Educational Information Only — Not Legal Advice

    This site provides educational information only and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified Thai lawyer for personalized guidance. Laws may change. Full DisclaimerPrivacy Policy

    Skip to main content
    Thai LawKNOWLEDGE AUTHORITY
    Last reviewed: by Anglo Siam Law Editorial Team
    Share:

    Educational Information Only

    The content on this page is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique. For matters involving investigation, arrest, litigation, or formal proceedings, consult a qualified legal professional.

    Back to Supreme Court Cases
    Banking — Interest caps

    Bank Overdraft Interest Cap Under BOT Notifications

    Commercial Bank v Corporate Borrower

    Updated:
    Supreme Court
    Banking — Interest caps
    B.E. 2561 (2018)

    Composite summary — not a single reported case. This entry distils a settled line of Thai Supreme Court (Dika / ฎีกา) authority for legal education. It is not a transcript of one reported judgment, and the heading is not a citable case number. Do not cite it as specific case law — consult a Thai-qualified lawyer for the authoritative Dika number and current application.

    Facts

    Corporate borrower disputed accrued overdraft interest after default, arguing the bank applied a contractual rate exceeding the Bank of Thailand ceiling for overdraft facilities at the relevant period.

    Holding

    The line of Supreme Court rulings has consistently held that interest rates above the Bank of Thailand Notification ceiling are unenforceable to the extent of the excess; the lawful interest is recoverable only at the ceiling rate.

    Reasoning

    The Civil and Commercial Code §654 caps general interest, and BOT Notifications under the Financial Institutions Business Act B.E. 2551 (2008) set the regulatory ceiling for bank lending. Contractual freedom under §150 is constrained by mandatory financial-regulatory provisions.

    Significance

    Banks must align contractual rates with the prevailing BOT ceiling; borrowers can challenge excess interest as overpayment.

    Practical Takeaway

    Corporate borrowers should compare contractual rates against the BOT ceiling at the time of drawdown; banks should periodically re-paper to the current ceiling.

    Cited Statutes

    • Civil and Commercial Code §654
    • Financial Institutions Business Act B.E. 2551 (2008)
    • BOT Notifications on lending rates

    This entry summarises a representative line of authority from the Thai Supreme Court (ฎีกา). It is intended for general legal education only and is not a substitute for advice from a Thai-qualified lawyer. Individual Dika case numbers are being verified against primary sources; until then these entries are presented as composite doctrinal summaries.

    Professional Legal Assistance

    When a matter involves investigation, arrest, detention, litigation, or regulatory action, professional legal representation becomes essential.

    Anglo Siam Legal provides experienced legal services across Thailand for both Thai nationals and foreigners.

    feedback.wasThisHelpful