Recording Conversations in Thailand: Legal Risks and Admissibility in Civil and Criminal Proceedings

Clients frequently ask two related questions in both civil and criminal contexts: “Is recording a conversation legal?” and “Can that recording be used in court?” The legal position differs materially between civil and criminal proceedings. As a general rule, Thai courts are more permissive in civil proceedings and significantly more restrictive in criminal cases, where covert recordings are involved. Importantly, even where a recording is admissible in court, it frequently gives rise to separate legal exposure under data protection laws. Despite the risks associated with covert recordings, recording commercial meetings can be useful evidence in a dispute.

Civil Cases

In civil proceedings, Thai courts generally adopt a flexible approach toward the admissibility of evidence. A covert recording of a conversation may still be admitted in court as the Thai Civil Procedure Code does not include such restriction. This position is also supported by several Supreme Court decisions, including Cases No. 5259-5260/2561 and No. 4674/2543, where surreptitious recordings were accepted as evidence. The former case is a divorce case, in which the defendant admitted to an extramarital affair to the testifying witness who had secretly recorded the conversation. Meanwhile, the latter case regards the repayment of a loan and a recording was cited as evidence of repaid debt. The Court held that if the facts prove that the recording contains the actual voice of the other party, and the person who recorded it was a participant in the conversation and would normally have the right to testify regarding that conversation, the Court in that case did not consider the recording to have been unlawfully obtained. Furthermore, Supreme Court Case No. 3911/2534 confirms that audio recordings do not necessarily need to be transcribed before being presented to the court. As a result, the manner in which a recording is obtained does not automatically prevent its use in civil litigation. In civil proceedings, admissibility is driven primarily by relevance and probative value rather than the manner in which the evidence was obtained. However, parties should be mindful of procedural limitations. Under Section 225 of the Thai Civil Procedure Code, new evidence generally cannot be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage unless it concerns issues of public order, morality or public interest. 

Criminal Cases 

In contrast, criminal proceedings are subject to stricter evidentiary standards, although covert recordings are not automatically inadmissible. Under Section 226 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, evidence is, in principle, admissible only if it is not obtained through promises, threats, deception or other unlawful means. This reflects a stronger emphasis on protecting the rights and liberties of individuals within the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court has in several cases treated covert recordings as an infringement of privacy rights, particularly in private disputes. As a result, such recordings are often treated as unlawfully obtained and may be excluded under Section 226. This approach is particularly evident in defamation cases between private parties as it is a compoundable offense. In Supreme Court Cases No. 8575/2563 and No. 3782/2564, the court refused to admit secretly recorded conversations, noting that such cases do not typically involve public interest or national security concerns, and that alternative lawful evidence could be obtained.

That said, Section 226/1 provides a limited exception. Courts may admit unlawfully obtained evidence where the benefits to the administration of justice outweigh the harm caused by its admission, having regard to the integrity of the criminal justice system and the protection of fundamental rights and liberties. In exercising this discretion, courts take into account factors such as: 1) probative value, significance, and credibility of such evidence; 2) circumstances and gravity of the offense; 3) the nature and harm caused by the wrongful act; and 4) whether the person who illegally obtained the evidence has been punished or not. This exception is generally applied in cases involving serious misconduct or public interest. For example, in the Supreme Court Case No. 50/2563, a secretly recorded conversation involving bribery and extortion by a public prosecutor was admitted due to its clear evidentiary value and the gravity of the offense. Similarly, in the Supreme Court Case No. 2281/2555, evidence relating to police misconduct (trespassing and extortion) was accepted given its direct impact on the public. The court also acknowledged that the true objective of Section 226 was to protect the rights and liberties of the people from the use of evidence obtained through the unlawful investigative methods of state officials rather than the unlawful acquisition of evidence by private individuals.

Contractual Limitations in M&A Transactions

Beyond evidentiary rules parties should also consider how contractual provisions may affect the use of recorded conversations in disputes. In M&A transactions, sale and purchase agreements commonly include “entire agreement” and “non-reliance” clauses, which provide that the written contract supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations and oral representations. While such clauses are designed to prevent parties from relying on pre-contractual statements, they do not, as a matter of law, render recordings of those discussions inadmissible. Rather, their primary effect is to limit the legal weight that may be attributed to such evidence, particularly in claims relating to misrepresentation or pre-contractual reliance. In practice, these clauses are heavily negotiated and play a central role in risk allocation, particularly in limiting exposure arising from informal or undocumented communications. Nonetheless, Thai courts may still consider pre-contractual conduct or statements where there are allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith. 

Data Protection Considerations (Thailand)

Separate from evidentiary rules, recording a conversation may also involve the collection and use of personal data under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). A recorded conversation will often constitute “personal data” where it identifies an individual, whether directly or indirectly. In such cases, the person making the recording will generally be required to establish a lawful basis for collecting, using, or disclosing the data, such as consent or legitimate interests. In practice, reliance on “legitimate interests” requires a balancing test and may not always justify covert recordings, particularly where the data subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This creates an important distinction: a recording may be admissible in court, but still expose the recorder to potential liability under data protection law. In addition, publicizing a recording without the recorded person’s consent should be avoided. If the release of such a recording causes reputational damage, the affected party may pursue both civil and criminal lawsuits for damages. Apart from the PDPA, covert recording may also violate company policies or contractual terms regarding privacy expectations (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), and the recorded party may take disciplinary action against or sue the recorder for breach of confidentiality.

The Approach of Other Countries

A brief comparison with other jurisdictions highlights how Thai law balances evidentiary flexibility with privacy considerations.

• Germany: In contrast, under Section 201 of the German Criminal Code, unauthorized recordings or interception private conversations without authorization, or publicly communicating the content of such recordings is a criminal offense, which is punishable by an imprisonment of up to three years or a fine. The penalty is aggravated if the wrongdoer is a public official or person with public service duties. Therefore, all-party consent is required to make a recording legal unless the conversations, such as a political speech, are held in public. Since privacy and the protection of personal data is prioritized, the German Courts do not generally permit surreptitious recordings as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings unless for severe cases. Whether it is a business partner or spouse, the recorded person can enter a civil injunction action and file criminal charges.

• United Kingdom: In the UK, a participant to a conversation may generally record it without the consent of other parties. However, the use, storage or disclosure of such recordings may be subject to obligations under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), interception of communications without authorization may constitute a criminal offence, subject to certain exceptions, including for the prevention of crime. Companies may record communications for legitimate business purposes such as security or training, subject to applicable regulatory requirements, including transparency obligations. Courts retain discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence where necessary to ensure fairness. In civil proceedings, admissibility is ultimately a matter for the court, which will consider factors such as relevance, reliability, and proportionality. Covert recordings are increasingly relied upon in employment disputes, although their use in family proceedings is more restricted and typically admitted in exceptional circumstances, taking into account fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life and the right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act 1998. Notably, even where such recordings are admitted, the court may penalize the party relying on them in costs where the method of obtaining the evidence is considered improper. 

• Singapore: Similar to the UK, there is no general prohibition against recording a conversation to which one is a party. However, such recording may fall within the scope of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012. Under the PDPA, the collection, use and disclosure of personal data must be carried out with appropriate consent or within recognized exception under law. As with Thailand, the key legal risk often arises not from the act of recording itself, but from how the recording is subsequently used. Secret recordings of conversations are typically admissible provided they are relevant, but it is within the court’s discretion to exclude them.

• United States: The legal position varies by state. While a number of states adopt a one-party consent regime (e.g. New York, Texas, Maine, Nevada), others require the consent of all parties (e.g. California, Illinois, Michigan, and Florida) require the consent of all parties like Germany for it to be legal and admissible in court. Accordingly, the legality of recording conversation depends on the applicable state law. 

Conclusion

The admissibility of recorded conversations under Thai law depends fundamentally on the nature of the proceedings. In civil cases, courts generally prioritiz relevance and probative value, and recordings may be admitted notwithstanding how they were obtained. In criminal proceedings, stricter standards apply, and covert recordings are more likely to be excluded unless they fall within the limited exception under Section 226/1. Crucially, admissibility does not equate to legality. A recording that is admitted in evidence may nonetheless expose the recorder to liability under data protection, confidentiality or employment laws. While Thai law does not impose a blanket prohibition on covert recordings, any decision to record a conversation should be made with careful consideration of both its evidentiary value and potential liability risks involved.

Disclaimer & Contact

This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While I strive to keep my legal analysis accurate and practical, changes in law or other circumstances may affect its application. If you wish to discuss issues relating to the recording of conversations, admissibility of evidence, or associated legal risks (including data protection and contractual considerations), you are welcome to contact me to arrange an initial discussion.

📩 Contact: osa.chaichit@gmail.com

Osaris Chaichit 

Attorney-at-Law (Thailand)

Notarial Services Attorney