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​ 

February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
January 23, 2026
On December 31, 2025, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular No. 72/2025/TT-NHNN (Circular 72), establishing a streamlined foreign exchange framework for Vietnam’s International Financial Center (IFC). Circular 72, which took effect on the same day, implements core provisions of Decree No. 329/2025/ND-CP and marks a fundamental shift from ex ante licensing to ex post supervision for IFC member enterprises and foreign investors. These changes are designed to accelerate capital flows, reduce compliance costs, and position Vietnam as a competitive regional financial hub by granting IFC members substantially greater autonomy in currency transactions, borrowing, lending, and investment activities. Key provisions for IFC members to note are discussed below. Use of Foreign Currency and Payments within the IFC Vietnam generally requires the use of Vietnamese dong for transactions within the country, with limited exceptions. This can be burdensome for foreign investors, who may be unfamiliar with all the foreign exchange rules they must comply with. Under the new regulation, IFC member enterprises and foreign investors gain the ability to transact, list prices, and settle obligations in foreign currency when dealing with other IFC members or offshore counterparties, avoiding currency risk and conversion friction. With respect to individuals and organizations located within Vietnam who are not IFC members, the use of foreign currency must continue to comply with general restrictions on foreign exchange usage within Vietnam. Dual-Track Account System for IFC Members The new regulation introduces a two-tier account structure that differentiates transactions by purpose and counterparty. IFC member enterprises must use a designated foreign currency capital account at an IFC member bank for four specified activities: Borrowing from offshore individuals and organizations Lending to offshore entities and domestic borrowers Outbound investing from the IFC Investing elsewhere in Vietnam from the IFC All other foreign exchange transactions—including operational receipts, vendor