Key Takeaways
- Thailand’s Criminal Code Amendment No. 30 (effective December 30, 2025) expands the definition of sexual harassment beyond physical contact to include verbal, visual, SNS, and online stalking acts
- Penalties: up to 1 year imprisonment or a fine of up to 10,000 baht (both if the offender abuses a position of authority)
- While Thai law does not yet mandate corporate prevention measures, reviewing work rules, grievance channels, and PDPA compliance arrangements are areas Japanese companies may wish to consider
What Changed: Overview of Thailand’s Criminal Code Amendment
On December 30, 2025, Thailand’s Criminal Code Amendment No. 30 came into force, significantly broadening the legal definition of sexual harassment (sekuhara).
Previously, enforcement focused primarily on physical contact. The amendment now covers a wide range of conduct — including acts carried out in digital and online spaces.
Before vs. After: Key Changes
| Item | Before Amendment | After Amendment |
|---|---|---|
| Covered acts | Primarily physical contact | Verbal, visual, SNS, and online conduct included |
| Threshold | Physical contact required | Any sexual act that causes discomfort to the victim |
| Penalty (general) | No specific provision (civil/labour law only) | Up to 1 year imprisonment or 10,000 baht fine |
| Penalty (abuse of authority) | No specific provision | Both imprisonment and fine |
| Scope | — | Workplace, daily life, and online spaces |
Five Categories of Sexual Harassment Under the New Law
The amendment covers the following categories of conduct:
- Verbal harassment — Sexual remarks, offensive jokes, unsolicited commentary on appearance
- Visual/gestural harassment — Leering, inappropriate body language, obscene gestures
- SNS/messaging — Sending sexual images, videos, or messages via LINE, Facebook, etc.
- Online stalking — Persistent DMs, location tracking, monitoring of social media profiles
- Physical contact — Unwanted touching, unwanted embraces, and other physical acts (as before)
Additionally, Labour Protection Act Section 16 expressly prohibits employers and supervisors from sexually harassing employees. Violations are subject to a fine of up to 20,000 baht under Section 147.
Impact on Japanese Companies: Comparison with Japan’s Harassment Framework
Japan has a comprehensive harassment prevention framework — and from October 1, 2026, that framework expands to cover customer harassment and sexual harassment of job applicants as mandatory employer obligations. Thailand, by contrast, has not yet enacted legislation mandating corporate harassment prevention measures.
Japan vs. Thailand: Harassment Law Comparison
| Aspect | Japan | Thailand |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of definition | Sexual conduct in the workplace | Workplace, daily life, and online spaces (post-amendment) |
| Corporate prevention obligation | Yes (Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labour Policies) | None (criminal liability for individuals only) |
| Individual penalties | Administrative guidance / corporate name disclosure | Up to 1 year imprisonment or 10,000 baht fine |
| Corporate penalties | Surcharges / name disclosure | None (up to 20,000 baht under Labour Protection Act) |
| Customer harassment | Mandatory from October 2026 | No legislation |
| Harassment of job applicants | Mandatory from October 2026 | No legislation |
Key considerations for Japanese companies operating in Thailand:
- Parent company compliance expectations: If Japanese headquarters mandates harassment prevention, the Thai subsidiary should align to the same standard
- Cross-cultural workplace risk: Cultural differences between Japanese and Thai employees can create situations where harassment occurs without intent
- PDPA intersection: Harassment investigations require collecting and processing personal data of complainants, respondents, and witnesses — triggering PDPA obligations
Three Areas to Consider
Action Roadmap
flowchart TD
A[Current State Review] --> B{Do work rules include<br/>harassment provisions?}
B -- No / Insufficient --> C[Revise Work Rules]
B -- Yes --> D{Is a grievance channel<br/>in place and functioning?}
C --> D
D -- No / Not established --> E[Establish Grievance Channel]
D -- Yes --> F{Is PDPA compliance<br/>in place for investigations?}
E --> F
F -- No --> G[Develop PDPA-Compliant<br/>Investigation Procedures]
F -- Yes --> H[Conduct Regular Training]
G --> H
H --> I[Complete: Compliance Framework Established]Consideration 1: Work Rules
Thai labour law requires employers with 10 or more employees to prepare and submit Work Rules (ข้อบังคับเกี่ยวกับการทำงาน) to the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare. In light of the amendment, the following are examples of what Work Rules may address:
- A definition of sexual harassment (referencing the Criminal Code amendment, including online conduct)
- A specific list of prohibited acts
- Internal disciplinary consequences (pay reduction, dismissal, etc.)
- A clear statement that victims will not suffer retaliation
Work Rules must be drafted in Thai and officially filed with the relevant labour authority.
Consideration 2: Internal Grievance Channels
While not legally required in Thailand, the absence of a grievance channel may be interpreted as tacit employer endorsement of harassment. Examples of measures to consider include:
- Clear reporting contact: Communicate HR or external grievance contact details to all employees
- Anonymity protections: Ensure victims can report without fear of retaliation
- Documented investigation procedures: Define the flow from complaint receipt → investigation → disciplinary decision → follow-up
Consideration 3: PDPA Considerations for Harassment Investigations
Harassment investigations involve collecting personal data including names, statements, and potentially health information (in cases of psychological harm). Points to be aware of under the PDPA include:
- Identifying the lawful basis for collecting personal data (e.g., legitimate interests)
- Establishing retention periods and disposal procedures for investigation records
- Entering into Data Processing Agreements (DPA) with any third parties (e.g., external lawyers) who receive investigation data
Conclusion
Thailand’s Criminal Code Amendment marks a new phase of legal risk for workplace harassment — one that now carries criminal penalties. While Thai law stops short of mandating corporate prevention programmes, Japanese companies operating in Thailand face compliance expectations from Japanese headquarters, obligations under the Labour Protection Act and PDPA, and a broader definition of prohibited conduct than ever before.
Reviewing Work Rules, considering grievance channels, and thinking through PDPA implications for investigations may be worthwhile steps for Japanese companies operating in Thailand.
For questions on Thai labour law and compliance, please feel free to contact us using the form below.
This article is for general informational purposes about Thailand’s legal system and does not constitute legal advice under Thai law. For specific matters, please consult a Thai-qualified legal professional. Our firm works in collaboration with JTJB International Lawyers’ Thai-qualified attorneys.