มาตรา 237 — Fraudulent conveyance — creditor's action to set aside
Statutory text (Thai original)
เจ้าหนี้ชอบที่จะร้องขอให้ศาลเพิกถอนเสียได้ซึ่งนิติกรรมใด ๆ อันลูกหนี้ได้กระทำลงทั้งรู้อยู่ว่าจะเป็นทางให้เจ้าหนี้เสียเปรียบ แต่ความข้อนี้ท่านมิให้ใช้บังคับ ถ้าปรากฏว่าในขณะที่ทำนิติกรรมนั้น บุคคลซึ่งเป็นผู้ได้ลาภงอกแต่การนั้นมิได้รู้เท่าถึงข้อความจริงอันเป็นทางให้เจ้าหนี้ต้องเสียเปรียบนั้นด้วย แต่หากกรณีเป็นการทำให้โดยเสน่หา ท่านว่าเพียงแต่ลูกหนี้เป็นผู้รู้ฝ่ายเดียวเท่านั้นก็พอแล้วที่จะขอเพิกถอนได้บทบัญญัติดังกล่าวมาในวรรคก่อนนี้ ท่านมิให้ใช้บังคับแก่นิติกรรมใดอันมิได้มีวัตถุเป็นสิทธิในทรัพย์สิน
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
The creditor is entitled to claim cancellation by the Court of any juristic act done by the debtor with knowledge that it would prejudice his creditor; but this does not apply if the person enriched by such act did not know, at the time of the act, or the facts which could make it prejudicial to the creditor, provided, however, that in case of gratuitous act the knowledge on the part of the debtor alone is sufficient. The provisions of the foregoing paragraph do not apply to a juristic act whose subject is not a property right. feedback (/form/1-samuiforsale-contact-form.html?tmpl=component) /
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 237 is the Thai actio Pauliana — the tool to claw back assets a debtor has transferred to relatives or shell entities to escape a known creditor. The creditor must prove three things: (1) the debtor knew the transfer would prejudice creditors; (2) for non-gratuitous transfers, the transferee also had that knowledge; (3) the action is brought within one year of discovery and ten years of the act (§240). The remedy is to undo the transfer; the property goes back into the debtor's estate available for execution. Recent SC decisions (3107/2568, 1383/2568) confirm assignees of the original creditor may also bring §237 actions.
Why this matters in practice
Lawyers: Establish (1) a valid existing obligation at the time of the act; (2) the debtor's knowledge of prejudice; (3) for onerous acts, the third party's knowledge of the same facts. The one-year prescription runs from when the creditor knew of the act. Gratuitous transfers (gifts) require only the debtor's bad faith — making them far easier to set aside. Laypersons: If a debtor gives away or sells assets cheaply to friends or family while knowing they owe you money, you can ask the court to cancel that transfer — especially if it was a gift.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil and Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4503/2560 (2017)
A judgment creditor who cannot satisfy the debt from the debtor's remaining assets has standing to petition for cancellation of a prior bad-faith transfer under section 237.
The plaintiff was a judgment creditor of defendant 1. Enforcement against defendant 1's assets failed because all seized property was encumbered by mortgages. The only remaining asset was land that defendant 1 had sold to defendant 2 in bad faith. The Court held the plaintiff had correctly pleaded a section 237 fraudulent conveyance action and had standing to seek cancellation of the sale.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2675/2559 (2016)
For an onerous transaction, the section 237 claim against a third party requires a pleading allegation (and proof) that the third party knew the prejudicing facts; omitting that allegation is fatal.
In a section 237 action against a third party who paid consideration, the creditor's pleading must allege that the third party knew the facts making the act prejudicial to the creditor at the time of the transaction. The plaintiff's failure to plead the third defendant's knowledge in the statement of claim was fatal to the claim against that defendant.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3209/2558 (2015)
A pre-bankruptcy transfer that prejudices creditors may be set aside under Bankruptcy Act section 113 together with Civil and Commercial Code section 237; the debtor retains the right to defend even after absolute sequestration.
The debtor transferred land to multiple parties approximately five months before a bankruptcy petition was filed against it. The trustee in bankruptcy sought to set aside the transfer under Bankruptcy Act section 113 read with Civil and Commercial Code section 237. The Court confirmed the transfer fell within the section 237 ground and that the debtor, although now subject to an absolute sequestration order, retained the right to defend the action.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Does a creditor need an existing court judgment before bringing a section 237 action to set aside a transfer?
No. Section 237 requires only that the creditor hold a valid existing obligation (debt) against the debtor at the time of the fraudulent act. A judgment is not a prerequisite, though in practice a creditor who already holds a judgment has clear standing and can readily show the obligation exists.