Thailand’s Anti-Bribery Reforms: Progress, Challenges, and OECD’s Call for Action

The OECD’s review highlights Thailand’s progress in anti-bribery reforms while identifying key gaps in corporate liability, sanctions, and enforcement mechanisms, urging alignment with international standards to strengthen anti-corruption efforts. Improved clarity, stricter penalties, and enhanced interagency cooperation are recommended to bolster Thailand’s commitment to combating foreign bribery.

In an assessment led by the Anti-Corruption Division of the OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, alongside experts from the OECD Working Group on Bribery, Thailand’s efforts to align its anti-corruption framework with international standards were evaluated. This review, conducted as part of the OECD Thailand Country Programme, builds on Thailand’s 2018 commitment to enhance its legislative and policy framework against foreign bribery and improve participation in OECD bodies. The findings underscore both Thailand’s progress in establishing anti-bribery laws and the gaps that remain for it to meet the rigorous standards outlined in the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, a key international agreement designed to combat bribery in global business transactions. Although Thailand has taken notable steps, such as updating its Organic Act on Counter-Corruption to criminalize bribery of foreign officials, challenges persist in implementing these laws fully and effectively.

Clarifying Foreign Bribery Legislation for Full Coverage

One of the primary issues identified in the report is the lack of clarity in Thailand’s current foreign bribery legislation. While Thailand’s laws criminalize bribery directed at public officials, they do not explicitly cover key scenarios such as bribery conducted through intermediaries or intended for third-party beneficiaries. This absence of specific provisions creates potential loopholes where corporations or individuals could indirectly engage in bribery without facing legal consequences. Additionally, the report highlights ambiguities in defining “foreign public officials” and whether this definition sufficiently covers officials working for state-controlled enterprises or entities operating outside traditional governmental frameworks. Another significant point is that the Thai law on foreign bribery requires officials to act within the scope of their authorized duties to constitute an offense, potentially limiting enforcement in cases where officials act outside their jurisdiction but still misuse their position to provide an improper advantage. The OECD’s recommendation suggests revisiting these definitions and provisions to ensure Thailand’s foreign bribery offense aligns more closely with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

Building Stronger Corporate Accountability Standards

Corporate accountability is another area where Thailand’s anti-bribery framework could be strengthened. Under current law, legal entities may escape liability if they demonstrate that they have appropriate internal control measures, even if these controls are ineffective in preventing bribery. This aspect raises concerns about the law’s ability to hold corporations fully accountable, especially when lower-level employees commit bribery without the knowledge of senior management. The OECD’s assessment emphasizes the need to make corporate liability provisions more robust by ensuring accountability not only at the level of high-ranking executives but also at other levels within the corporate structure. This change would ensure that companies cannot evade liability simply by having formal compliance programs, especially if these programs lack practical efficacy in preventing corrupt practices. Additionally, the OECD suggests implementing clearer guidelines for law enforcement to assess the adequacy of internal control measures and expanding the definition of corporate liability to include a broader range of offenses and levels of corporate responsibility.

Enhancing Sanctions to Deter Foreign Bribery

Sanctions for foreign bribery were also found to be insufficiently severe. Thailand’s current maximum fines for both individuals and legal entities are considered inadequate, especially given that foreign bribery often involves large sums and can result in significant financial benefits for those involved. The maximum fine for companies, for example, is capped at THB 100,000 (USD 2,700), which is unlikely to serve as a deterrent in cases where the bribe or resulting benefit far exceeds this amount. The OECD suggests that Thailand increase these fines to make penalties proportionate to the profits that bribery may secure, ensuring they have a meaningful impact. Further, there is a lack of clear procedures for calculating fines based on the value of the bribe or benefit obtained, which could lead to inconsistent and ineffective penalties. The OECD also recommends considering additional administrative sanctions, such as debarment from public procurement, which could act as a significant deterrent for companies engaging in corrupt practices.

Addressing Challenges in Enforcement and Building Public Trust

Despite Thailand’s commitment to improving enforcement, the report notes that the country has yet to establish a track record of prosecuting foreign bribery cases. While the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) have been designated to oversee enforcement, no cases of foreign bribery have been prosecuted to date. The review highlights several obstacles that hinder effective enforcement, including limited resources, potential political influence over high-profile cases, and a lack of coordination among agencies. To address these issues, the OECD urges Thailand to develop clear interagency procedures, enhance the transparency of case outcomes, and build public trust by strengthening protections for whistleblowers and those who report bribery. The report also emphasizes the need for Thailand to collect and maintain comprehensive data on corruption cases to assess enforcement trends and outcomes.

Strengthening International Cooperation for Cross-Border Bribery Cases

The OECD further identifies areas where Thailand’s international cooperation mechanisms could be improved. Although Thailand has mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreements with several countries, provisions in its MLA law could restrict effective assistance, especially if requests are seen as conflicting with Thailand’s national interests. The OECD recommends removing executive influence over MLA decisions and ensuring that dual criminality provisions do not hinder cooperation in foreign bribery investigations. Overall, the OECD’s review encourages Thailand to align its anti-bribery laws more closely with international standards by strengthening corporate liability, increasing sanctions, enhancing enforcement mechanisms, and fostering international cooperation. By implementing these recommendations, Thailand can better position itself to effectively combat foreign bribery and contribute to global anti-corruption efforts.