Problems concerning Criminal Liability of Arbitrators in Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002)

Abstract

        The purpose of this documentary research is to examine whether the criminal liability which is currently laid down in the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) is suitable. The finding of this study is that Paragraph two of Section 23 of the Arbitration Act 2002 which provides criminal liability for any arbitrator who wrongfully demands, accepts or agrees to accept an asset or any other benefits for himself or anyone else for doing or omitting to do any act in his duties, is not sufficient since the arbitrator who can be held liable must be the one who has already been officially appointed in order to have duties to arbitrate. Accordingly, a person cannot not be held liable for such criminal liability in case where the act of demanding, accepting or agreeing to accept the asset occurs prior to the official appointment. Accordingly, this study suggests that the criminal measures should cover all characteristics of this offense by analogy with Section 202 of Thai Criminal Code which applies to judicial officer and in the same manner as Section 123 of the Criminal Code of Republic of China.