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

December 7, 2020

Anti-Money Laundering Law in Thailand Due to be Updated

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand’s legal framework for preventing transactions that are deliberately designed to conceal the unlawful origin of funds is primarily contained within the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (AMLA), as amended. As international money laundering practices evolve and emerge over time, prevention measures must evolve with them. Therefore the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recently recommended amendments to the AMLA, along with the Counter Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Financing Act B.E. 2559 (2016) (CFTA), in order to be consistent with the latest international standards. The amendments passed through the public hearing stage on June 15, 2020, and the laws will now continue through the cabinet and parliament.

Key Draft Amendments to the AMLA

The definition of “financial institution” is expanded to include operators of many financial technology services, including:

  • asset management and digital asset businesses;
  • trustees in capital market trusts;
  • derivatives businesses;
  • authorized juristic persons under foreign exchange controls;
  • personal loan businesses;
  • nano- and pico-finance businesses;
  • peer-to-peer lending businesses;
  • crowdfunding platforms;
  • regulated e-payment systems and services;
  • non-bank credit card service providers; and
  • additional businesses related to financial services or financial technology services at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations).

The definition of “professions” (formerly known as “section-16 professions”) is expanded to include additional occupations and businesses, such as accounting, auditing, auto trading and leasing, legal consulting, and additional professions at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations).

For cash transactions exceeding the prescribed threshold, parties in the listed professions are assigned recordkeeping duties in addition to their current reporting duties.

The authority and power of the Anti-Money Laundering Office are expanded to include acting as a central financial intelligence agency to regulate, check, and rate the operations of companies and branches both within and outside of Thailand.

Key Draft Amendments to the CFTA

  • A channel is established for section-6 designated persons (i.e. people who have been listed as a terrorist by the U.N. Security Council) to submit a petition for reconsideration and delisting to the U.N. Security Council via Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  • If a designated person’s funds and assets are frozen, qualifying financial institutions and professions are given an exemption that enables them to deposit funds (e.g., due payments, interest, etc.) earned prior to the freeze into the frozen account.

Additional Updates to CDD Regulations

In addition to the above draft amendments, the new Ministerial Regulation on Customer Due Diligence B.E. 2563 (2020) came into force on August 12, 2020. This repealed and replaced the former version from 2013 (as amended), and contains the following key updates:

  • The definition of a “Politically Exposed Person” (PEP) has been amended for clarity and ease of compliance, according to the FATF recommendations. Also, certain new definitions have been added, such as “senior management,” “family member,” “intimate person,” “business relationship,” “risk,” and “reliable source of information.”
  • The measures to assess, manage, and relieve risks have been streamlined for consistency with international standards. For example, reduction of a customer’s risk level now requires approval from senior management. Foreign PEPs and customers from any country in the FATF list of high-risk jurisdictions are to be treated as high-risk customers, whereas domestic PEPs are subject to CDD for risk assessment.
  • customer due diligence (CDD) and know-your-customer measures have been enhanced for certain types of customers, such as juristic persons, trusts, and so on.
  • Reporting entities are excused from identifying the beneficial owners of certain types of customers, such as governmental authorities, special financial institutions, listed companies, mutual funds, and so on.
  • For international electronic transfer of funds below THB 50,000 (approximately USD 1,600), the transferring financial institution must also transmit information about the transferor and transferee to the receiving financial institution.

The new amendments and additional updates to the anti-money laundering regulations give more certainty to many issues that were ambiguous before. This will be beneficial for both regulators and the public since less interpretation is needed in order to apply the regulations, and there is therefore less room for ambiguity or error. In addition, the amendments to the AMLA make Thailand’s anti-money laundering regulations more relevant and better suited to fighting modern money laundering schemes that utilize new technological innovations and financial technologies. As a result, entities that are now included in the definition of “financial institution” and “profession” will need to be more aware of the obligations that they will need to comply with. Finally, the amendments to the CFTA include the establishment of the petition submission channel, which has been a persistent obstruction to legal proceedings and will be a great relief for regulators and institutions alike.

We expect that these revisions will lead to positive changes for many financial institutions in Thailand, as well as for those foreign banks that operate (or wish to establish a presence) in Thailand. However, they make it more important than ever for such institutions to ensure strict compliance with the law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Compliance and Investigations

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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)
Read More