This post is also available in:
ไทย
The case of a group of 14 migrant workers subjected to forced labour in Thailand illustrates serious deficiencies in Thailand’s justice system in delivering justice and remedies to victims of forced labour.
A: Background of the Case
Between 18 May 2021 and 1 March 2023, a total of 14 migrant workers (4 females and 10 males) from Myanmar, including 3 underage workers, were trafficked to work on a sugarcane plantation in Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand, where they were placed in a forced labour situation.
On 18 May 2022, the first group of five migrant workers was brought from Myanmar to Thailand by brokers. Upon arrival, they were taken directly to work on a sugarcane plantation. The broker who brought the workers received 7,000 THB per person for delivering them to the owner of the sugarcane plantation.
The owner of the sugarcane plantation, the employer, was a former member of the subdistrict Administrative Organization (SAO).
On 17 December 2022, an additional nine migrant workers were brought to work on the same plantation. Of these nine workers, four were newly brought from Myanmar, and the brokers, involving the former head of the village, received 10,000 THB per person. The remaining five were migrant workers who were already working in Thailand. For these five workers, the broker received 2,500 THB per person.
Mr. A, one of the victims from the group of five who had already been in Thailand, testified that he found a job advertisement on Facebook for work at a dairy farm. He and the other workers contacted the page and agreed to work at the dairy farm. However, when they arrived at the workplace, they found out that it was a sugarcane plantation, not a dairy farm, as promised.
The 14 migrant workers were required to live on the plantation. They had to wake up at 4:00 AM and work from 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM (12 hours a day). Upon arrival at the plantation, the employer retained their personal documents, including Myanmar national ID cards, pink cards, and travel documents. The employer also took away workers’ personal mobile phones. During working hours, the workers were closely monitored. They were escorted to and from the fields and supervised while they worked in the sugarcane field. Their work involved clearing sugarcane fields, cutting sugarcane, and burning it. The work was physically demanding, but they were paid only 500 THB (approximately 16 USD) per week. Some workers had originally been promised 350 THB (approximately 11 USD) per day before being brought to the plantation. The employer claimed that wage deductions were necessary to repay fees paid to brokers.
The 14 workers expressed that they no longer wished to work in sugarcane plantations under these conditions. In return, the employer threatened to shoot them and to report them to the police for illegal entry into Thailand. The workers were particularly afraid because the employer’s son-in-law was an immigration officer, which increased their fear of being arrested and deported.
On 18 February 2023, the workers requested the return of their mobile phones, but the employer refused. The employer shot the gun several times into the sky and pointed the gun at the 14 workers and the employer threatened to physically harm the workers. In the following morning, the 14 workers decided not to go to the sugarcane fields. They remained in their accommodation and did not wake up for work. The employer threw rocks onto the roof of the building where they were sleeping. When the workers did not respond, the employer broke down the door, cut down the mosquito net strings using knife cutting sugarcane, and threw water on workers who were sleeping.
At around 7 AM, the employer then gathered the workers together and placed a gun on the ground while speaking to them. The village headman was present with employer in the gathering. Workers were threatened that “If you go out, I will shoot all of you.” The employer positioned the gun between himself and the workers during the gathering. When the workers stated that they would not continue working, the employer used a sugarcane-cutting knife and beat on the head of some workers who refused to do work. The workers were forced to kneel and were beaten in a line. The employer fired the gun into the air, causing fear and intimidation. Eight workers, including one underage worker, were beaten on the head 2-3 times using the knife for cutting sugarcane, some were slapped on the face and had their ears pulled. As a result of these threats and violence, the workers felt compelled to continue working without proper wages, overtime pay, or holiday pay.
The 14 victims of forced labour were able to escape from the forced labour situation following the report by Human Rights and Development Foundation, a civil society organization, to the government agencies. On 19 February 2023, Mr. A contacted the interpreter of HRDF using a mobile phone that he had secretly kept. He sent photographs and shared his location to request assistance and rescue. Mr. A had previously received support from HRDF while working in Thailand, and he had saved the interpreter’s contact number, which enabled him and the rest of workers to seek help.
On 1 March 2023, the 14 workers were rescued by the Special Operations Unit under the Department of Provincial Administration, Ministry of Interior. Following the rescue, the workers underwent a victim identification process conducted by a multidisciplinary team in accordance with National Referral Mechanism. On 6 March 2023, the multidisciplinary team officially identified the 14 workers as victims of human trafficking for forced labour. The workers were referred to a government shelter for protection of victims of human trafficking in Pathumthani province.
A total of eight suspects involved in this case were arrested, and the case was determined to involve organized crime. Among the eight suspects, three were influential individuals: the employer, who was a former member of the Subdistrict Administrative Organization (SAO); his son-in-law, who was an immigration officer; and a former village headman.
The case was heard before the Kanchanaburi Provincial Court. The attorney filed 16 charges under various laws, including the Royal Ordinance on the Management of Foreign Workers B.E. 2560 (2017) and its amendment, the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) and its amendments, the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979), Firearms Ammunition Explosives Fireworks B.E. 2490 (1947), relevant Criminal Code provisions, and the Anti-Human Trafficking in Persons Act B.E. 2551 (2008) and the 2562 (2019) Emergency Decree Amending the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act B.E. 2551 (2008). Among the 16 charges submitted by the attorney, Section 6 on human trafficking was included.
B: Judicial Proceedings and Outcome
In 2024, the court began scheduling hearings and witness examinations. The proceedings were conducted entirely under the inquisitorial system. The court led the questioning of witnesses and controlled the scope of examination. The public prosecutor and the victims’ legal representatives were permitted to question witnesses only on limited and specific issues.
The court reportedly exercised discretion in admitting and examining evidence. Although the victims’ legal team submitted documentary evidence, including audio recordings, photographs, financial records, and other supporting materials, the court selectively admitted evidence. The court rather limited questioning to matters not already contained in the investigation file. Moreover, the scope of witness testimony was also significantly narrowed. The 14 victims were reduced to four representative witnesses. On the prosecution side, only the investigating officers and members of the arresting police team were called to testify. The time allocated for the presentation of witnesses was limited to only a few days.
Following the proceedings, the court dismissed the charge of human trafficking in the form of forced labor. Additionally, because the lawyer did not specifically include Section 6/1, which relates to forced labour, the court did not convict the employer of forced labour.
C: Court’s Grounds for Dismissal of Forced Labour Claim
The court rejected the allegation of human trafficking in the sugarcane plantation based on the following grounds:
- Physical Abuse Not Directed at All Workers
The court noted that physical violence was reported against only 8 out of the 14 workers. The court noted that the physical abuse did not arise from work conditions or from an intention to force workers to continue working. Instead, the incident occurred following an argument between workers and the employer regarding the return of their personal mobile phones. According to the court, the workers had demanded the return of their phones and stated that they would refuse to work the following day if the phones were not returned. The court reasoned that if the employer had intended to use violence to compel labour, physical abuse would likely have been directed at all workers rather than only a portion of them.
- Retention of Identity Documents
The court considered the employer’s retention of workers’ identity documents. It concluded that the documents were held for the purpose of registering workers for work permits and therefore did not constitute confiscation intended to coerce workers into labour. The court stated that if the confiscation of identity documents had been used to coerce workers into working, such conduct could constitute forced labour under Section 6/1 of the Anti-Human Trafficking Act. However, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not bring a charge under Section 6/1. The court interpreted this as indicating that the plaintiffs did not intend to pursue a forced labour claim under that provision.
- Confiscation of Mobile Phones
Regarding the confiscation of workers’ mobile phones, the court found that the phones were not permanently confiscated. Instead, they were reportedly taken from time to time and returned after several days. The court therefore concluded that the confiscation of phones did not amount to continuous restriction or coercion.
- Working Hours
The court examined the working hours, which were reported to be from 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The court determined that workers had approximately 12 hours of rest after the end of the workday. On this basis, the court concluded that the working hours did not demonstrate that workers were forced to work excessive hours without sufficient rest.
- Wages and Debt to Brokers
Workers were paid approximately 500 THB per week. The court noted that workers were aware, prior to employment, that brokers had received advance payments from the employer, which would later be deducted from the workers’ wages. The court therefore considered that the deduction of wages to repay these debts was known to the workers in advance.
C: Consequence on victims of forced labour
As a result of the dismissal, the workers are not recognized as victims under the Anti-Human Trafficking in Persons Act and are therefore not eligible for remedies from the Anti-Human Trafficking in Persons Fund from the government. Victims are also unable to pursue compensation from the offenders for forced labour under the trafficking framework. At the time of this report, the workers have received only a settlement of 400,000 THB, representing approximately 73% of their original unpaid wage claim. The amount has been distributed among all 14 workers. Among 14, 4 have been repatriated back to Myanmar, and the rest remain in the welfare protection center for victims of human trafficking. The case is currently under appeal before the Court of Appeal.
This case illustrates serious deficiencies in access to justice and effective remedies for victims of forced labour. The court dismissed the human trafficking charges and did not convict under Section 6/1 of the Anti-Human Trafficking Act, which specifically addresses forced labour, even though the court arguably had the authority to apply Section 6/1 based on the facts of the case. This shows that the court limits its consideration to the specific offence requested by the prosecution. This procedural approach creates a significant enforcement gap. Consequently, despite evidence of coercion, threats, violence, confiscation of personal documentation, and exploitation, the victims are not able to access full compensation and effective remedies available under the Anti-Human Trafficking in Persons Act.
Source: Human Rights and Development Foundation (2026)
Reviewed by: International Trade Union Confederation (2026)
