You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 25, 2013

AEC: Moving Toward a Common Market for Financial Services

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

A common market for financial services will be one of the major components of the ASEAN Economic Community when it takes effect at the end of 2015. This will represent a significant change for securities regulation in Thailand, where the Securities and Exchange Act, subject to some exceptions, places substantial restrictions on the offering of foreign securities in Thailand.

The change is occurring in phases. As one of the early changes, an exception has been made with respect to the offering of foreign mutual funds—or foreign collective investment schemes, as they are called in the SEC regulations.

Mutual fund management is among the securities businesses regulated under the Securities and Exchange Act. The Act defines mutual fund management as the management of investments under a mutual fund project by issuing investment units of each project for sale to the public, and using the proceeds to invest in, or seek profit from holding securities, derivatives, or any other properties, or to invest in or seek profit by other means.

The law provides that a securities business can be undertaken only by a limited company, a public limited company, or a financial institution established in accordance with other laws, after obtaining a license from the Minister of Finance on the recommendation of the SEC. The SEC licensing process is quite thorough, and there are numerous restrictions and requirements.

The securities company may set up and manage a mutual fund only when its application to set up the fund has been approved by the SEC in accordance with the regulations of the Capital Market Supervisory Board, which is also an extensive process.

Chapter 3 of the Securities and Exchange Act sets out the basic provisions for public offerings of securities. On the topic of mutual funds, it is written in a way that it does not apply to the offer for sale of newly issued investment units of a securities company licensed to manage mutual funds. However, in the case of a foreign company operating a foreign mutual fund, such company would not have undergone the licensing process, and thus would not be able to avail itself of the exception. Clearly, this would create a barrier to the cross-border offering of mutual funds within ASEAN.

To address this issue, a special exception exists for collective investment schemes established in certain ASEAN countries, which have been approved by their home regulators. The exception applies only to ASEAN countries whose securities regulators are members of IOSCO (the International Organization of Securities Commissions) in the category of Signatory A to the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding on Consultation, Cooperation and Exchange of Information.

In brief, the regulation provides an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Act, for those foreign collective investments that meet certain conditions. Importantly, all units of such funds can be offered only to institutional or high-net-worth investors (each as defined in SEC regulations).

Among other requirements, the foreign collective investment scheme has to have a brokerage firm (licensed by the Thai SEC) responsible for trading its units in Thailand, as an authorized representative. The fund must also have a representative in Thailand to handle disclosing and sending information to investors, as required by law or regulations of the relevant home regulator. The local representative must also be appointed to receive notices, orders, warrants, and any other documents, on behalf of the foreign fund or the person responsible for operating it.

To meet the conditions for the exception, the foreign fund must be subject to regulation, which is similar to that provided by the Thai SEC. For example, it must have an investment policy that provides for investment in similar assets and investment ratios for mutual funds under the relevant SEC notification. The foreign fund must have actually been offered for sale in the jurisdiction in which it is regulated by its home regulator, and it must not be subject to a prohibition imposed by the home regulator with respect to trading in units of the scheme.

There are also requirements for the person responsible for undertaking the foreign collective investment scheme. This person must be subject to supervision by its home regulator, and the home regulator must have the authority to impose sanctions or order the responsible person to act or refrain from acting, in the case of any action likely to damage investors’ interests. Such person must not be subject to a suspension or revocation order imposed by the home regulator, and must not have a record of violating laws or regulations pertaining to disclosure of material information to investors or to the home regulator.

Securities companies that act as authorized representatives for trading the securities are also subject to their own set of rules. Among these, a securities company may only offer those foreign funds that the Thai SEC has examined, approved, and listed on its website. The verification process is addressed in a separate regulatory notification and requires extensive documentation and information.

This regulation is a major step forward, in that it provides a pathway for foreign collective investment schemes to be offered lawfully in Thailand. Although the above is just a summary and other requirements apply, it is evident that the SEC’s approach provides for freer trade in financial services, while maintaining investor protection. The ultimate winner is the investor, as more mutual funds awill be offered in Thailand from sources across eligible ASEAN member countries.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 27, 2024
On May 17, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) issued an amended Notification Concerning the Rules for Designating or Reviewing the List of High-Risk Customers Who Require Close Monitoring under the Ministerial Regulation on Customer Due Diligence B.E. 2563 (2020). This notification, which took effect the following day, updates the previous version of the notification from 2022 to cover cybercrimes listed under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023). The amended notification sets out the steps that all financial institutions in Thailand must take to manage money laundering risks and to comply with the AMLO’s mandatory Guidelines on Customer Due Diligence. Under the new notification, account holders suspected of engaging in or facilitating technological crimes, as recorded by the Anti Online Scam Operation Center (AOC), are to be classified as “high-risk persons.” The notification includes provisions for listing high-risk customers under two specific codes: HR-03-1: This code applies to individuals who are the subject of either a petition or a complaint related to a predicate offense accepted by the relevant inquiry officer and recorded as a criminal case. It also covers individuals whose bank accounts are suspected of being used to conduct transactions related to crimes under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), with victims seeking prosecution. The names of individuals in this category are received from responsible agencies according to the Criminal Procedure Code or the AOC and are documented in a publicly accessible online notification system. HR-03-2: This code is for individuals involved in the commission of a predicate offense or those whose bank accounts are suspected of being used in such offenses, but whose cases have not been accepted or numbered by the relevant inquiry officer. Names
June 26, 2024
Tilleke & Gibbins’ Fintech Law in Southeast Asia provides fintech operators and service providers with an overview of relevant regulations across all of our full-service jurisdictions—Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam.
June 19, 2024
Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”). Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). Non-Cash Payment Instruments The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified. E-Money Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money. Non-Cash Payment Services Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment