THE LATEST ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW IN THAILAND
Tharanee Konchanat Davison *I.

THE NEW ORGANIC ACT ON COUNTER CORRUPTION, B.E.2561 (2018)

The new Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) came to force on 22 July
2018. It replaces the past Organic Act on Counter Corruption which had been in place for 19
years. There are some interesting changes to the new Organic Act on Counter Corruption thatwill be addressed as follows:
A. The Definition of “State Official” in Section 4
In the 1999 Organic Act, “State Official” is probably the most important term, as theseofficials are the main target group who this organic act originally aimed to apply to. In the 1999
Organic Act, "State Official" means a person holding a political position, Government officials
or local officials assuming a position or having permanent salaries, officials or persons
performing duties in a State enterprise or a State agency, local administrators and members of
local assemblies who are not persons holding a political position, officials under the law on local
administration and shall include a member of a Board, Commission, Committee or of a subcommittee, employee of a Government agency, State enterprise or State agency and any person
or group of persons exercising or entrusted to exercise the State's administrative power in theperformance of a particular act under the law, whether established under the governmental
bureaucratic channel or by a State enterprise or other State undertaking.
In the latest act, the word “Public Officer” 1 is added to separate them from State Officials;
also, the definition of State Official has been slightly, but importantly, changed. The new
definition of State Official 2 excludes a person holding a political position; however, a person
holding a political position falls under the definition of Public Officer instead. The definition of
Public Officer in the 2018 Act is wider than the definition of State Official in the 1992 Act, as itcovers those who fall under the definition of State Official in the 1992 act and also adds thephrase “other official prescribed by laws” to its definition. This means people who hold some*

Divisional Public Prosecutor, Department of Corruption Litigation 4, Office of the Attorney General, Thailand.
Public Officer means state officials, a person holding a political position, judges of the constitutional court, aperson holding a position in an independent organization, and the National Anti-Corruption Committee.
2State official means government officials or local officials assuming a position or having permanent salaries,
officials or persons performing duties in a State enterprise or a State agency, local administrators and members of a
local assembly, other officials prescribed by laws, officials under the law on local administration and shall include a
member of a Board, Commission, Committee or of a sub-committee, employee of a Government agency, State
enterprise or State agency and person or group of persons exercising or entrusted to exercise the State's
administrative power in the performance of a particular act under the law, whether established under thegovernmental bureaucratic channel or by a State enterprise or other State undertaking, but it does not include a
person holding a political position, judges of the constitutional court, a person holding a position in an independent
organization, or the National Anti-Corruption Committee.
1- 131 -

positions, such as abbots (chief monks) that have never been considered as State Officials, 3 will
be included in the latest act as Public Officers, and this act will be applied to them as well.
B. Extensive Power of the National Anti-Corruption Commission
In Thailand, there are several organizations that are eligible to proceed with investigations
regarding corruption cases. The main investigation units are the Office of the National AntiCorruption Commission (NACC), the Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission(PACC) and the Royal Thai Police. Each organization has its own investigators, and they are
independent from each other. Under the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999),
the investigation power of the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) andthe Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) was clearly separated under
section 19 (4) as the NACC is liable to conduct investigation where the alleged are people
holding political status, state officials holding at least chief executive positions or civil servants
holding at least division director positions. For those who hold lower positions than stated in
section 19(4), the case would be investigated by the PACC or inquiry official (Thai Royal Police)
where the injured person has lodged a complaint to the inquiry official.
Nevertheless, according to section 62 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561(2018), even though the accused are people holding lower positions than that of a chief
executive, the PACC is no longer empowered to automatically proceed with investigation.
Instead, the case shall be passed to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for consideration.
Where the National Anti-Corruption Commission considers that the case does not involve serious
offences, it will be referred to the PACC for further investigation.
Furthermore, according to section 89 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542(1999) 4, where the injured person has lodged a complaint to the inquiry official (the police)
against a State Official who committed an offence of corruption, the inquiry official shall refer
the matter to the NACC within thirty days from the date of the complaint. In the case that theaccused is not holding an important position under section 84, such as chief executive, judge,
prosecutor, or the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the case shall be referred back to theinquiry official for proceedings in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The Organic
Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) applies a similar method under section 61, but there
is one very interesting change that is added to the latest organic law.
Section 89 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999) does not apply tocases where the accused is not considered a State Official. But, under section 61 of The Organic
Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018), even if the accused is not considered a government
officer or State Official under section 4—but if he is the principal, instigator or aider and abettor
3

Thai Supreme court decision no.7540/2554.
In a case where an injured person has lodged a complaint, or a denunciation is made, to the inquiry official
requesting an action against a State Official who is not a person described under section 66 in consequence of thecommission of the act under section 88, the inquiry official shall refer the matter to the N.C.C. Commission within
thirty days from the date of the complaint or the denunciation, for the purpose of proceeding with it in accordancewith relevant provisions of law. In this connection, if the N.C.C. Commission, having considered the matter, is of theopinion that it is not a case under section 88, the N.C.C. Commission shall refer it back to the inquiry official forproceeding with it in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

4- 132 -

or is giving, offering or agreeing to give the property or any other benefit to a State Official—thecase shall first be referred to the NACC for consideration. Then, the NACC will return the caseto the inquiry official where considered appropriate. Therefore, if the inquiry official receives acomplaint accusing a person of bribing a State Official, in the past the case would not fall under
section 89 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999). The inquiry official was
not required to refer the matter to the NACC within thirty days from the date of the complaint;
instead the inquiry official was able to proceed with the investigation process immediately.
However, section 30 of the new organic act extends the NACC’s power to cover those who are
giving, offering or agreeing to give the property or any other benefit to a State Official.
According to section 61, for all corruption complaints received by an inquiry official, the inquiry
official is only allowed to proceed with a preliminary investigation and then must refer the matterto the NACC within thirty days from the date of the complaint. If the NACC considers thematter to be a non-crucial matter, the NACC shall refer it back to the inquiry official to complete
the investigation process.
In the aforementioned case, when an inquiry official receives a complaint accusing a personof bribing a State Official, under the new organic act, the inquiry official shall refer the matter to
the NACC first, and the inquiry official will be able to proceed with further investigation only
after the NACC refers it back to him. This new rule may result in delay of the investigation
process, as under the new organic law almost all corruption cases must be referred to the NACC
to review before the next process can be done.
C. Arrest and Detention Process
Before the new Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) came into force, thegeneral arrest and detention process in Thailand’s Criminal Code was also applied to corruption
cases. It is prescribed in section 87 that the official or private citizen conducting the arrest shallwithout hesitation bring the arrestee to the local office of inquiry immediately and the inquiry
official is allowed to detain the arrestee for only 48 hours where it is necessary to have an inquiry
after that the arrestee shall be brought before the court. However, it is prescribed in section 61 of
the new Organic Act that the official or private citizen conducting the arrest shall bring thearrestee along with an arrest note to the office of inquiry or to the NACC office within 48 hours
after the arrestee is delivered to the inquiry official’s office. This provision provides arrest anddetention power to the NACC, as in the past this power belonged solely to the inquiry official.
This provision may cause some difficulty if the arrestee is arrested outside of Bangkok because
the official or private citizen conducting the arrest is required to deliver the arrestee to the NACC
office in Bangkok within 48 hours. After the arrestee is delivered to the NACC, the NACC isempowered to grant provisional release with or without bail. During the provisional releaseapplication consideration period, the NACC is required to provide an arrestee detention area;
however, there is no promising plan for the construction of an NACC detention centre. The
current temporary solution is that the NACC will approve most provisional release applications,but this does not ease the transportation difficulty faced by inquiry officials.
D. Corruption Case Proceeding Period
The Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999) does not contain provisions
requiring investigators or public prosecutors to proceed with the case in a certain period of time,
but a proceeding-period provision is included in the new organic act.

- 133 -

It is stated in section 93 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) that
where the public prosecutor receives the report and documents from the NACC and is of theopinion that the report, documents and opinion are complete to prosecute, the prosecutor shallsubmit the matter to the court having competent jurisdiction to try the case within 180 days.
However, where the prosecutor considers that the report and documents are not complete as tojustify the institution of legal proceedings, the public prosecutor shall notify the NACC to
conduct further investigation within 90 days. In case of further investigation, the NACC and
Prosecutor-General shall appoint a working committee consisting of representatives notexceeding five people of each side, and the NACC shall complete its investigation within 90
days from the committee appointment date. Failing to comply with the specified period will
result in administrative sanction. The specific proceeding period provision in the new act may
expedite the investigation and prosecution process in simple cases. However, most corruption
cases are extremely complicated and require extensive periods to gather witness statements andevidence by investigators, and the public prosecutor also requires more time to review allevidence. This provision may put huge pressure on investigators and public prosecutors to
submit the case before the deadline without thorough revision which may affect the quality of thecase and may result in the increase of case dismissal.
II. CASE STUDY: TEMPLE CORRUPTION SCHEME
A. Facts
The National Office of Buddhism, also known as the Office of National Buddhism (ONaB),
is an agency of the central government of Thailand. It is responsible for state administration of
Buddhism. The government will grant annual funding to ONaB every year in order that ONaB
will allocate those funds to support temples and Buddhist activities. There are several types offunding budgets depending on the purpose of allocating funds to temples all over Thailand, suchas the temple development budget, the temple restoration budget, and the Buddhism propagationbudget. Each budget has its own criteria applied to temples to be eligible to receive those funds,
and each temple is required to submit a project plan along with evidence showing the temple isentitled to the budget request. In 2017, it emerged that many ONaB officers are alleged to haveworked with abbots and senior monks of more than 100 temples around Thailand to embezzle
more than 270 million baht of the aforementioned funding. The following is an example of acase that occurred at a temple in Lumpang province, in northern Thailand.
The abbot of temple X was contacted by Mr. A., an ONaB officer who has good
relationships with many abbots in Thailand. Mr. A informed the abbot that ONaB has Buddhism
propagation budget funding which could be allocated to temple X with the condition that, after
the funds are transferred, the abbot must return half of the funds back to Mr. A. The abbot agreed
to do so, so he submitted a minimal project plan requesting funding for the construction of ameditation centre. In order to be eligible to receive grants from the meditation centre
construction fund, the temple must be registered as a provincial meditation centre; however,temple X had never registered as a provincial meditation centre. In a couple of days after thefunding application submission date, temple X’s funding application was approved by the
director of ONaB, who has been working at ONaB since 1987. The director of ONaB was
supposed to know the criteria for the meditation centre construction fund, but he wrongfully- 134 -

approved funding to temple X. The 2,000,000 baht (60,000 USD) fund was transferred to temple
X’s bank account the next day. The abbot had withdrawn all funds within 2 days and gave
1,000,000 baht (30,000 USD) in cash back to another senior monk at one of the Buddhist events
in Lumpoon in northern Thailand so that he could fly back with the cash and return it to Mr. A.
B. How to Proceed with the Case under the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561(2018)
Mr. Pongporn Pramsaneh, the latest ONaB director, made a denunciation to the Thai Royal
Police, Crime Suppression Division in connection with the temple funds embezzlement scandal.
As the accused are State Officials, including the abbot, the investigation procedure shall follow
the provisions in the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018). Once the inquiry
official received the denunciation, he was to gather reasonable evidence showing wrongdoing by
the accused and then submit the cases to the NACC. As there are a series of cases, some of thecases are returned to the inquiry official, but some are investigated by NACC officers. Where theinvestigation process is complete, the case report shall be submitted to a public prosecutor. The
public prosecutor has 180 days from the submission date to review each case before filing thecase in court or 90 days if the report is incomplete and requires a working committee of the
NACC to be appointed to make further investigation. In case of further investigation, NACC
officers have 90 days to gather all evidence required by the public prosecutor and to submit it to
the working committee to make a final decision.
C. Problems and the Way Forward
According to the fact that the aforementioned temple funds embezzlement cases happened
across Thailand, the investigation units expect more than 100 cases need to be opened andinvestigated thoroughly. The main problem is the lack of manpower of investigators in each anticorruption organization, from investigators to public prosecutors. Also, where the case isinvestigated by the NACC, public prosecutors, and even the investigators themselves, have avery tight deadline under the new organic law as mentioned above. The complexity anddifficulty of the extradition process is another problem that delays the judicial process, as several
accused, most are senior monks and an ex-ONaB executive level officer, fled Thailand. Although
Thailand has extradition treaties with many countries, the extradition period may take a very
long time as it needs to go through several administrative processes.
The above-mentioned problems may not be solved in a short period of time. However, we
can see attempts of the government to address corruption in Thailand, as several new anticorruption laws are being drafted, more than 600 new NACC investigators are being appointed
and criminal courts specialized in corruption and misconduct cases have recently opened in nine
regions throughout Thailand. These are part of the promising measures aiming to decrease thecorruption rate in Thailand, and Thailand has very high hopes to eliminate corruption and bringthose who are corrupt to justice.

- 135 -