within 5 years of receiving the immoveable
property". According to Clause 6, taxes must be
paid if the transaction was carried out within a five year
period. While the plaintiff is holding the land for
commercial purposes, she is already exempted from paying taxes
in clause five. Therefore Clause 6 does not need to
be taken into consideration.